Ferrari team principal Maurizio Arrivabene pins hopes on continual development rather then on revolutionary packages. The Italian is hopeful that his squad can keep up with its big rival Mercedes and can establish itself as a serious title-contender this year.
And that's where MP4-31 and I disagree: I love pole sitters. (Not quite as often as I'd like, though.)...MP4-31 might be a good car but seems like they didn't learn enough since it really doesn't like a pole sitter
I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis for that matter. Actually, Ferrari has been surprisingly quick at stages throughout the weekend. The performance potential is there. I think they aren't that far away from Mercedes overall, on any track, this season.bhall II wrote:(Transitioned from the car thread)
...with the recent speculation that Ferrari is due to test a hybrid car of sorts for Pirelli in July, I'm hoping it means the team has, or is about to, turn its attention to next year. SF16-H isn't a bad car, but I don't think it can win the Championship, because the chassis isn't quite there.
I keep going back to the team's inability to pass the crash test with the intended nose and wonder how much of the rest of the car is similarly compromised.
As it has been already mentioned the team is lost with the set up. Moreover the car seems to be extremely sensitive with changes in the track temperatures.mika vs michael wrote:ok...but they were p1 in Practice3...it can't be that bad... or can it be?
For me, the issue isn't the nose itself as much as it's what the nose may or may not represent.ME4ME wrote:I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis...
It was reported prior to the season that SF16-H's intended nose couldn't pass the required crash test. By default, that means the nose on the car right now is a compromise solution, and it's one that affects everything else on the car to some degree - unless, for some weird reason, the car was actually designed around a compromised nose.Interview with McLaren's Matt Morris, May 11, 2016 wrote:What does [the nose] do?
Like the front wing, the nosebox plays a key role in dictating airflow over the rest of the car. It’s also a deformable crash structure (progressively deforming in the event of impact), meaning that it must be tested and approved by the FIA before being allowed to race.
“The nosebox is quite difficult to develop – now that every team has gone to these super-short noseboxes, it’s really hard to pass the FIA’s crash test. So you’d only really choose to embark on a new nose concept if you’d found a pretty substantial aero gain.
How long does it take to make?
“Once you’ve made the decision on the nose, you design the rest of the car around it. After that, it’s not really worth changing, and the rules have matured enough for there to be little incremental benefit in making a change.”
I would like to assume that, if they made a decision, not to pursue the nose that failed the crash tests and continue with the current one (back then), it was probably because the difference might not have been quite large.bhall II wrote:"According to Turrini, the current nose of the SF16-H is not the final version, but probably it won't be changed."
That sentence makes my head hurt.
According to Turrini, the current nose of the SF16-H is not the final version, but probably it's the final version.
Just in the second year! Isn't he SUPPOSED to be the "Neo" that they badly needed? Someone who MOTIVATES people around and gets the best out of them? That's why they wanted to GET RID OF Alonso.proteus wrote:Im somewhat surprised by excuses everyone is searching for their poor performance in previus race and todays qualifying. Even Vettel is becoming a whiny character complaining on the radio.
Why are you taking the bait here?GPR-A wrote:Just in the second year! Isn't he SUPPOSED to be the "Neo" that they badly needed? Someone who MOTIVATES people around and gets the best out of them? That's why they wanted to GET RID OF Alonso.proteus wrote:Im somewhat surprised by excuses everyone is searching for their poor performance in previus race and todays qualifying. Even Vettel is becoming a whiny character complaining on the radio.
Assuming that they indeed use some kind of B-spec nose, what if the A-spec was fundamentally unrealistic, a step to far in design? Maybe its potential performance gain was only minimal, and the struggle to get it right huge. The conclusion that Ferrari doesn't have the ability to make good rigid composite structures doesn't work for me. It's such a critical ability for any F1 team to have, surly Ferrari has all the needed competence in-house. Worst-case, they'd hire externally, from Dallara or whatever company.bhall II wrote:For me, the issue isn't the nose itself as much as it's what the nose may or may not represent.ME4ME wrote:I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis...
Some general background info...
It was reported prior to the season that SF16-H's intended nose couldn't pass the required crash test. By default, that means the nose on the car right now is a compromise solution, and it's one that affects everything else on the car to some degree - unless, for some weird reason, the car was actually designed around a compromised nose.Interview with McLaren's Matt Morris, May 11, 2016 wrote:What does [the nose] do?
Like the front wing, the nosebox plays a key role in dictating airflow over the rest of the car. It’s also a deformable crash structure (progressively deforming in the event of impact), meaning that it must be tested and approved by the FIA before being allowed to race.
“The nosebox is quite difficult to develop – now that every team has gone to these super-short noseboxes, it’s really hard to pass the FIA’s crash test. So you’d only really choose to embark on a new nose concept if you’d found a pretty substantial aero gain.
How long does it take to make?
“Once you’ve made the decision on the nose, you design the rest of the car around it. After that, it’s not really worth changing, and the rules have matured enough for there to be little incremental benefit in making a change.”
The implication is that the team was unable to come up with a structural design that's light enough to be competitive while also retaining the properties needed to pass the test. By extension, it's very difficult for me to believe that problems like that are isolated; on the contrary, it points to structural design and/or manufacturing woes that have the potential to --- up everything.
Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of poor chassis rigidity is setup difficulty, because undue flexing introduces variables that are difficult, if not impossible, to control.
Let's see if we can get some input from someone more knowledgeable.
Does anything about what I've said above make sense? If so, do you think it's theoretically possible that a few years of pull rod development can potentially leave a team behind in terms of penning a chassis that strikes the right balance between weight and rigidity, given a different suspension?Tim.Wright wrote:http://i.imgur.com/zbMd0xD.gif
I know that a pull rod setup is ostensibly the same as a push rod setup in terms of capability. But, it's my understanding that the many ways in which each layout transfers loads are all sorts of different.
That seems likely. But, why should we think it's isolated to just that particular component?ME4ME wrote:...what if the A-spec [nose] was fundamentally unrealistic, a step to far in design?
Chronic setup problems don't paint a pretty picture.The Guardian, March 16, 2016 wrote:“All our hopes are in this car,” [James Allison] said as he prepared for the opening race here on Sunday. “It’s certainly a very bold car – but it needs to be. If we look at last year’s model we were working to improve a baseline that was really quite poor."
