Ferrari F2012

[wrcsti]

The CFD video is nice, but with non-rotating wheels, no flow through the sidepods (it seems, might be wrong) and no exhaust flow, to be taken with a grain of salt.

agree, still it does have a cool factor

[Jersey Tom]

The CFD video is nice, but with non-rotating wheels, no flow through the sidepods (it seems, might be wrong) and no exhaust flow, to be taken with a grain of salt.

Just because the solid model shown in that video doesn't have animated wheels, doesn't mean that the boundary condition at that wheel is stationary.

Furthermore I'm not sure what it is we're looking at. I'll admit the visualization post processing is pretty slick. I particularly like this one. Curious what package that is.

Edit - Looks like it might be "XFlow." Interesting product from their description. Though not being a CFD guy, can't say anything about it being legit.

[hollus]

Look at the flow lines adjacent to the wheels. Both above and to the sides. No wheel rotation there, or no air disturbance from them at least.

[WhiteBlue]

...
You can forget a new chassis. It is against the RRA and the other team could protest it at the FiA if Ferrari designed a B-version of the 2012. I doubt that they would get an exceptional clearance for a B-chassis if they even ask for it.
...

I very much disagree, the FIA has nothing to do with the RRA, while Ferrari is no part of FOTA anymore, besides, Montezuma is used to get what he wants and I'm certain that he will not spend every second weekend this year looking at that abomination.

The teams are bound by the RRA regardless of a FOTA membership.

The RRA is a legally enforceable document as we all know, but we do not know what the legal escalation plan foresees. Normally one has to assume that the FiA is the first instance to enforce obvious violations and they have no reason to reject a complaint. They are the governing body which reserves the authority to regulate the sporting competition. The teams could theoretically call an ordinary court of law but I very much doubt that the FiA would allow it to come to that.

Since 2010 no team has designed a B version chassis and until the RRA runs out no team will. That also applies to the development of the F2012.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

The teams are bound by the RRA regardless of a FOTA membership.

The RRA is a legally enforceable document as we all know, but we do not know what the legal escalation plan foresees. Normally one has to assume that the FiA is the first instance to enforce obvious violations and they have no reason to reject a complaint. They are the governing body which reserves the authority to regulate the sporting competition. The teams could theoretically call an ordinary court of law but I very much doubt that the FiA would allow it to come to that.

Since 2010 no team has designed a B version chassis and until the RRA runs out no team will. That also applies to the development of the F2012.

The teams can design and crash test a new chassis if they want. There is nothing stopping them. Not the FIA Regs nor the RRA. The regs were modified this year.

Although the rumors are false according to Ferrari, there is a reason why James Allen and others are reporting "possible chassis changes". Because it's clearly legal.

According to my colleague Giorgio Piola, the veteran Italian technical journalist writing in Gazzetta dello Sport today, Ferrari is working on a significant chassis modification involving the sidepods, which could require a new crash test under Article 16.1.2 of the 2012 FIA Technical Regulations. According to Piola there could be one or two other teams making similar moves, it is believed.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/03/m ... ari-f2012/

[bhall]

The teams are bound by the RRA regardless of a FOTA membership.

The RRA has no teeth whatsoever. The FIA, FOTA, FOM can all do jack sh*t to any team who breaches the agreement, even if said team convenes a press conference or hires a sky writer to confess their sin to the world. That's precisely why Ferrari and Red Bull left FOTA.

[Maynard G. Krebs]

I can help them.
With the old push rod front suspension, when you make a change to the rear that required a clockwise adjustment to the front, now, with the pull rod, that adjustment would be counterclockwise.
That one's free.

[munudeges]

Ferrari clearly don't understand exactly what is wrong with their car. They don't know whether their lack of grip and balance is a mechanical issue, an aerodynamic one or, most probably, a combination of the two. There are too many variables, especially with tyre wear. Quite often a poor team's response is to automatically think they have a lack of downforce and start working out ways to pile it on. They then get ever more confused as the drivers report that it is sluggish and reluctant to turn into corners.

