Ferrari F2012 launch

[Peter.]

But a huge "ramp" thing on the Ferrari just spells unnecessary drag for whatever downforce they are attaining.

The Mclaren looks like a conventional tried and true design of slippery aero, while the Ferrari reminds me of an oddity from past: Remember the Walrus nose on the BMW? I think it was the 2004 season?

We are not highly skilled F1 engineers. We don't see how these cars pierce the air, and what they do with the air. We just assume from what we see. Considering that Ferrari are not the first to go with the stepped nose, it says that it does have some benefit, or the drag that it creates is made up elsewhere. The fact that McLaren don't have it simply says that their car's already low nose was working well for them already, and completely changing the nose to a stepped nose would disturb the aerodynamics around the car.

 

[The Outlaw]

When didn't they? When was the last ugly car that actually won anything? And why is it that aesthetics suddenly mean nothing as soon as Ferrari produce an ugly car?


I don't think the nose is awkward. I think the whole car is awkward.

Well, you being in a Ferrari thread is always going to lead to awkward statements and disucussion to begin with.

The simple fact is that aesthetics don't have any scientific correlation to on track performance...and I hope you really don't think a multi billionaire dollar team with the resources of Ferrari (who have Rory Byrne as a resource - one of the best aerodynamicist in the business) would actually buy into such an idea

Beyond all that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway, so who's to say which car is better looking than another. And just for arguments sakes, I found the William's FW33 to look more elegant/refined from outward appearance than last years Ferrari...yet look at how they compared in terms of on track performance last season.

McLaren took the time to design a car that looks quite good. Ferrari's design reeks of "we'r only doing this because we have to, not because we want to".

Teams will go with whatever design they believe will perform the best, well before worrying about how pleasing the car is to the eye.

I'll leave you with this:

However, team boss Stefano Domenicali is adamant looks don't count when it comes to pace out on track.

"Actually it's not really so pretty from my personal perspective, but this is a value that doesn't count in F1," he said.

"These choices are from both technical regulation constraints and the choices to try to maximise the performance of the car.

"The fact that it's ugly or very nice doesn't count a lot, the most important thing is the car has to be performing."

But a huge "ramp" thing on the Ferrari just spells unnecessary drag for whatever downforce they are attaining.

I think for most teams, the high nose philosophy with the awkward ramp will be a necessary evil, as getting as much air driven under the car and through the nose is extremely critical to creating as much efficient downforce through the rear diffuser (which has a very low drag to downforce coefficient in comparison to a typical wing) as possible.

Technically speaking, you could also argue that what Mclaren might gain by not having the hump on the nose (with reduced drag in that particular region), they give up in not being able to create as much efficient downforce in the middle to rear of the car through the diffuser (which would be a result of the lower nose). And if the diffuser isn't as effective as some of the teams with the higher/stepped nose, they might end up having to run larger more aggressive wings (which don't produce downforce as efficiently), which will mean much more drag in the end. Once again, it's the typical give and take when it comes to either of the 2 design philosphies.

 

[HKS racer]

Good post Outlaw

Technically speaking, you could also argue that what Mclaren might gain by not having the hump on the nose (with reduced drag in that particular region), they give up in not being able to create as much efficient downforce in the middle to rear of the car through the diffuser (which would be a result of the lower nose). And if the diffuser isn't as effective as some of the teams with the higher/stepped nose, they might end up having to run larger more aggressive wings (which don't produce downforce as efficiently), which will mean much more drag in the end. Once again, it's the typical give and take when it comes to either of the 2 design philosphies.

About McLaren you're right they have a totally different approach. They are supposed to direct less air under the car (but that is just a theory for now) and to run with more agressive wings to compensate. Anyway this is speculation time, we don't have any performance reference, so I just talk about feelings. I saw the McL closely and I think they did a good job, I expect them to be on top 3 at least. About Ferrari I have no idea what they'll come up with, at the moment the car is like an Unknown Flying Object on the F1 radars. They could even struggle to make some points because of too many new parts or even kill the championship from Race 1.
I'm eagerly waiting to see Lotus and RedBull now.

