Ferrari F2012

[speedsense]

...
Well, where is some sense in that, but a lot of cars this year and last year all have funny angles and seem to cope with it.

Xcept for those with pull-rods that is?

So, once again, you said pull-rod have less movement than pull-rod, I shown it is not true. What's wrong with pull-rod?

In the rear not so much, in the front, packaging the location is very complicated with placement of the rockers, springs and the three shocks. Maintaining the aero aspects, access and tuning in such a location....

Think about the structure of the front bulkhead, pedals, legs of the driver, thickness of the driver's feet area, placement of the brake rods (to the masters) etc.
IMHO, Ferrari "Bit" a little further than they could chew. Won't be surprise to see a push rod back in place in the very near future..next race? They do need to go back to what they know, NOW...

[timbo]

In the rear not so much, in the front, packaging the location is very complicated with placement of the rockers, springs and the three shocks. Maintaining the aero aspects, access and tuning in such a location....

Think about the structure of the front bulkhead, pedals, legs of the driver, thickness of the driver's feet area, placement of the brake rods (to the masters) etc.

Well, that's the part of the puzzle and not some inherent defect. We've seen different arrangements on the front, for example steering arm aligned to he lower wishbone, and that was made to work.

IMHO, Ferrari "Bit" a little further than they could chew. Won't be surprise to see a push rod back in place in the very near future..next race? They do need to go back to what they know, NOW...

What makes you think that total repackaging of the front on the existing tub (you don't think they can design, bake and crash test a new tub in 3 weeks time?) is a viable solution to a hypothetical front suspension problem?

[Lycoming]

Pullrod is not a huge stretch and kinematically it is nearly the same as pushrod. I don't think going back to what they "know" is a legitimate argument. Besides that I suspect they would need to crash test a new chassis if they wanted to switch.

It would not surprise me if they switch back to pushrod next year, though if they do, I think it would not be because pullrod does not work but rather that the benefit was really not enough in practice to justify it. I would bet that in the design phase pullrod won out over pushrod by margins that are very slim even by F1 standards, and they went with it because they wanted to try something different.

[banibhusan]

But with the low nose rules coming out in 2014, wouldn't it be better for them to continue exploring the pull-rod setup?

[Lycoming]

With 2014 regulations, the equation changes, and you would have to look at it again. In my opinion while it does make pullrod front more suitable, it doesn't really increase the advantages, which are small in any situation. You have to look at fundamentally what pullrod enables you to gain

Kinematically, pullrod is just pushrod in reverse. Pushrod is more structurally efficient, but pullrod gets you a packaging and/or aerodynamic advantage. Clasically, this means you can lower your center of gravity by packaging your suspension components lower and because the rod becomes a tension member, it can become lighter as well. This is offset by the need to have a stronger upper wishbone due to the greater forces it now experiences, which increases mass and center of gravity height.

This packaging advantage is generally not considered enough to justify pullrod over pushrod. It is likely that ferrari would not have done it if it did not also provide them a non-negligible aerodynamic advantage. As I understand it, this advantage comes from having a nearly horizontal rod, which interacts with the flow coming off the front wing in a more favorable way. If my understanding is correct, a low nose would in fact completely remove this aerodynamic gain.

Coincidentally, the fact that the rod is near horizontal is the main reason cited by the detractors on this forum to justify their argument that pullrod destroys the car.

Personally I don't believe pullrod offers any great advantage. I suspect the thick upper wishbone cuts into whatever aero gain they get from the rod. However, it is clearly not the source of their problems with low top speed and low speed traction.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Moving on from the properly working front pull rod suspension(:D) today the lovely and always entertaining Gary Anderson says the Ferrari FW has been a major problem, especially the end plates.

"Ferrari seem to be trying to get more consistency from the front wing. Whenever the car rolls in a corner, the outboard end gets closer to the ground. The team probably believes it suffers from too great a stall when the front wing gets closer to the ground so it has taken a section out of the outer end(highlighted in yellow). This means that when it does stall, you lose a smaller percentage of downforce. But the more slot gaps you put in, the less downforce you have a slow speed with higher ride height. So it comes down to compromise, I believe that Ferrari's problem lie more with the endplate(original top left)than with the wing and here we can see it trying to be adventurous with 3D thinking. The aim is to get the airflow better around the outside of the tyre to keep control over the separation over the front wing without losing downforce. It's still a very basic endplate and needs to turn the air more around the tyre- which is the blockage that stalls the front wing."



Old wing


New wing & decent look at FWEP

[Pierce89]

Moving on from the properly working front pull rod suspension(:D) today the lovely and always entertaining Gary Anderson says the Ferrari FW has been a major problem, especially the end plates.

