Ferrari F2012

[Goran2812]

that's an excellent question... I'm wondering this myself now... Can they?

[Schulteiss]

that's an excellent question... I'm wondering this myself now... Can they?

Why couldn't they? I hardly think that is regulated since it could happen every 100 years. What would be the real benefit of that?

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Overhead comparison with the 150 Italia



Link

[hardingfv32]

Can a team concurrently homologate two different chassis designs?

They can test any chassis that passed the crash tests, but they must use only one design/configuration for the season.

Brian

[ElRebelde]

Ferrari seem to have their front suspension well thought out despite fears about the low pull rod angle. Can certainly see this be copied in the future: http://www.vivaf1.com/blog/?p=10280



http://www.vivaf1.com/blog/?p=10280

[Schulteiss]

Can a team concurrently homologate two different chassis designs?

They can test any chassis that passed the crash tests, but they must use only one design/configuration for the season.

Brian

No. They can test any chassis that passed the crash tests, and they can crash test any number of chassis. They can run any chassis that has passed the crash tests in the season. I understand that is what the question was.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Can a team concurrently homologate two different chassis designs?

They can test any chassis that passed the crash tests, but they must use only one design/configuration for the season.

Brian

No. They can test any chassis that passed the crash tests, and they can crash test any number of chassis. They can run any chassis that has passed the crash tests in the season. I understand that is what the question was.

This was my understanding as well. Not sure if they would actually want to run two different designs, but it sounded legal if they so chose.

[bhall]

I wasn't sure about it either way. I asked because I think the regulations, especially regarding the nose, have gotten so tight that it would likely require a substantially new chassis design to adjust anything. I wondered then if a team might build and test two different designs/solutions before settling on one. If allowed, I think I'd go that route if I was trying a risky design for a car.

I know that doesn't really add to the discussion, but I thank you for the help nonetheless.

[alogoc]

maybe just a wild guess but it looks to me that at the moment RB8 is faster than F2012 but Ferrari has much more solutions and will end up faster!

[Owen.C93]

Ferrari seem to have their front suspension well thought out despite fears about the low pull rod angle. Can certainly see this be copied in the future: http://www.vivaf1.com/blog/?p=10280



http://www.vivaf1.com/blog/?p=10280

I would like to see that graphic compared to pushrod with the red line as a fixed length to compare the amount of movement.

[NoDivergence]

No reason to go pullrod in the front.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

No reason to go pullrod in the front.

Says you, with all due respect. People said the same of pull rod rear until Newey brought it back. We will only truly know the answer of this question next year at this time.

[ledzep4pm]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But looking the IC (True Roll Centre), of the front suspension, the front view swing arm length appears to be negative, i.e. it heads away from the car centre line.

This would mean in bump the camber would increase in the positive direction, so it would be less negative.

I haven't looked at any other cars to see if this is common or not. As was always taught as a rule of thumb that positive camber should be avoided.

[hardingfv32]

This was my understanding as well. Not sure if they would actually want to run two different designs, but it sounded legal if they so chose.

... that they are stuck with one design/configuration for the complete season? No development of the chassis once the races start.

Rear F duct: Everyone would have copied McLaren's ideal design if they could have. They needed a hole in the chassis that they could not install without changing the chassis.

Brian

[Intego]

Correct. The reason for this restriction was/still is cost cutting.