 

[The Outlaw]

Good post Outlaw


About McLaren you're right they have a totally different approach. They are supposed to direct less air under the car (but that is just a theory for now) and to run with more agressive wings to compensate. Anyway this is speculation time, we don't have any performance reference, so I just talk about feelings. I saw the McL closely and I think they did a good job, I expect them to be on top 3 at least. About Ferrari I have no idea what they'll come up with, at the moment the car is like an Unknown Flying Object on the F1 radars. They could even struggle to make some points because of too many new parts or even kill the championship from Race 1.
I'm eagerly waiting to see Lotus and RedBull now.

Thanks.

In a way, from a aerodynamic standpoint I think most F1 designers/engineers would say that Mclaren are the ones who went with the more risky and extreme approach with the low nose (even moreso if the plow is deemed illegal), so that they could "place the mass of the nose lower and enable it to fit its preferred front suspension geometry." To a lot of people it might not seem this way (that Mclaren took the risky approach), simply because the MP4-27 nose is a much cleaner looking shape that the general audience would expect to see.

I think for Ferrari, the most notable thing they will have to deal with on the new F2012 will be the pullrod suspension and getting the tires to work as well as Red Bull did last year....and crucially doing so in very short order. This in itself will be a very big chore (especially given how poor they were last year), but with the recent acquisition of Bridgestone tire development chief, Hirohide Hamashima (who was said to have figured out the F150's tire issue in very short order) and Ferrari's every increasing design infrastructure and strength, one can be hopeful for success. I think (just my opinion) this car will be extremely good aerodynamically, so it will just be a matter getting on top of the suspension/tires and making sure the new parts (like the gearbox) haven't been taken past the strength/relability threshold. Of course, one must always be aware of the next silver bullet (i.e. EBD, F-duct, DDD) and improvising for such, but I think the the clampdown of the regulations has begun to limit any devices that could have such benefit for the time being...but the Newey's of the sport will continue to pull rabbits out of their hats, just when we thought there was nothing left to implement

 

[jcm]

Alonso's rumored new helmet

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't understand why the teams repeatedly make the mistake of taking Charlie Whiting's word as the word of the law. He can only give an opinion of what he thinks might be legal or illegal but he clearly does not know every little technical regulation off-by-heart. It seems most teams ask him if a particular part meets a certain regulation..but seem to forget there are other regulations and that Charlie is not going to have every answer.

Its a little annoying for people to keep moaning about how the FIA is inconsistent on this. To me its pretty consistent:
Teams ask Charlie if a part is ok.
Charlie says yes as far as he knows.
Another team/FIA notice said part is illegal.
Part is banned.

Perhaps we should instead moan about the teams not being able to read the technical regulations properly or trying to pass parts that they know already are illegal.

So yeah, poor Charlie haha.

Well the FIA doesn't have the best track record so not really seeing why some blame is shafted to them. Why would we moan about teams? We all know they can read perfectly fine but undermining the rules at times is the name of the game at the end of the day.

Like you say in the end it is poor Charlie because as you point out can only suggest to the teams. Yet the teams take it to heart and when their house of cards falls, I'm sure Charlie is first to hear about it. Also the FIA may not fully inform charlie to the best lengths possible, which wouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Ardius]

I'm more annoyed that the teams always name Charlie as the person who told them their parts were legal only for the FIA to later ban them. It then causes some fans to then moan how inconsistent the FIA are in this area, as if Charlie words were the FIA saying its legal and then illegal.
These fans should read between the lines a little more.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I blame more of the teams just not being smart enough to find a loop hole. Not everyone is a Brawn GP or RBR, I say the FIA is inconsistent because of several series, not just their handling of F1 that'd be quite elitist. However:

Charlie Whiting (born 1952[1]) is FIA Formula One Race Director, Safety Delegate, Permanent Starter and head of the F1 Technical Department, in which capacities he generally manages the logistics of each F1 Grand Prix, inspects cars in Parc fermé before a race, enforces FIA rules, and controls the lights which start each race.

Essentially Whiting has to be a referee, a scrutineer, a safety inspector, a politician and an engineer all rolled into one. So remember, if you don't hear his name again all season it means he's continuing to do a brilliant job. F1 simply wouldn't work without him.

