Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[Mamba]

It's easy to test. Charlie tells Ferrari to remove the black "support" and then do 10 laps at race speeds. If it breaks then they can keep it. If it doesn't break then it is banned because it is not a support but an aero aid.

Can't put it past the team sabotaging the structural integrity of the mirror housing to prove their point.

This is a simple "spirit of the rule" issue. Whiting's explanation fits that pretty perfectly. The only thing that wing would be supporting is the flexing of the mirror housing. Mirror housings haven't had flex issues, it's always the mounting pylon itself. This should never have cleared scrutineering, but it would have required a lot of effort to undo in a race weekend.

Scrutineering is rather black and white. If a part fits into the box the regulations describe, and meets the deflection loads if such a test is required it is legal. The FIA are just up tight and don't want teams exploiting something like this. How they allow multiple mirror attachment points on other cars is beyond me.

On another note. Is Halo mounted mirrors banned or winglets above, below, wherever? Seems there is no consensus as to which.

[F1NAC]

Apparently this was after run with older tyres (pre 0.4 mm reduction)

[Benii6]

Apparently this was after run with older tyres (pre 0.4 mm reduction)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdQELoeW0AIjM8l.jpg

Are those medium or hypersofts?

[F1NAC]

Apparently this was after run with older tyres (pre 0.4 mm reduction)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdQELoeW0AIjM8l.jpg

Are those medium or hypersofts?

Meds.

This is what he has to say after test run

"I think it’s pretty straightforward. Normally you don’t get the chance to revisit these kind of decisions that are made, but I think we did now with the day that we had today," Vettel said.

"I think the result is that if we had the normal tyres on Sunday, we would have probably been even worse off.

"I think it was the correct call, and it was our fault not to have the same tyre wear or life as other people."

So back to the drawing board and figure out tyres

[wesley123]

How they allow multiple mirror attachment points on other cars is beyond me.

This sentence implies that it isn't allowed on the Ferrari, but it is on other cars, which simply is false.

[mantikos]

Apparently this was after run with older tyres (pre 0.4 mm reduction)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdQELoeW0AIjM8l.jpg

...and they didn't want the tires changed? lol

[Mamba]

How they allow multiple mirror attachment points on other cars is beyond me.

This sentence implies that it isn't allowed on the Ferrari, but it is on other cars, which simply is false.

Let me clarify what I meant then. The winglets were banned because their primary purpose was deemed to be aerodynamic rather than structural. I guess we all can honestly say that their main purpose was aerodynamic. Thus by that logic, why are teams like Red Bull and Force India allowed to have more than one mirror mounting stalk? Their main purpose must surely also be aerodynamic otherwise why would the mount them so? Those mountings are deemed legal but their main purpose is aerodynamic (although to a lesser extent that the winglets admittedly).

I am simply stating that the FIA's reasons for removing the winglets also implies other teams must change theirs as they also have a aerodynamic main purpose rather than a structural one.

[wesley123]

Thus by that logic, why are teams like Red Bull and Force India allowed to have more than one mirror mounting stalk?

Ferrari's aerodynamic element did in no way even imply to be structural, whereas on those examples given, the mirror is physically connected to the tub and sidepod shoulder. Quite a big difference there.

Their main purpose must surely also be aerodynamic otherwise why would the mount them so? Those mountings are deemed legal but their main purpose is aerodynamic (although to a lesser extent that the winglets admittedly).

How do you know that?

Outside of that, all of those mirror mounts are shaped to improve aerodynamics. They qualify as mirror mounts, as they mount the mirror to bodywork, holding the mirror in place. Nowhere in the rules is it stipulated that you can only have a single mirror mount. It makes sense to add another mount, it would really help structural integrity and prevent the mirrors fluttering.

I am simply stating that the FIA's reasons for removing the winglets also implies other teams must change theirs as they also have a aerodynamic main purpose rather than a structural one.

Ferrari's winglets are in no way comparable to the other teams mirror solutions.

Ferrari had a single element connecting the pillar to the halo, and added an aerodynamic element to the pillar. None of the other teams add aerodynamic winglets to their mirror pillars.

