Ferrari F2012

[F1.Ru]

The point being that it cannot be assumed that Ferrari's problems can be solved simply by adding downforce - which it is probably lacking as well. Whatever they might say I still bet we will see a new chassis at Barcelona and a new, known, front suspension layout. It's really the only way Ferrari can move forwards from a known point.

Okay, we have a testable prediction. I agree that we cannot assume anything but don't think we've seen any evidence of a problem with the front suspension. So I predict that come the Barcelona upgrade of the car they will have focussed on the exhaust solution, reprofiled the side pods, and updated the rear of the car but left the front suspension intact.

Let's see who is right

+1 for me.

I think we see that Ferrari sometimes act or design their car very conservatively, so they play catch up. But with this aggressive car design they may change a lot of design philosophy but they don't forget their maths and FS is something that you can actually design with 100% precision and can measure the effect of that in the car. But can't tell abt the rear end downforce, caz the amount air transfer to the rear end can create downforce as well as drag. So may be Ferrari are chasing for rear end downforce and trying their best to shed some additional drag that may make the car unstable in the slow speed corner.

And abt changing layout of FS i think Ferrai has more important task at hand right now, so they will be focus on them and if FS layout is really problematic then they will change it after fixing bigger problem like exhaust position, FWFD, Rear wing's DRS enabled F-Duct, Tyre wear etc........

[Lycoming]

I would think that depends a bit on if you plan to relocate the wishbones as well, otherwise I guess you need a new upright,
push-rod and room for relocating springs/dampers, as well as pick-up points for the latter, but that could surely be done?

There's probably no point relocating the wishbones, but they would need new ones. Correct about the new upright as well.

If we look at the diagram from scarbs' F2012 launch review, the damper mounts have to move for sure because they are in the way of the rocker. At the same time, you need to find some sort of hard point at the top to mount a new rocker. Its unlikely that you could re-purpose the damper mounts for this. IF you could do that, then my guess is you would probably run drop links down to where the current components are, and you need to find some new place to mount the dampers.

If it were possible, which I highly doubt, it would likely come with a great amount of unnecessary weight, and would probably be even less stiff than the current installation. They're much better off trying to fix things which they can do without a new tub, particularly at this point where they need to move forward quickly. New front wing endplates, new exhaust, etc. are more worthwhile directions to pursue. They probably entail less work with much more potential benefits.

To be honest, if they tried to fit pushrod in the current tub, they would probably just go backwards. And designing and crash testing a new tub would waste time that they simply do not have.

[xpensive]

...
To be honest, if they tried to fit pushrod in the current tub, they would probably just go backwards. And designing and crash testing a new tub would waste time that they simply do not have.

Why my kriztal ball now says a new tub with an MP4-27:esque low nose and a pull-rod with a more reasonable geometry.

[Jersey Tom]

...
To be honest, if they tried to fit pushrod in the current tub, they would probably just go backwards. And designing and crash testing a new tub would waste time that they simply do not have.

Why my kriztal ball now says a new tub with an MP4-27:esque low nose and a pull-rod with a more reasonable geometry.

What is unreasonable about the current geometry?

[xpensive]

...
To be honest, if they tried to fit pushrod in the current tub, they would probably just go backwards. And designing and crash testing a new tub would waste time that they simply do not have.

Why my kriztal ball now says a new tub with an MP4-27:esque low nose and a pull-rod with a more reasonable geometry.

What is unreasonable about the current geometry?

This one is just for you JT; From my untouchable ebony tower of desk-engineering, I see spring-energy as force times travel,
while travel in this case is short it requires higher force, which is evidenced by the phatt upper wishbone. As a consequence,
the higher force is affecting the stiffness and precision of the entire linkage.

Moreover, the force is dependent on track-whith increase, which in my stupid mind simply cannot be right.

[Lycoming]

f = -kx.

This is true.

HOWEVER: It is NOT the reason the upper wishbone is fat. And, as I have said so many times in the past, the spring travel HAS NOT CHANGED APPRECIABLY due to rocker geometry.

Why is the upper wishbone fat? Free body diagram!