Point is the way you explain it makes Charlie seem like a very unecessary middle man, when in fact he isn't and if he was then he should save himself the trip to Jerez. Point is he has a deeper insight to the rules and regulations than any of us desk jockies and there at times seems to be a undermining of his suggest or ruling by the top brass of the FIA. A group who mirco manages and hasn't made the best choices; WRC this year could make the claim. However, F1 once again isn't my primary reason for the negatives I direct toward the FIA.

Also I agree once again, that blaiming Charlie is old hat at the end of the day. From his vantage point of the rules and regulations it seems fine, but I'm sure he doesn't give a 100% go ahead.

 

[Ardius]

I don't mean to make Charlie sound insignificant, just that its kind of like asking any single person of any company an opinion and then taking it out of context as the company opinion, rather than that person's. Sure, if that person is quite important and is directly involved in what you are asking about, you would expect a correct answer or sound advice. But to then make the company accountable rather than the person for that answer is the ridiculous part.

I'll also include the media in making this confusion worse.

I have no problem with complaing about the FIA's decision when they are inconsistent and in the wrong. But I'm a little sick of people always resorting to "FIA do it again" without much reason to at all.

 

[magpie1997]

There's rumour around the net that the McLaren nose is illegal actually. Apparently the FIA inspector are gonna go to the test days in february and check a lots of stuff on the new cars (all manufacturer). So until then I wouldnt say this car is good or that one is not.

Well hopefully they don't have to change the McLaren nose into an ugly nose

 

[niky]

There's actually little doubt most teams are smart enough to read regulations, and smart enough to try to find loopholes. The problem is the regulations themselves. If the regulations are clearly written and fully detailed, then there should be no need of interpretation.

What comes into play is the politics and bickering over what parts are legal, and the FIA, in the end, is going to take the narrowest possible view in order to keep other teams from moaning. Which they will, anyway, ref: Red Bull's flexible but legal nose last year...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the regulations are clearly written and fully detailed, then there should be no need of interpretation.

The problem with this is that designers will always earn more money finding and exploiting those loopholes than they will closing them off. And I doubt that even Adrian Newey could write a set of regulations that are free of loopholes.

I, personally, have no problems with the FIA closing off loopholes. We all know that the teams flaunt them at any and every opportunity. The problem comes when there is a contradiction within the rules, and 99% of the time, it never occured to anyone that there was a contradiction until events played out in such a way that the contradiction showed itself. The end of the 2010 Monaco Grand Prix was a perfect example of this - Ferrari and Mercedes both interpreted the rules relating to overtaking once the safety car is called in. Both were equally-valid interpretations, and the issue had never been addressed because it had never come up before. Hence, the FIA was forced to rule one way or another, and make that ruling law, so that if those circumstances ever came up again, the procedure would be crystal clear. They took a lot of criticism for ruling in favour of Ferrari, but I guarantee you they would have taken equal criticism if they had accepted Mercedes' interpretation of the rules. This, I think, is what the FIA is trying to avoid.

 

[hawkeye122]

If there were no loopholes. F1 cars would be as unique as Indy cars by 2015.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If there were no loopholes.

A rule book without loopholes is impossible. There will always be a way of interpreting things. Just look at the MP4-27 compared to the F2012: both are very different at the front end. Both are very legal in their interpretation of the rules related to the nose.

 

[niky]

Then you have the absolutely bizarre rulings, such as the clarification that you can't pass for at least two corners after you go off... applied retroactively to Lewis Hamilton... Though that's way off-topic...

But that's far from the point. It's perfectly possible to have strict physical measurement rules, as with NASCAR's car templates, which still allow tremendous room for aerodynamic advantage.

The current rules are at least relatively unambiguous about what they allow, but that doesn't guarantee that clarifications won't be forthcoming.

What I hate is "spirit of the rules" clarifications. If the part is genuinely within the rules and genuinely useful, it should be allowed, unless safety dictates that it is unacceptable.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't mean to make Charlie sound insignificant, just that its kind of like asking any single person of any company an opinion and then taking it out of context as the company opinion, rather than that person's. Sure, if that person is quite important and is directly involved in what you are asking about, you would expect a correct answer or sound advice. But to then make the company accountable rather than the person for that answer is the ridiculous part.

