Scuderia Ferrari SF16-H

[bohemian]

[C Plinius Secundus]

Above text translated by Google translator:

X-RAY
WHERE TO CHANGE THE RED
1. The short muzzle enhance the cleaning of the lower air flow.
2. The push-rod front suspension.
3. The passenger compartment is advanced compared to 2015 of about 7 cm.
4. The substantial reduction of the rear section of the side panels.
5. Unchanged pace.
6. The total length is reduced by about 7 cm: it is evident from the position of the wing trailing edge.

More on point 5: STEP
Is practically identical to the previous (5): change it would not make sense because of the weight distribution determined by Regulation (front and rear 45.5 54.5). The pitch is not shortened due to the inclination towards the rear of the arms of the suspension triangles. You notice the rear arm of the upper triangle strongly tilted backwards, in direct comparison with that of the SF15-T.

@irang
If You can edit your post, paste this translation.

Tiny correction to translation. Subtle but gives more context to the "more on point 5" section.
5. Unchanged wheelbase.

Further correction to the translation

AI RAGGI X
DOVE CAMBIA LA ROSSA
1. Il muso corto migliora la pulizia del flusso d’aria inferiore.
2. Lo schema push-rod della sospensione anteriore.
3. L’abitacolo risulta avanzato rispetto al 2015 di circa 7 cm.
4. La consistente riduzione della sezione posteriore delle fiancate.
5. Invariato il passo.
6. La lunghezza totale risulta ridotta di circa 7 cm: lo si evidenzia dalla posizione del bordo di uscita dell’ala.

More on point 5: PASSO
Risulta praticamente identico al precedente (5): cambiarlo non avrebbe avuto senso a causa della distribuzione dei pesi fissata dal regolamento (45,5 anteriore e 54,5 posteriore). Il passo non si è accorciato grazie all’inclinazione verso il posteriore dei bracci dei triangoli della sospensione. Si nota il braccio posteriore del triangolo superiore fortemente inclinato all’indietro, nel raffronto diretto con quello della SF15-T.


Under the X-RAYS
Where is La Rossa changing
3. The cockpit was moved aproximately 7 cm forward, compared to 2015.
4. The substantial reduction of the rear cross-section of the sidepods.

In the point 5 addendum, where it says pitch, it should say wheelbase.

[Cloud981]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

[turbof1]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

Actually, it's 4 element on the inside and 6 or 7 on the outside. Speaking about frontal downforce, that is probably the easiest part. The issue here is how you can create a stable aero platform and a way to maximize downforce across the complete car, through the front wing, without sacrificing too much front downforce.

That being said: the front wing has evolved quite a lot in the last season. You'll notice it is converging towards what Mercedes and Red Bull use. Simplistic is not the correct term here: it is probably just more conservative. Adding more elements does not necessary make something more complex or better.

[Cloud981]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

Actually, it's 4 element on the inside and 6 or 7 on the outside. Speaking about frontal downforce, that is probably the easiest part. The issue here is how you can create a stable aero platform and a way to maximize downforce across the complete car, through the front wing, without sacrificing too much front downforce.

That being said: the front wing has evolved quite a lot in the last season. You'll notice it is converging towards what Mercedes and Red Bull use. Simplistic is not the correct term here: it is probably just more conservative. Adding more elements does not necessary make something more complex or better.

I agree with you, and as I said, I'm probably wrong, this is just my perception, but I am someone who does not really know very well the principles of aerodynamics (mechanical engineer). To summarize, to make something work the way you want, you have to make him a good foundation, I agree. But when you build a radical chassis, which you know it works and all the data say it does,then why stop there, why not evolve other elements and make a radical new package? As a matter of fact,adding more elements does make something more complex but not necessary better.

[Cloud981]

Why i'm sayin all this is the following. Conclusion from first part of tests was that car understeers,because of disbalance between front and rear end (to much downforce rear comparing to front) and that doesn't contribute nor Vettel nor Raikkonen driving style (Alonso on contrary would prefere this probably). In the last couple of days they partially manage to solve this through different front suspension setups I assume,but only true way to add much more downforce is complexity and configuration of the front wing.