The multiple pillars per example do not connect themselves to another pillar, but connect to the sidepod shoulder.

[Mamba]

1) How do you know that?

2) Ferrari's winglets are in no way comparable to the other teams mirror solutions.
Ferrari had a single element connecting the pillar to the halo, and added an aerodynamic element to the pillar. None of the other teams add aerodynamic winglets to their mirror pillars.

3) The multiple pillars per example do not connect themselves to another pillar, but connect to the sidepod shoulder.

I had to split your post to reply to all clearly.

1) This is Formula one. Everything on the cars have an aerodynamic role to play - even if it is minute.

2) True, that is why the FIA closed down on it so other teams left behind won't delve into it and suddenly have lot's of little wings on or around the mirrors.

3) Yes, but this does not mean that their main purpose is structural rather than aerodynamic. Why mount them like that if there is nothing aerodynamic to gain? I say aerodynamic because no team would move from a single to split stalk if it did not in some way improve airflow around a very turbulent part of the car.

[Vanja #66]

So back to the drawing board and figure out tyres

Every car on the grid would have had this problem, for some it would have been worse like that, for others not as much.

[Just_a_fan]

So back to the drawing board and figure out tyres

Every car on the grid would have had this problem, for some it would have been worse like that, for others not as much.

Everyone else managed 1 stop in the race. That suggests that Ferrari might have needed 3 stops compared to 2 for everyone else if the "bad tyre" was used.

[wesley123]

1) How do you know that?

2) Ferrari's winglets are in no way comparable to the other teams mirror solutions.
Ferrari had a single element connecting the pillar to the halo, and added an aerodynamic element to the pillar. None of the other teams add aerodynamic winglets to their mirror pillars.

3) The multiple pillars per example do not connect themselves to another pillar, but connect to the sidepod shoulder.

I had to split your post to reply to all clearly.

1) This is Formula one. Everything on the cars have an aerodynamic role to play - even if it is minute.

2) True, that is why the FIA closed down on it so other teams left behind won't delve into it and suddenly have lot's of little wings on or around the mirrors.

3) Yes, but this does not mean that their main purpose is structural rather than aerodynamic. Why mount them like that if there is nothing aerodynamic to gain? I say aerodynamic because no team would move from a single to split stalk if it did not in some way improve airflow around a very turbulent part of the car.

1) To be nitpicky that's not really true; rear view mirrors are there for safety and are aerodynamically undesired.

2) Indeed, FIA quickly stepped in to close the hole they opened.

3) Renault R27 is a story of where that isn't necessarily the case. They incorporated the mirrors into the sidepod fences but noted it vibrated a lot under speed and was required to fix that by adding a pillar.

While I agree that the mounts are shaped in a way to improve aerodynamics(in relation to a normal mount), I don't think they are there because of aerodynamics, but rather to improve rigidity.

[roon]

The "brake ducts" are festooned with winglets that do not directly aid the cooling of the brakes. Yet they remain. So why not winglets on a mirror, which do not directly aid the redirecting of photons.

In a pinch Ferrari mightcould argue that the fins are an aero stabilizer for the mirror, an air-anchor, an aero-stay, if you will.

Question for the pool: what's safer, mounting mirrors to the halo, or the chassis?

[Just_a_fan]

In a pinch Ferrari mightcould argue that the fins are an aero stabilizer for the mirror, an air-anchor, an aero-stay, if you will.

The simple counter to that is "make the mounting pillar stiffer". The reality is that the winglet does not need to be there for structural reasons.

Now, people will argue that other mirror mounts don't need more than one pillar/support. That is true - all can be designed to work as a mirror with only one support. But to argue that others use two or more supports in order to give an aero benefit is not the answer. Better, indeed, to say "all should use a single mounting pillar of neutral cross section".

Question for the pool: what's safer, mounting mirrors to the halo, or the chassis?

Probably makes no difference to safety unless one vibrates more than the other and renders the mirror effectively useless. The chassis is stiffer than the halo (albeit both are effectively infinitely stiff compared to the mirror mounts) so would be a better mounting point.

[zioture]