I'll also include the media in making this confusion worse.

I have no problem with complaing about the FIA's decision when they are inconsistent and in the wrong. But I'm a little sick of people always resorting to "FIA do it again" without much reason to at all.

Yet again you make me agree with you and bring insight I neglected. The media did help make the FIA the bad guy. I see what you mean, I guess I took it to heart because I thought you were hitting out at me, but I know what you mean. Charlie is accountable, but I also blame the teams for maybe taking it as an absolute when Charlie might not have ever meant it to be that way.

The FIA to me is a bit to blame, because somewhere down the line their technical director either saw the rules in a vague fashion or wasn't informed to the best level. I think that is why teams easily blame the FIA, becuase they may see it as "well charlie should have been better informed by his boss and it would have saved us time". Either way I've taken us off the subject long enough and I apologize.

A rule book without loopholes is impossible. There will always be a way of interpreting things. Just look at the MP4-27 compared to the F2012: both are very different at the front end. Both are very legal in their interpretation of the rules related to the nose.

He's not saying there will never be loopholes, he's just saying that teams with one of regulations have a lot less loopholes than the open interpretation of series like LMS and F1. He was just using a bit of sarcastic banter, it was funny to me though.

Then you have the absolutely bizarre rulings, such as the clarification that you can't pass for at least two corners after you go off... applied retroactively to Lewis Hamilton... Though that's way off-topic...

But that's far from the point. It's perfectly possible to have strict physical measurement rules, as with NASCAR's car templates, which still allow tremendous room for aerodynamic advantage.

The current rules are at least relatively unambiguous about what they allow, but that doesn't guarantee that clarifications won't be forthcoming.

What I hate is "spirit of the rules" clarifications. If the part is genuinely within the rules and genuinely useful, it should be allowed, unless safety dictates that it is unacceptable.

This was mainly the point I was trying to make with Ardius, that I have issue with the FIA upon and more so the teams. The teams usually go out of their way to complain an aerodynamic part to the chopping block. Only because the team wont be able to redo the part or lack or time and money. My issue with teams is, if another team beats you to the cake and is that much smarter too bad try again next year.

 

[jcm]

Remember, the rules are the same for everyone. If you break them it's your own fault. If it's a mistake that's too bad. If you lost money because a member of FIA told you could do something when you really couldn't, then that just shouldn't be happening.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What I hate is "spirit of the rules" clarifications. If the part is genuinely within the rules and genuinely useful, it should be allowed, unless safety dictates that it is unacceptable.

"Spirit of the rules" is team-speak for "it gives them an advantage that we believe is unfair because we didn't think of it ourselves".

 

[Diehardracer]

Been thinking about it and what do people think about the tightness of the regulations regarding what parts are legal for teams to install on a car and which are not during it's design and construction? Watch YouTube clips of F1 in the 70's when drivers like Lauda, Petterson and Stewart were racing and see how similar the cars were.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's quite a different era, the idea of parts now days is being the safest possible but still allowing room for design and self interpretation. The 70s were about the interpretation and making different monsters but no where near the safety of today. The cars weren't different at all, however this is the decade of six wheel and downforce snowmobile fans. See the point.

 

[HKS racer]

^ I want Ferrari to have six wheels in 2013! At least Massa's car, so he can still keep goin,
even if Juan Pablo Lewistoya Hamilton will crash on to.

Thanks.

In a way, from a aerodynamic standpoint I think most F1 designers/engineers would say that Mclaren are the ones who went with the more risky and extreme approach with the low nose (even moreso if the plow is deemed illegal), so that they could "place the mass of the nose lower and enable it to fit its preferred front suspension geometry." To a lot of people it might not seem this way (that Mclaren took the risky approach), simply because the MP4-27 nose is a much cleaner looking shape that the general audience would expect to see.

Interesting, in fact I was wondering if those huge carbon parts under the nose were legal. In case they are, I hope Ferrari will also take advantage and close that zone with more carbon fiber to direct even more air flow under the chassis.

