Team: Pat Fry (TD), Nikolas Tombazis (CD), Stefano Domenicali (MD)
Drivers: Fernando Alonso (5), Felipe Massa (6)
What confuses me is what research lead Ferrari to that horrid nose-job, I don't need no windtunnel to tell that's a brick?bhallg2k wrote: ...
However, I do think that this is the second consecutive year that Ferrari's research results have failed to yield real-world gains; in fact, they're going backwards. So they either have correlation issues or they've simply forgotten how to design a car. (I tend to think it's the former.)
...
Ferrari has denied it is planning to change its front suspension to push-rod with a B-spec car.
It's definitely ugly, but it's quite literally the only design current rules will allow if the objective is a max height nose located behind the leading edge of the front wing.xpensive wrote:What confuses me is what research lead Ferrari to that horrid nose-job, I don't need no windtunnel to tell that's a brick?
bhall the exhaust failure isn't a correlation with the wind tunnel. You can't put exhaust on a 60% model in the tunnel. They can only do that in CFD in which the team is behind some of the others. Exhaust can't be properly simulated in the tunnel. Either way it's horrible they produced another stinker, but as JT said, it doesn't point to tunnel issues.bhallg2k wrote:Saying it twice doesn't make it any more or less true.
It's the exhaust configuration more than anything else that leads me to believe the team (still) has correlation issues. And there's no telling what other problems said issues have caused elsewhere.
You're privy to the internal workings, correlation studies, and technical documentation of the field's various aero programs? Or on what are you making this assertion?Crucial_Xtreme wrote:some teams are much further along in CFD sim than Ferrari.
Correlation problems can happen in any of the R&D methods you mentioned. It doesn't have to refer specifically to the wind tunnel, but that does seem to be the most common type of correlation issue in F1.bhallg2k wrote:Ok, I guess I'm using the term correlation improperly. If it should be reserved for wind tunnel issues only, I apologize for causing any confusion.
As I use the term, I think Ferrari is having considerable difficulty correlating their research results - wind tunnel, CFD, 7 post rig, magic well - with real-world results, and this seems to be a trend.
Or Tombazis, Fry, et al. have forgotten how to design cars.
about the CFD, in an AutoSport Magazine interview with Pat Fry before the season started he talked about the fact Ferrari has always relied on Fiorano for most of the testing of the cars, so Ferrari didn't get as heavily involved with CFD and car simulators as the rest of the field, because obviously they had no reason to. And he simply put they are behind their main rivals in these two areas. They brought in some new people from other teams since last season.Jersey Tom wrote:You're privy to the internal workings, correlation studies, and technical documentation of the field's various aero programs? Or on what are you making this assertion?Crucial_Xtreme wrote:some teams are much further along in CFD sim than Ferrari.
With Alonso as your driver, it's too early to call it unfixable shite.banibhusan wrote:What our respected member Mr. bhall trying to say is, whatever the issue might be, they need to get on top of it pretty soon and if needed they may have to sacrifice this season to get rid of all these teething problems they have. The problem might be related CFD or WT or Seven-post rig or lack of qualified and talented engineers etc etc.
The point is they should get to the bottom of that issue and eradicate it completely.
The exact same thought I had.bhallg2k wrote:Respected?
It's a little early to be drinking, no?
Scarbs just tweeted on Twitter that you found the Mercedes F-Duct ducts.bhallg2k wrote:Respected?
It's a little early to be drinking, no?
Respected indeed. 