[armyk]

Why i'm sayin all this is the following. Conclusion from first part of tests was that car understeers,because of disbalance between front and rear end (to much downforce rear comparing to front) and that doesn't contribute nor Vettel nor Raikkonen driving style (Alonso on contrary would prefere this probably). In the last couple of days they partially manage to solve this through different front suspension setups I assume,but only true way to add much more downforce is complexity and configuration of the front wing.

I wish they would bring new front of the car as it was rumored, but I think It will end up as usual, runnig this setup for whole seasson.

[turbof1]

Why i'm sayin all this is the following. Conclusion from first part of tests was that car understeers,because of disbalance between front and rear end (to much downforce rear comparing to front) and that doesn't contribute nor Vettel nor Raikkonen driving style (Alonso on contrary would prefere this probably). In the last couple of days they partially manage to solve this through different front suspension setups I assume,but only true way to add much more downforce is complexity and configuration of the front wing.

That's not always the case. weight distribution (yes, fixed between rear and front, but you can still get it wrong), suspension or imbalance inbetween heating front and rear tyres can be at the base of understeer too.

We'll have a clear picture on this when we get to Melbourne.

[Fer.Fan]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

Good point but look at main element on Ferrari, it is much longer than one on RedBull. That best way to generate down force, to have clean long surface just like floor at the rear.

[Cloud981]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

Good point but look at main element on Ferrari, it is much longer than one on RedBull. That best way to generate down force, to have clean long surface just like floor at the rear.

Pictures are taken from different angles!!! Nevermind,back to topic. That is one way to define it and i'm not saying it's wrong but when i look at F1 front wing I imagine how the air flows beneath,over,trough and around them,how it transfers to tires,sidepods,rear... and my imagination sadly says it flows much better around Red Bull wing!!!

[Big Mangalhit]

Luckily teams have software wind tunnel and tests so they don't rely on imagination. So maybe a multi million dollar team knows a bit of which wing is best for overall efficiency. That could be either a new one in Melbourne or maybe the last one they used in 2015. But they definitely will use what is best for the car according to tests and not what has more elements or works better in someones imagination of flow.

[giantfan10]

Even if i'm not quite good at aerodynamic like in mechanic,i just can't shake off feeling that Ferrari's front wing is too simplistic with way less curves in comparison to rivals with similar philosophies in building a pointy front end car. This approach look way too conservative,especially now when they are build a car with massive rear downforce. Of course i don't know the data from Ferrari wind tunel so i'm probably wrong,but just by the look at Red Bull front wing (5 main elements comparing to Ferrari's 3) makes me wonder how much more downforce does it produces.

http://www.thelocals.xyz/wp-content/upl ... 00x480.jpg

http://abload.de/img/red-bull-rb12-2016-fo8ouh3.jpg

Good point but look at main element on Ferrari, it is much longer than one on RedBull. That best way to generate down force, to have clean long surface just like floor at the rear.

Pictures are taken from different angles!!! Nevermind,back to topic. That is one way to define it and i'm not saying it's wrong but when i look at F1 front wing I imagine how the air flows beneath,over,trough and around them,how it transfers to tires,sidepods,rear... and my imagination sadly says it flows much better around Red Bull wing!!!

A very similar wing last year spanked the mentioned Red bull and beat Mercedes 3 times....another point to remember is that Ferrari has a blown front axle .. Mercedes does not which explains why the Mercedes front wing has a lot more going with it.
Where did these reports of understeer come from?

[GoranF1]

[f1316]

I think it's a virtual certainty that Ferrari will have a new front wing in Melbourne.

Melbourne packages are always different to launch spec and, apart from some very small things, Ferrari has been running launch spec throughout testing.

[outsid3r]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdMV79KWIAAAMbj.jpg

That support pillar looks way too thick through the exhaust pipe for just support purposes :S Surely the pipe itself would be able to support most of the weight without bending? Could they be harvesting air a bit fuhrer up the pillar and channeling it somewhere?