agree, still it does have a cool factorhollus wrote: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 factorhollus wrote: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.hollus wrote: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.
The teams are bound by the RRA regardless of a FOTA membership.xpensive wrote: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.WhiteBlue wrote: ...
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.
...
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.WhiteBlue wrote: 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 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.WhiteBlue wrote:The teams are bound by the RRA regardless of a FOTA membership.
I don't necessarily agree.munudeges wrote: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.
Or is it the result of a team unable to properly allocate its relatively restricted resources?hardingfv32 wrote: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?
With the tenacity of a madman, I believe that's xactly what they did.Lycoming wrote: ...
The ridiculous instability would not be mechanical unless they did something truly insane.
Incidentally, the options of adjustment and ease thereof has always been one of my main arguments against the pull-rod.munudeges wrote: ...
A pull-rod front suspension certainly isn't going to give them more options to help them out, so the problems just multiply.
An interesting statement, not sure that everyone in the pitlane would agree with it though.ringo wrote:Kinmematics are straight forward. Suspension is probably the easiest thing to evaluate on the car, as the mathematics describing it is quite defined
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.bhallg2k wrote:Or is it the result of a team unable to properly allocate its relatively restricted resources?hardingfv32 wrote: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?
Interesting point either way.
Cheers, Brian.
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.xpensive wrote: With the tenacity of a madman, I believe that's xactly what they did.
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.xpensive wrote:Incidentally, the options of adjustment and ease thereof has always been one of my main arguments against the pull-rod.munudeges wrote: ...
A pull-rod front suspension certainly isn't going to give them more options to help them out, so the problems just multiply.
They have the majority stake in Chrysler, and they've had it for a while now.banibhusan wrote: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.