Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

[godlameroso]

There's more than meets the eye in that picture, although we won't know until we see the car in the second week of testing.

Think carefully about what the barge boards actually do. Look at where they are in relation to the side pod, floor, and front wheel. Look carefully at the front wing and what kind of flow structures are aimed at it(the barge board complex).

[timbo]

This reminds me F10 sidepod configuration.

[SR71]

Today on f1analisitecnica.it ( http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... ra-il.html ) there's an article about rumors on Ferrari's front nose: 2017 car should use 2016 concept with a central nose and should adopt S-duct
-

yep, the article says, 2017 and still a Penis nose.

autosprint.it thinks (knows?) it will sport a normal nose
http://autosprint.corrieredellosport.it ... tutto_gas/

http://cdn-autosprint.corrieredellospor ... 1211f6.jpg

Lots of things to look at in the drawing. Thanks for sharing.

What's most interesting to me is the red "inner end plates" (for lack of a better term) on the front wing.

Could these surfaces be designed to manage the proportionally changing distance to ground of the swept wings?

Looks like the red surface s-curves up from the main wing, this would allow the foil elements to then remain parallel
To the ground as the move towards the outer end plate.

[godlameroso]

Could be to channel air to the barge boards.

[bhall II]

That's arguably the area of the car where we'll see the biggest changes. So, if the illustration is in any way informed by knowledgeable sources, a description of those components may very well have been omitted deliberately.

EDIT: Was it not suggested earlier that the team is set to revert back to a pull rod front suspension? If so, I wonder if "normal nose" is meant to be taken literally.

autosprint.it thinks (knows?) it will sport a normal nose

Like normal normal...


(Note: nothing here other than the nose itself is relevant to my comments.)

A pull rod layout never makes more sense than it does when equipped to a chassis that enables low pickup points and features a wide track-width. Plus, the swept front wing opens the door to aerodynamic possibilities that don't necessarily require a high nose - "high nose" being relative to current restrictions - and might even benefit from the reduced drag of a low nose.

It's very much wild speculation, maybe even misguided. But that's why we're here, right?

[matt21]

Like normal normal...

Such a nose is ruled out by the regulations

[FrukostScones]

Like normal normal...

Such a nose is ruled out by the regulations

I think he is just nostalgic...

[f1316]

Compare and contrast Bhall's example and a legal - and very successful - modern example:




The difference is reasonably subtle and everything he mentions about suspension remains valid in a Mercedes (but perhaps more extreme ) style nose.

Likewise, two articles in motorsport talk about different kinds of solutions and unusual shapes on the new Ferrari; they spent a lot of time at the end of last year looking at the t-tray and this could well be an area of interest to them, leading to the kinds of unusual shapes mentioned and helped by a nose/suspension philosophy that incorporates *more* inwash than we are used to (not saying full inwash).

Just a compilation of a few thoughts anyway.

[ripper]

Today again on f1analisitecnica there's another article about Ferrari's suspensions (http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... sione.html) they say that Ferrari team studied two different projects with pull rod and push rod, but next year car should stay with push rod.

The engineers did an important job to minimize suspension's negative effects on air fluxes directed toward badgeboards, moreover in the article there's written that with pull rod suspension they had problems on the cars that weren't easily noticeable on simulations. Those problems were related to "loads so heavy that the suspension itself and the connections to car's body were breaking/collapsing/failing (the italian word used here is cedere, i don't know how to translate properly in this case)".

Ferrari should adopt a solution similar to the one that Mercedes used on W07 with hydraulic component.


Sorry for my bad english

[dmjunqueira]

http://cdn-autosprint.corrieredellospor ... 1211f6.jpg

If it really reassembles this picture, it will be the first beautiful Ferrari F1 car in years! (Specially since 2012 they are all really ugly IMHO).

[outsid3r]

Today again on f1analisitecnica there's another article about Ferrari's suspensions (http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... sione.html) they say that Ferrari team studied two different projects with pull rod and push rod, but next year car should stay with push rod.

The engineers did an important job to minimize suspension's negative effects on air fluxes directed toward badgeboards, moreover in the article there's written that with pull rod suspension they had problems on the cars that weren't easily noticeable on simulations. Those problems were related to "loads so heavy that the suspension itself and the connections to car's body were breaking/collapsing/failing (the italian word used here is cedere, i don't know how to translate properly in this case)".

Ferrari should adopt a solution similar to the one that Mercedes used on W07 with hydraulic component.


Sorry for my bad english

A literal translation from 'cedere' would be - to let go. So I assume they were in fact failing. However, we never saw this kind of failure during testing/race weekends have we? Or was there something I missed?

[bhall II]

Like normal normal...

Such a nose is ruled out by the regulations

That strikes me as kinda odd, but fair enough.

On to the next harebrained idea...

[bhall II]

Just a compilation of a few thoughts anyway.

I'm not doing much more than trying to read the tea leaves here. Otherwise, I actually think Ferrari's concept is probably the better choice...and so does Mercedes.

The nose itself can create downforce, and to do so effectively, it generally needs to be as wide and as flat as possible (among other factors).



Given the widespread impact of all aero development, even when changes are isolated, it would have been foolish for Mercedes to completely abandon anything that's played a role in their recent success. But that doesn't preclude adopting certain aspects of other solutions wherever they might complement the core design.

No joke, it's surprising how influential Ferrari/Allison designs have been over the last few years. In fact...








"Proof of concept," even though I suspect it was compromised structurally




So-called "Mercedes-style" front wing

(Still can't believe Marchionne let that guy leave.)

[Pramesi]

(Still can't believe Marchionne let that guy leave.)

To be fair, he lost his wife and wanted to be with his family in the UK. Can't really blame Marchionne for showing some sympathy.

[bhall II]

If only...

Auto Motor und Sport correspondent Michael Schmidt reports: "Returning to England is certainly one of the reasons for the separation.

"But there are also claims that Marchionne could not cope with Allison, because the Briton spoke his mind and refused to be dictated unreasonable targets in contrast to his (Allison's) 25 years of motor sport experience," he added.

Inevitably the focus fell on James Allison, (above left) the former technical chief, who left his post last month after falling out with Marchionne. Sources close to the matter say that Marchionne wanted a new structure, whereby Allison supervised with a head of chassis and a head of power train responsible for those departments. Allison refused, saying that the structure he had in place was the right one.

A deadline was imposed to assess results improving and when the deadline came without improved results, Allison was out.