A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
But he didn't say that it is downforce at the front that is a problem. And as far as I remember, last year problem with downforce was at the rear because of which they needed to run less front wing to balance the car so that it doesn't slide and destroy rear tires.
How from "they have a bit more horsepower than us and a bit more downforce than us" someone can came up to "front wing is looking simpler and producing less downforce" is still beyond me
agreed. im pretty sure ferrari is running the front wing they think is the best solution for their car.
that simple front wing won the last race ... keep that in mind : )
But he didn't say that it is downforce at the front that is a problem. And as far as I remember, last year problem with downforce was at the rear because of which they needed to run less front wing to balance the car so that it doesn't slide and destroy rear tires.
How from "they have a bit more horsepower than us and a bit more downforce than us" someone can came up to "front wing is looking simpler and producing less downforce" is still beyond me
"they have a bit more horsepower than us and a bit more downforce than us"
I assume if Mercedes have more downforce than Ferrari it goes for front and rear of the car. It is all about balance.
What do you mean? That Ferrari have equal amount of downforce at front compared to Mercedes? Can you please share results of your measurements to back that claim up?
Ferrari FW looks more simple, producing less downforce. Let`s hope Ferrari will come with some updates for their FW.
To be honest, such posts are quite sickening. Just because something looks simple, does not automatically mean it poduces less downforce or is less efficient. Unless you have numbers on that front wing, not you, I or somebody at Mercedes can tell how much downforce this wing produces and how this compares to the competition.
We can discuss what a wing or its pieces of the wing do or how they function, but there's nothing we can tell about performance. The latter falls under speculation, explicitly mentioned in the first post that that is not allowed.
Ferrari made a huge change with their front wing philosophy, so did Mercedes in China (Malaysia). We will get to see development of both,
hollus wrote:Amazing how that front pull rod is killing both their pace and their tires.
Hahaha I had thought of this. Funny how all those critics are now silent.
Not much to post about in the McLaren Honda threads?
Internet trolls being internet trolls. I comment most on the McLaren Honda threads because that is the team I support. However that doesn't mean I don't look at other teams and look at their engineering objectively. I just find it quite funny that there were so many people who were practically shouting their anger at Ferrari saying that they made the wrong choice sticking with front pull rod and now that Ferrari do well in a race all those critics have suddenly closed their mouth.
Ferrari FW looks more simple, producing less downforce. Let`s hope Ferrari will come with some updates for their FW.
To be honest, such posts are quite sickening. Just because something looks simple, does not automatically mean it poduces less downforce or is less efficient. Unless you have numbers on that front wing, not you, I or somebody at Mercedes can tell how much downforce this wing produces and how this compares to the competition.
We can discuss what a wing or its pieces of the wing do or how they function, but there's nothing we can tell about performance. The latter falls under speculation, explicitly mentioned in the first post that that is not allowed.
Ferrari made a huge change with their front wing philosophy, so did Mercedes in China (Malaysia). We will get to see development of both,
Could it be because Ferrari are running blown front axles and Mercedes not?
Hence the effort in Mercedes' front wing to turn the air flow outside the front tyres, and not so much from Ferrari.
I just find it quite funny that there were so many people who were practically shouting their anger at Ferrari saying that they made the wrong choice sticking with front pull rod and now that Ferrari do well in a race all those critics have suddenly closed their mouth.
To be fair, though, the lower chassis this season has allowed more conventional geometry, and the greatly thickened wishbones, especially the top one, which is heavily loaded in a pull-rod layout, suggest a massive improvement in installation stiffness, both areas of primary concern for those who previously questioned the logic of the choice.
trinidefender wrote:
Hahaha I had thought of this. Funny how all those critics are now silent.
Not much to post about in the McLaren Honda threads?
Internet trolls being internet trolls. I comment most on the McLaren Honda threads because that is the team I support. However that doesn't mean I don't look at other teams and look at their engineering objectively. I just find it quite funny that there were so many people who were practically shouting their anger at Ferrari saying that they made the wrong choice sticking with front pull rod and now that Ferrari do well in a race all those critics have suddenly closed their mouth.
The best part is that you suppose that they are doing well because of the front pull rod setup, which might not even be the case. Anyway, as you put it yourself... internet trolls! LOL
Jarno, trinidefender's assertion is correct. People like Matthew Somers, Craig Scarborough and especially Enrique Scalabrone have been telling for years now the choice between pull- and pushrod is of little matter on how easy a car is on its tyres or how driveable the car is. He is also correct in his assertion that people have been attacking ferrari ever since they started using front pull rod, even though as explained it makes little sense.
I also have to add that Trinidefender did not target you specifically when he said we are not getting criticism now that Ferrari shows good pace. It speaks a whole lot that you had to react on it. If you are feeling he is targetting you, then that's unfortunaly your problem.
Bhall showed that the suspension geometry is of much higher importance.
A discussion on how suspension and the rod influences tyre wear or driveability is perfectly fine. However, trying to get personal will not be tolerated any further, and will be answered with disciplinary action.
Fer.Fan wrote:I assume if Mercedes have more downforce than Ferrari it goes for front and rear of the car. It is all about balance.
What do you mean? That Ferrari have equal amount of downforce at front compared to Mercedes? Can you please share results of your measurements to back that claim up?
I haven't made any such claim. You made a claim stating that Ferrari's front wing in its current form is simpler looking and therefore producing less downforce. You did not provide any evidence for that so I asked for it. That is how things work...when you claim something you need evidence to back it up or it has no merit really. That is where all the fuss, at least from my side came.
I do agree with you and with probably everyone else that Mercedes has better car than Ferrari. However, I have no evidence on which to base any assertion that any specific part of the car is where that difference is.
Don`t know it`s the right thread but nonetheless I`ll drop it here ...
On other forum there are many voices which are saying the revival of Ferrari is due the following factors:
1. First and foremost they improved their ERS so much that now they could deploy almost anytime all the max. 160HP allowed by the rules, and responsible for that is their new and more efficient MGU-H.
2. Then their new software for power management has been doing great steps forward, this being one of their issues last year.
3. Many think their ERS is now the class of the field, outpacing Merc one, hence allowing them (together with their new power management software) to save more fuel than Merc team even though we don`t see that in the race fuel consumption graphics.
4. A new and powerful fuel formula, something that it`s going to pop somewhere this year or the following years, combined with the added fuel saved by the much improved ERS, are responsible for a much powerful ICE, hence their improved top speeds traps but mostly their top speed sector traps.
Sounds realistic or not?
Last edited by atanatizante on 11 Apr 2015, 07:38, edited 1 time in total.
atanatizante wrote:Don`t know it`s the right thread but nonetheless I`ll drop it here ...
On other forum there are many voices which are saying the revival of Ferrari is due the following factors:
1. First and foremost they improved their ERS so much that now they could deploy almost anytime all the max. 160HP allowed by the rules, and responsible for that is their new and more efficient MGU-H.
2. Then their new software for power management has been doing great steps forward, this being one of their issues last year.
3. Many think their ERS is now the class of the field, outpacing Merc one, hence allowing them (together with their new power management software) to save more fuel than Merc team even though we don`t see that in the race fuel consumption graphics.
4. A new an powerful fuel formula, something that it`s going to pop somewhere this year or the following years, combined with the added fuel saved by the much improved ERS, are responsible for a much powerful ICE, hence their improved top speeds traps but mostly their top speed sector traps.
Sounds realistic or not?
together with tyre and top speed advantage (philosophy) I see VET Wdc as done deal
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.
