Scuderia Ferrari SF70H

[turbof1]

My explanation is, that you get a better airflow if the duct is not S-shaped but more "straight".
Also, it could be useful for the underside to get rid of the air at a point further ahead than the splitting plane.

I think what Ferrari did is along the lines of FI nostrils to get it legal.

I made this:
http://www.laf1.es/sites/default/files/ ... /morro.gif

And here the "interactive" flash version, if you want to stop it at any point: http://www.laf1.es/articulos/tecnica-as ... 015-912083

So yes, I think it's legal because the hole begins in the lower part when it ends in the upper part. Basically, that you can't see the tarmac from above.

Yes, it is an advantage, but is it legal.

Yes. The rules do not allow there to be 2 completely separate parts when taking the side and front cross sections at any point at the front crash structure. However, the holes in the crash structure are placed in such angle it will never fall foul of that rule.

Having your ducts crossing eachother like Ferrari does is neither obligatory. They simply do this to lengthen the channels and have the flow as smooth a passage as possible.

[f300v10]

[outsid3r]

My explanation is, that you get a better airflow if the duct is not S-shaped but more "straight".
Also, it could be useful for the underside to get rid of the air at a point further ahead than the splitting plane.

I think what Ferrari did is along the lines of FI nostrils to get it legal.

Yes, it is an advantage, but is it legal.

Yes. The rules do not allow there to be 2 completely separate parts when taking the side and front cross sections at any point at the front crash structure. However, the holes in the crash structure are placed in such angle it will never fall foul of that rule.

Having your ducts crossing eachother like Ferrari does is neither obligatory. They simply do this to lengthen the channels and have the flow as smooth a passage as possible.

Also, while the car is cornering it may be of greater benefit if the air coming in from one side (the side facing the corner which supposedly scoops more air) exits on the opposite site of the car. A more technical person might be able to shed some more light on this...

[zioture]

https://twitter.com/Graftechweb/status/ ... 8115964929

[ScrewCaptain27]

Copyright @ScarbsTech

[roon]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201703 ... 7dddb4.jpg
Copyright @ScarbsTech

Interesting ARB arrangement.

[paddyf1]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 46791.html
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 46791.html

[Giblet]

I find it interesting that while almost everyone is going to low profile front brake ducts and Ferrari have these yawning openings.

Is this layout advantageous for the blown front axle?

[roon]

Their ARB is also pretty interesting, seem like a cam is in the joint?

Sliding joint, a pin within an obround hole.

[aral]

Speculative comments about balancing suspension including Mercedes and Mclaren, have been removed as they are off topic. Please discuss general suspension matters on the relevant suspension thread. Thank you

[giantfan10]

I find it interesting that while almost everyone is going to low profile front brake ducts and Ferrari have these yawning openings.

Is this layout advantageous for the blown front axle?

Yes i think that's the reason it is larger... at least thats what makes sense to me .... Red bull has a blown front axle too... i'm too lazy to go look at their brake ducts.... if they dont have as large brake ducts as Ferrari then i'm missing something.

[Mattchu]

Both blown axles, ...

[PhillipM]

Their ARB is also pretty interesting, seem like a cam is in the joint?

Sliding joint, a pin within an obround hole.

That's really quite clever, not only is it very light, it should also be possible looking at that to easily set the geometry so that the arb is effectively stiffer when the ride height is higher and softer when it's lower, perhaps to keep the pitch angle similar for better aero control?

[roon]

The angle the blades present to each other will certainly change based on ride height. Whether this creates greater or lessened roll stiffness during squat, and to significant enough effect, I'm unsure. I assume you would want increasing roll stiffness corresponding to increased squat, but I'm no suspension expert. However this design seems like it would do the opposite. As the angle of the blades increases from horizontal, the blades would lose their ability to transfer loads to each other, effectively decreasing roll stiffness during squat. But again, the rockers in F1 have a pretty small range of motion, so the effect would be minimal. The design may just be about simplicity & lightness.

[roon]

Maybe these are combination ARB & heave elements. During squat the blades will approach each other to horizontal. Depending on their length, they may interfere and bind up against each other end-to-end. Beyond a certain level of squat, the blades would eventually pop back out of alignment, but this time below horizontal.

This provides a kind of indexing point in the suspension travel. For the first half of travel, the blades are angled above the horizontal to each other (approximating here). They eventually bind up and then pop through to the next half of suspension travel. Maybe that sudden acceleration could affect another component, or inform the driver with a momentary jolt.

If the same mechanism (heave anti-roll bar... HARB?) is employed at the rear, perhaps this is Ferrari's take on a two-stage, squatting suspension. The force imparted by the blades to ride over this "bump" in the suspension travel would he symmetrical—a force would be required to return to full ride height. Unless! Roll is exerted. After braking during corner entry. Roll and subsequent rotation of the bellcranks would again lengthen the distance between the blades, enough to allow a return to a higher ride height.

This would all be occuring on top of the normal heave spring action. It's just that you're adding the binding force of these blades up to a certain point, then releasing it. Thus, a mechanism which provides the suspension with a rising spring rate up until a certain point, before dropping into a lesser spring rate. After the cross-over point, the HARBs would also be acting against the main heave element, so that would add some more complexity to consider—whether or not the combined, effective rate ever becomes digressive, or just adds up to staged, stepped progression.

Edit- A quick sketch which might help illustrate what I'm getting at.



From the Haas thread (same components):