That certainly appears to be the case.giantfan10 wrote:no the wheelbase did not increase.
yes Ferrai is using a variable air inlet system for the 2016 car....Blaze1 wrote:That must mean the 2015 car was very unoptimised for them to make such a leap? I still believe an extended wheelbase has likely also played a part, but repackaging also helped.giantfan10 wrote:Ferrai said that development of the 2016 car started early in the 2015 season.
secondly the Mercedes aero advantage came from having better airflow going to the area above the diffuser. Ferrari pinpointed their nose style and the fact that their car was much thicker around the waist as the chief reason for their airflow deficit... they addressed both
Did you miss all the articles about ferrari moving engine components during the offseason? that was to enable them to have a better coke bottle at the back of the car (gearbox redesign, MGU-K moving from the back of the engine to the left side,clutch in the bell housing and a different radiator position) it was the 2015 engine layout that made the rear of the car so wide so why would it seem so impossible for them to make the rear of the car tighter after they made the room for that exact reason?
no the wheelbase did not increase.
If Ferrari are using a variable air inlet system, they have packaged that very well, as it hasn't lead to a bulky engine cover as we saw with the W06.
I think one reason why they do this is to bring the pull rod inside of the bodyworkPer wrote:Well, it is. Especially under braking, the junction of the wishbone will be loaded in shear / in-plane bending which is inherently less stiff than a conventionally shaped wishbone. So either you end up with a less stiff design or you make it stiffer again by adding weight, which is what they seem to have done here.dot235 wrote:I wouldn't exactly say it's a mechanical compromise, but it looks interesting...Per wrote:That wishbone. Serious compromise in mechanical design.
I thin that's because of the change in the rear tyre structure. Someplace I read that they tried to make it resemble to the mclaren's rear tyre so that may cause that little difference between 15t and 16hdot235 wrote:No.ringo wrote:.
<...> I don't think the mid section is any less bulky, more or less the car is a little bit longer <...>
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CblMYH_UMAAnuMo.jpg:large
EDIT:
Actually I migth be not entirely right, there appears to be a slight difference in wheel base
http://i.imgur.com/RqO97BP.jpg
henra wrote:Yup. I'm genuinely impressed by this car! Looks like a huge step forward.dren wrote: Overall a very sleek, good looking car. They improved in all the right areas aero related.
Amazing coke bottle. Amazing general sidepod layout. Redbullish very short nose with maximum possible free space underneath. If they didn't f*ck up somewhere unnecessarily this looks like a genuine contender for Merc. Lightyears away from the rather bulky and conservative SF-15.
And moreover looking really good. I know, I know that's not a relevant criterion for a race car but still....
=D>
The difference in this picture is due to the difference in perspective of the photos. The 16 is taken from a lower vantage point / wider angle.dot235 wrote: EDIT:
Actually I migth be not entirely right, there appears to be a slight difference in wheel base
It also appears that it may be working in conjunction with the winglets around the brake ducts to clean up flow to the diffuser.michl420 wrote:I think one reason why they do this is to bring the pull rod inside of the bodyworkPer wrote:Well, it is. Especially under braking, the junction of the wishbone will be loaded in shear / in-plane bending which is inherently less stiff than a conventionally shaped wishbone. So either you end up with a less stiff design or you make it stiffer again by adding weight, which is what they seem to have done here.dot235 wrote: I wouldn't exactly say it's a mechanical compromise, but it looks interesting...