Scuderia Ferrari SF70H

[.poz]

try it with your own carand take note of the sound it makes..... : ) semi trucks are banned from doing that within city limits where i live because its even louder than the engine itself while on the gas

That would be exhaust braking and it's noisy and so banned from certain places. Normal car engine braking shouldn't be noisy. But this is off topic.

The Ferrari noise does sound a bit like an anti lag system but not a very harsh one.

I think they are running with a very tuned down the engine, with low turbo pressure and low mgu-h energy harvesting and so the wastegate is opened more the in a normal race situation

[giantfan10]

http://images.automoto.it/images/884776 ... f-70-h.jpg

what it looks like to me is that the radiators in the sidepod get an ininterrupted flow of air without the suspension being in the way

[FW17]

Is this the normal steering rake? Or something common with this year's wider car regulations?

[PhillipM]

That's opposite lock...

[timbo]

That's opposite lock...

Umm, where do you see opposite lock? It looks like normal steer into the corner, not oversteer event.

[Silent Storm]

Racecar Engineering thinks Ferrari SF70H might be running a Twin keel design.

The first track runs of the SF70H at Fiorano allowed a slightly better look at some of the details of the car. Looking at the area under the nose of the car the air inlet for the vented nose is clear to see but also just visible is the forward lower wishbone pickup point. This seems to be sitting on a structural piece below the chassis, hinting that the Ferrari may in face be a twin keel design.

A notable twin keel design from the past is the Arrows A23 (below) which also featured its lower wishbone pickups on structural parts hanging below the chassis.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/ferrari-sf70h/#

[timbo]

The nosecone profile is like a D letter with a round side facing down, so it that contour is followed further back, it might be that the lower pickup points are indeed mounted on the vanes. But it might also be that the front of the tub is square and there is a transition from the nosecone to the tub,

[THRAK]

15.4.4 : "no part of any external cross section of the survival cell in this area [from the front section of the tub to the front section of the cockpit] which lies more than 250mm above the reference plane may contain any concave radius of curvature." Any attempt at a twin keel concept would result in a concave radius in the bottom of the tub, so I think this is unlikely.

[timbo]

15.4.4 : "no part of any external cross section of the survival cell in this area [from the front section of the tub to the front section of the cockpit] which lies more than 250mm above the reference plane may contain any concave radius of curvature." Any attempt at a twin keel concept would result in a concave radius in the bottom of the tub, so I think this is unlikely.

Would vanes mounted on survival cell be considered a part of it? The cell itself might be convex with pickup points on the vanes.

[THRAK]

Well, I suppose added keels wouldn't be considered part of the survival cell, but as a result of having them plus the regulated minimum section of the tub, the cross section in this area would increase, with the sole aim to have lower wishbones. That's why I don't see the purpose.
(sorry for my english, when it comes to explain myself about these technical things, it tends to be, well, mechanical )

[timbo]

Well, I suppose added keels wouldn't be considered part of the survival cell, but as a result of having them plus the regulated minimum section of the tub, the cross section in this area would increase, with the sole aim to have lower wishbones. That's why I don't see the purpose.
(sorry for my english, when it comes to explain myself about these technical things, it tends to be, well, mechanical )

Your language is definitely not a problem, my question was genuine one.
Good point about the cross section, however maybe they do want to have the wishbone lower for optimized geometry?
I wonder how deep the front of the cell goes at the minimum permitted dimensions.

Slightly related question -- they somehow managed to place winglets above the pushrod, was that area also deregulated or was it always possible but nobody bothered?

[Manoah2u]

Racecar Engineering thinks Ferrari SF70H might be running a Twin keel design.


http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... fez393.jpg

The first track runs of the SF70H at Fiorano allowed a slightly better look at some of the details of the car. Looking at the area under the nose of the car the air inlet for the vented nose is clear to see but also just visible is the forward lower wishbone pickup point. This seems to be sitting on a structural piece below the chassis, hinting that the Ferrari may in face be a twin keel design.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... upFez2.jpg

A notable twin keel design from the past is the Arrows A23 (below) which also featured its lower wishbone pickups on structural parts hanging below the chassis.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... paguri.jpg

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/ferrari-sf70h/#

that is NOT an arrows A23 but a Super Aguri SA06

[Italiano]

Same thing, apart from some paint...

[THRAK]

Well, I suppose added keels wouldn't be considered part of the survival cell, but as a result of having them plus the regulated minimum section of the tub, the cross section in this area would increase, with the sole aim to have lower wishbones. That's why I don't see the purpose.
(sorry for my english, when it comes to explain myself about these technical things, it tends to be, well, mechanical )

Your language is definitely not a problem, my question was genuine one.
Good point about the cross section, however maybe they do want to have the wishbone lower for optimized geometry?
I wonder how deep the front of the cell goes at the minimum permitted dimensions.

Slightly related question -- they somehow managed to place winglets above the pushrod, was that area also deregulated or was it always possible but nobody bothered?

You're right, mine is only an assumption based on the fact that from zero keel cars onwards, the compromise between aerodynamics and front suspension cinematisms has been unbalanced in favour of aero efficiency. I recall Ferrari being the very last team to move directly from single keel to zero concept, without even having a try at twin keels, because they wanted to keep the most mechanically efficient scheme, but were forced to adopt the generalized trend, with the F2007.

About the winglets above the suspension, that's quite interesting. I tend to believe they are consequences of the regulations changes, without being 100% sure of that. Actually, I don't remember anything similar in this area from the recent past.

[Giando]

Guys... something weird going on here with those brake cooling intakes...