"Ferrari seem to be trying to get more consistency from the front wing. Whenever the car rolls in a corner, the outboard end gets closer to the ground. The team probably believes it suffers from too great a stall when the front wing gets closer to the ground so it has taken a section out of the outer end(highlighted in yellow). This means that when it does stall, you lose a smaller percentage of downforce. But the more slot gaps you put in, the less downforce you have a slow speed with higher ride height. So it comes down to compromise, I believe that Ferrari's problem lie more with the endplate(original top left)than with the wing and here we can see it trying to be adventurous with 3D thinking. The aim is to get the airflow better around the outside of the tyre to keep control over the separation over the front wing without losing downforce. It's still a very basic endplate and needs to turn the air more around the tyre- which is the blockage that stalls the front wing."

I'm starting to believe that the improvement from Jaguar to Red Bull was not from getting Newey, but rather getting rid of Gary Anderson.

[bhall]

I'm starting to believe that the improvement from Jaguar to Red Bull was not from getting Newey, but rather getting rid of Gary Anderson.

+20

[Kiril Varbanov]

Personally I don't believe pullrod offers any great advantage. I suspect the thick upper wishbone cuts into whatever aero gain they get from the rod. However, it is clearly not the source of their problems with low top speed and low speed traction.

And that's the general consensus, too, except for Gary Anderson and couple of other people. The former thinks that the front wing is the problem today? Possibly, but the 10 kph shortcoming isn't likely to come from it?

Yesterday in a Twitter chat session the team declared that no push-rod-comeback will happen and I guess that can put an end of the story.

[shelly]

I think that this time Anderson could be right in pointing to the front wing endplate.

IIRC, also scarbs wrote a couple of days ago that ferrari had problems in tht zone, which is critical because of voritces and thaire interaction wit tyre squirt near the contact patch.

[donskar]

I'm starting to believe that the improvement from Jaguar to Red Bull was not from getting Newey, but rather getting rid of Gary Anderson.

+20

And Anderson is currently blessing which team with his superb technical ability?

[bhall]

I think that this time Anderson could be right in pointing to the front wing endplate.

IIRC, also scarbs wrote a couple of days ago that ferrari had problems in tht zone, which is critical because of voritces and thaire interaction wit tyre squirt near the contact patch.

Anderson probably reached that conclusion after reading Scarbs' take on the subject.

[Chuckjr]

That situation ultimately led to a non diffuser-sealed car with poor rake and an enourmous amount of drag, pitch sensititvity and no rear DF at low speeds. That is consistent with the high drag and low rake theory. The car has a bad gasses extraction in the rear and it simply won't work at low speeds, when the wing DF is also poor and dependent on how the car is switching its CoG and its DF CoG.

It seems to me data in Oz was crucial, as their handmade approach gave some results and they decided to make a big step in three thirds during three races, acording to surprisingly accurate twitter rumours.

I think that they will seal the diffuser at all means, because no car has reached a 2010-2012 superiority. What rivals have done is finding a decent level of DF in a straight way to have a good relative aero efficiency. Not a lot more.

That makes incredible sense. Thank you for that explanation.

You state that Ferrari are determined to seal the diffuser and no car has done this very well yet. This implies that in your view the Macca and Sauber solutions are not actually doing much by way of sealing and are just doing a real good job with basic aero and suspension sets? Should that indeed be the case, and Ferrari do indeed seal the diffuser (I believe I read in here the Acer ducts extend further down than any other solution by a large margin), how much improvement on track in time will this provide in your estimation? 

Secondly, is that hope/determination the reason they are so convinced this design will come to them, and will offer a huge advantage later in the season?

[raymondu999]

I'm starting to believe that the improvement from Jaguar to Red Bull was not from getting Newey, but rather getting rid of Gary Anderson.

+20

And Anderson is currently blessing which team with his superb technical ability?

Why, the BBC team of course!

[bhall]

That situation ultimately led to a non diffuser-sealed car [...]

[...](I believe I read in here the Acer ducts extend further down than any other solution by a large margin), how much improvement on track in time will this provide in your estimation?

Secondly, is that hope/determination the reason they are so convinced this design will come to them, and will offer a huge advantage later in the season?

The diffuser works, else the car wouldn't be as quick through fast corners. "Sealing" the diffuser will mean that the car's suspension/rake can be set up as intended, which should go a long way toward curing traction and top speed issues.

The altered angle of attack of its aerodynamic surfaces could also solve the F2012's instability woes.