Ferrari F14T

[Avocado]

They are currently running with the more basic specc

Come on, only 5 days left. Do you really believe they will change everything next week? I think that you are very naive.

[theformula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fL3kkTZi_4

I was impressed with the levels of rake the Mercedes is running, but recently seeing some photos of the F14T and this video, it impresses me even more, they are at least as much, and I think even more rake.

I think Ferrari are going to surprise a lot of people when they put all the cards on the table. They are currently running with the more basic specc amongst the top teams (that front wing is almost silly), they have quietly gone about their business, amazing reliability... I have a gut feeling Ferrari will be in front in the first races.

I'm sorry but Ferrari are definitely not running as much rake as the Mercedes, let alone more...

[Italiano]

Rake without the blown diffusers is NOT a good criteria anymore. It has lost significance and that's a fact. What will matter this year is powertrain reliability and efficiency. Period.

[Pilatus]

Rake without the blown diffusers is NOT a good criteria anymore. It has lost significance and that's a fact. What will matter this year is powertrain reliability and efficiency. Period.

"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines."

Il Commendatore approves this season.




But, when we already mentioned aerodynamics - what has changed on F14T since first run in Jerez?
Just diffuser?

[Owen.C93]

Rake without the blown diffusers is NOT a good criteria anymore. It has lost significance and that's a fact. What will matter this year is powertrain reliability and efficiency. Period.

Rake is still good. Ok powertrain might rule the early races, but you cannot say being able to achieve high rake stability isn't a good thing.

[Artur Craft]

I'm not really understanding all these affirmation without knowledge.
If we are commenting here, instead of taking decision into an F1 team, there's surely a reason, do you all agree?
It's a sort of frustration reading all these comments that threat f1 engineers like newbies. They have degrees, knowledge and tools to do their job, let them work.
Another thing that is bothering me is: how can you judge, only by looking at it, if a fw/rw/diffuser is messed up or extremely good?
Do you have cfd or windtunnel data? If yes, show them, otherwise do not judge as if you had the truth in your pocket, thanks.

I know that I'm a little off topic, but I had to write it...hope you understand, thanks.

I understand you and agree. As others already said, that's the only thing we can do. We don't have CFD being run on super computers(if you don't have a super PC, you can't get into the accuracy needed because the meshs would be to rough), neither access to state of the art wind tunnels and etc.

The aim of this forum is to discuss technically, it doesn't matter if we're wrong. It'sl always important to bring ideas, hypothesis about what we see.

Even though none of us have an idea of the amount of df, for instance, a car have, it is possible to see if a wing or a diffuser is giving more downforce, in some cases where the different in shape is big enough.

For instance, the diffuser Ferrari is using now is a lot more agressive than the previous one and I'm confident it gives more df.

Another example can the the FWs, if a flap is steeper than the other, it will generate more drag and downforce, given it doesn't start stalling. The cut offs teams use in their FWs is to allow some air into the low pressure zone in order to not stall the wing. This allows them to use higher AoA in their flaps(see Mercedes/Red Bull FW)

About rake, I didn't see many difference among cars. In some shots, it appeared to me that Sauber was running the most, but then, that might be due to the position the shot was taken(as under braking there will be body rolling and rake will increase)



Ferrari is the team I mostly have seen measuring pressures everywhere. This is a very good thing. In the worst case, they are realizing eventual discrepancies between wind tunnel data and reality. In the best case, they are validating the data and confirming what they expected from a solution. One thing is certain, if Ferrari finds out, with this pitot tubes, that the air pressure is not what they were expecting it to be, right after the nose tip, they will soon alter it. They have the biggest budget so a modification is not that difficult for them.

To end this post, I'm not panicking about the Mclaren and Mercedes times, I think they just fitted soft tyres, low fuel and went for a qualifying simulation. Other cars are probably still not focusing on such program

[Rikhart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fL3kkTZi_4

I was impressed with the levels of rake the Mercedes is running, but recently seeing some photos of the F14T and this video, it impresses me even more, they are at least as much, and I think even more rake.

I think Ferrari are going to surprise a lot of people when they put all the cards on the table. They are currently running with the more basic specc amongst the top teams (that front wing is almost silly), they have quietly gone about their business, amazing reliability... I have a gut feeling Ferrari will be in front in the first races.

I'm sorry but Ferrari are definitely not running as much rake as the Mercedes, let alone more...

They are. Look to the inner wheel rim for a rough reference:

[RZS10]

they are, he is right. (ofc that comparison is not perfect due to angles etc. but they are fairly close)

[Rikhart]

Wow that was exactly what I was thinking of doing, but done much better than I would have =D>

[bonjon1979]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14134662/rake.jpg
they are, he is right. (ofc that comparison is not perfect due to angles etc. but they are fairly close)

All this is meaningless, different angles, different distances between subject and lens, different lenses, all of these things completely change all of these calculations. From behind is the worst angle to accurately try to work out what the rake of the car is from front to back of the car. Only way to do it is from the side, on the same piece of ground so you can accurately compare the angle from front to rear.

[motobaleno]

well...merc and macca times impressed me: I can't deny it.
according to autosprint, it is already evident that they are in front...
but AS in the same article writes also that merc engines have advantage in top speed
(they didn't present any trap speed data though)
then AMuS reported alo top speed...
maybe there is more to see
and it's not sure that someone knows what

[motobaleno]

All this is meaningless, different angles, different distances between subject and lens, different lenses, all of these things completely change all of these calculations. From behind is the worst angle to accurately try to work out what the rake of the car is from front to back of the car. Only way to do it is from the side, on the same piece of ground so you can accurately compare the angle from front to rear.

well you are partially right: angles, distance, lense:ok.
but in theory, rake in a F1 car could be easily traduced in height, since we can be sure that the reference plane is the minimum allowed for every car. so, if you were able to precisely measure or compare the height of only the front wing or only the rear diffuser when the car is at rest, you would know the rake...then actually to do it you have all the problems you say

[bonjon1979]

All this is meaningless, different angles, different distances between subject and lens, different lenses, all of these things completely change all of these calculations. From behind is the worst angle to accurately try to work out what the rake of the car is from front to back of the car. Only way to do it is from the side, on the same piece of ground so you can accurately compare the angle from front to rear.

well you are partially right: angles, distance, lense:ok.
but in theory, rake in a F1 car could be easily traduced in height, since we can be sure that the reference plane is the minimum allowed for every car. so, if you were able to precisely measure or compare the height of only the front wing or only the rear diffuser when the car is at rest, you would know the rake...then actually to do it you have all the problems you say

Look at the angle of the added red lines on both pictures and how they are related to the frame. There is a big difference, the difference in that angle is the most important because it completely changes how the common reference point of the tyre can be measured, which makes the images incomparable in any meaningful way. Not saying one has more rake than the other, just that this comparison isn't technically sound by any stretch of the imagination.

[ecapox]

Is his calculation perfect? No.
Is it a valiant effort? Yes.
Is it a point of reference? Yes.

Its easy to poo poo others work when you don't agree with it. The hard part is coming up with a competing calculation. Say "I disagree with your calculations. Here are some others that are, in my opinion, more accurate."

[beelsebob]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14134662/rake.jpg
they are, he is right. (ofc that comparison is not perfect due to angles etc. but they are fairly close)

Even a very tiny change in camera angle will throw this result off enormously. I honestly expect that a 5% change in camera angle could result in a 50% change in the output diffuser height.