See how in pullrod, both arrows point towards the upper corner of the upright? This means that, inherently, the force the upper wishbone needs to react increases. THIS is the reason the upper wishbone is so fat.

Also: Force does not affect precision. That is purely down to manufacturing tolerances. Additionally, if they know about the forces in the system, which a high schooler could easily figure out since they're all axial forces, let alone people who design monocoques, they can design their suspension to have the same stiffness with higher force. How in that possible?

well, engineers define something called stress, denoted by a lower case sigma that is equal to force / Cross sectional area. There is another unitless quantity known as strain, denoted by lower case epsilon. also, we know that:

stress = E * strain, where E is the material's elastic modulus.

now, if I increase force, then my stress increases, and so does strain, which is essentially the ratio of elongation. BUT, if I also increase cross sectional area, then I can keep the stress to be the same, and thus strain does not change either.

Basic physics and structural engineering says your arguments are invalid.

[flyboy2160]

f = -kx.
...

Why is the upper wishbone fat? Free body diagram!

....

Uh, I think you have errors/confusion in your FBD. When the suspension is loaded, the pullrods are in tension, not compression as you show.

And like wise, the pushrods are in compression.

Or maybe I'm looking at the arrows differently...

edited to add FBD:

With the pullrod in tension, the upper wishbone is in compression. as mentioned previously, that's why its fatter with a pullrod suspension.

[xpensive]

f = -kx.

This is true.
...
now, if I increase force, then my stress increases, and so does strain, which is essentially the ratio of elongation. BUT, if I also increase cross sectional area, then I can keep the stress to be the same, and thus strain does not change either.

Basic physics and structural engineering says your arguments are invalid.

I humbly believe there's a little more to it, as limited displacement gives more relative importance to stiffness and clearance.

The longer the displacement, less the importance to tolerances, deflections and joint clearances.

[timbo]

I humbly believe there's a little more to it, as limited displacement gives more relative importance to stiffness and clearance.

The longer the displacement, less the importance to tolerances, deflections and joint clearances.

Please demonstrate how push-rod had significantly bigger displacement.

[alogoc]

Official Ferrari Twitter said they will NOT change fron suspension this season!!!
Case closed!!!

[bhall]

Is the change in thickness of the wishbones even all that appreciable?


(Click to enlarge)

Frankly, I think this is all much ado about nothing. At all.

[Lycoming]

... which is exactly what I and several other people have been saying for some time. I think it's pretty clear by now that they will not be changing the suspension, and that it is not the cause of their abysmal pace. I'm not going to dignify further arguments about pullrod unless something new comes to light. Trying to talk sense into a brick wall is a waste of forum bandwidth.

Moving on: Do you guys think they'll have an exhaust update ready for China?

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Moving on: Do you guys think they'll have an exhaust update ready for China?

I asked Ferrari if they would have a new or modified exhaust before Mugello/Spain and they told me "we will see". So while I certainly think it's possible, I doubt it. I would think they probably want to test it in Mugello first before using it in a race.
They said we wouldn't see any "major" updates in China or Bahrain, only small aero developments. Of course that could be tactics.

[Lycoming]

Thats reasonable, they may want to learn more about what is effectively their test platform before trying to make big changes. Still, even if they don't race parts, they can test it in practice prior to mugello.

[bhall]

At first, I was inclined to agree that Ferrari will likely wait until the Mugello test to trial and implement a new exhaust solution, but the win in Malaysia may have changed the script. That race was expected to be a veritable bloodbath; I believe Alonso's quote was that it should be, "a baptism by fire." They likely went into last weekend with the mindset that a points finish would be a victory. Instead...

So, I wonder what, if anything, has changed.

Shanghai doesn't necessarily reward a strong aerodynamic package, but it can punish cars with low top-speed and/or poor traction, problems that have been identified in the F2012. However, the team can experiment rather freely with setup or other developments since it will not arrive at the circuit in the damage limitation mode that would have been the case without last week's win.

Given the similarities between Shanghai and Bahrain, and the safety net of the subsequent Mugello test, Ferrari could, and I think should, "spend" those 25 points from Malaysia, so to speak, and be extremely aggressive.