In addition, what turn out to be aerodynamic imbalances are often balanced out mechanically. A pull-rod front suspension certainly isn't going to give them more options to help them out, so the problems just multiply.

[Jersey Tom]

Ferrari clearly don't understand exactly what is wrong with their car. They don't know whether their lack of grip and balance is a mechanical issue, an aerodynamic one or, most probably, a combination of the two.

I don't necessarily agree.

If you're at the track and make a change that should help mechanical grip - and it does work out that way consistently - you at least have confidence in that road. If however you make changes that should be positive from an aero perspective and they don't do what you expect - you've identified that you have something awry in your aero program. Might not know what the immediate solution is, but you know an area where you have an issue.

[Lycoming]

I think at this point its pretty clear that the issue is primarily aerodynamic. Mechanical setup may play a role, but thats not fundamental, there's nothing to fix you just have to make the most of your practice sessions and get it dialed in.

The ridiculous instability would not be mechanical unless they did something truly insane.

[bhall]

2) These problems with the tunnel sound like a lack of budget. Could Ferrari be trying to get by on the cheap? Is Fiat asking for more profit from the Ferrari division?

Or is it the result of a team unable to properly allocate its relatively restricted resources?

Interesting point either way.

Cheers, Brian.

[xpensive]

...
The ridiculous instability would not be mechanical unless they did something truly insane.

With the tenacity of a madman, I believe that's xactly what they did.

...
A pull-rod front suspension certainly isn't going to give them more options to help them out, so the problems just multiply.

Incidentally, the options of adjustment and ease thereof has always been one of my main arguments against the pull-rod.

Kinmematics are straight forward. Suspension is probably the easiest thing to evaluate on the car, as the mathematics describing it is quite defined

An interesting statement, not sure that everyone in the pitlane would agree with it though.

[banibhusan]

2) These problems with the tunnel sound like a lack of budget. Could Ferrari be trying to get by on the cheap? Is Fiat asking for more profit from the Ferrari division?

Or is it the result of a team unable to properly allocate its relatively restricted resources?

Interesting point either way.

Cheers, Brian.

Well there were serious rumours flying all around in 2010 that FIAT is planning to sell a majority stake of Ferrari and Magneti Marelli to gain ownership of Chrysler. Though they denied these rumours later. Cant' really conclude anything.

[Lycoming]

With the tenacity of a madman, I believe that's xactly what they did.

A pullrod is nothing special. Its effects are well known as they have been running it on the rear for some time now, and its just pushrod in reverse. What I meant was something more along the lines of if they switched to a beam axle and monoshock. THEN you may be able to blame the suspension.

...
A pull-rod front suspension certainly isn't going to give them more options to help them out, so the problems just multiply.

Incidentally, the options of adjustment and ease thereof has always been one of my main arguments against the pull-rod.

The range of adjustments are the same... camber is adjusted through the wishbones, so pullrod has no effect. Also does not alter their ability to change the spring, damper or ARB settings as by altering bellcrank geometry, they observe the same forces, and the components have not changed. Ride height? they may be limited in their ability to raise the ride height beyond a certain point, but that point is where the rod is nearly horizontal and is basically irrelevant in F1. Precise ride height control can still be done by varying rod length, same as pullrod.

So what is actually harder to adjust?

[bhall]

Well there were serious rumours flying all around in 2010 that FIAT is planning to sell a majority stake of Ferrari and Magneti Marelli to gain ownership of Chrysler. Though they denied these rumours later. Cant' really conclude anything.

They have the majority stake in Chrysler, and they've had it for a while now.

Fiat and Ferrari (and Chrysler, for that matter) are currently turning over reasonable profits. So I suspect that any financial problems at the Scuderia are the result of trying to abide by the (currently toothless) RRA and not knowing how to allocate funds properly.

That's sort of a new concept for Ferrari, yanno?