I think for Ferrari, the most notable thing they will have to deal with on the new F2012 will be the pullrod suspension and getting the tires to work as well as Red Bull did last year....and crucially doing so in very short order. This in itself will be a very big chore (especially given how poor they were last year), but with the recent acquisition of Bridgestone tire development chief, Hirohide Hamashima (who was said to have figured out the F150's tire issue in very short order) and Ferrari's every increasing design infrastructure and strength, one can be hopeful for success. I think (just my opinion) this car will be extremely good aerodynamically, so it will just be a matter getting on top of the suspension/tires and making sure the new parts (like the gearbox) haven't been taken past the strength/relability threshold. Of course, one must always be aware of the next silver bullet (i.e. EBD, F-duct, DDD) and improvising for such, but I think the the clampdown of the regulations has begun to limit any devices that could have such benefit for the time being...but the Newey's of the sport will continue to pull rabbits out of their hats, just when we thought there was nothing left to implement

Exactly, pullrod suspensions booth at the front and rear are a revolution at Maranello so hopefully the ex Bridgestone engineer will help them with tyres.

 

[Ardius]

Interesting, in fact I was wondering if those huge carbon parts under the nose were legal. In case they are, I hope Ferrari will also take advantage and close that zone with more carbon fiber to direct even more air flow under the chassis.

Yes they are, they've been present on F1 cars for a while:

The last Arrows featured some quite extreme versions way back in 2002:

And as for McLaren's huge plow style bits, they've been around since 2010:

 

[priesty_lfc]

Great looking car, different yes, but I think overall it looks really good.

 

[nitrorocks]

Yes they are, they've been present on F1 cars for a while:

The last Arrows featured some quite extreme versions way back in 2002:

And as for McLaren's huge plow style bits, they've been around since 2010:

 

[HKS racer]

Yes they are, they've been present on F1 cars for a while:

So you try to adress it posting some random F1 photos from previous years that aren't using actual McLaren solution?
I can understand you are no expert but what we were asking is if they are allowed to "close" or "careen" that zone from the nose support till under the chassis to the suspensions. If it's allowed other teams like Ferrari could consider to "close" that zone too. Look, this is what we are talkin about:

As you can se there is a huge carbon fiber structure that start from the nose supports, and go well under the chassis, a solution that have nothing to do with the random photos you posted above.

 

[Bom15]

The last Arrows featured some quite extreme versions way back in 2002:

2001 the Arrows had this extra front wing. can't see that happening now.

Back on topic. I don't know much about F1 tbh. That extra carbon fiber must be channeling air around and under the car. I know the blown diffusers banned. So maybe its a way of still creating extra downforce at the rear? Maybe some airs channeled into the sidepods? Extra cooling perhaps? Whatever It'd be interesting to see if they are allowed to keep it. And wether other teams will follow suit. Depends if they get an advantage i suppose. And how much the other teams complain.

One thing though. I am glad the mclaren hasn't got that step on the nose.

 

[F1 fan]

2001 the Arrows had this extra front wing. can't see that happening now.

Which was immediately banned before it was raced.

 

[Prince.M5]

As you can se there is a huge carbon fiber structure that start from the nose supports, and go well under the chassis, a solution that have nothing to do with the random photos you posted above.

I thought that has been on McLaren cars since 2010?

 

[hawkeye122]

So here, I think I'm going to be a bit of a fan-boy, FIA-hater and say what somebody is thinking-

"The FIA will ban the McLaren parts because Ferrari complained."

Tell me it won't happen. If they come out of the box Super-competitive, and Ferrari looks miserably slow, they will look into making McLaren change the nose in some way. I think the only reason Red Bull get away with being so quick is the only thing they do which could be seen as on the edge of the rules is the Super-flex-y-wing. If Adrian Newey busted out something hugely radical, and Red Bull carried on dominating, I'm sure the FIA would look into changing some rules.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what I'm on about. Theres got to be a decent point in there somewhere...

 

[Greycap]

If Adrian Newey busted out something hugely radical, and Red Bull carried on dominating, I'm sure the FIA would look into changing some rules.

They already did - because McLaren complained - change the way of measuring the front wing flexing. After which McLaren was still behind the "mere drinks company" cars.