Scuderia Ferrari SF16-H Development thread.

[bondilad]

If Ferrari planned reliability based on 4 per 20 race season, should be OK for Kimi, as the 1 extra race gave everyone 1 extra, now he's right at that original allotment!

This jack-rabbit start ability, if it proves repeatable for Ferrari, should really get Mercs panties in a bunch. They'll actually be playing catch up in development if it wasn't just poor starts by both of their boys.

Yup. He just needs to replace the turbo. That's it.

I think we have aced our race starts. Reminds me of the time when we had the best launch system with alo and mas. But i guess we'll find out for sure if a pattern emerges in the next few races.

[Kristof_F40]

Noted we never saw the fuel consumption figures during the race, and am wondering if consumption played its roles with Haas having an advantage over the following group in the latter stages going by all this talk about Ferrari's combustion advances. Also, was the extra rumoured torque the real reason the Ferraris punched into the lead once traction settled?

No idea. Other possibility: we saw something similar in Hungary 2015. In that race there was also an extra formation lap, so pehaps Mercs having clutch isues if such thing happens?

I also think it's nice to see the pace of Haas. Obviously they were very Lucky with the red flag, but don't forget they almost started last and finished 6. There pace was very good at the end, matching the other guys in the midfield. Very solid.

Most important thing from Australia: after FP & Q, it seemed like we were doomed to some people, but we could have won the race on pure pace without problems for the Mercs.

[From Treviso]

Yup. He just needs to replace the turbo. That's it.

I think we have aced our race starts. Reminds me of the time when we had the best launch system with alo and mas. But i guess we'll find out for sure if a pattern emerges in the next few races.

Going by what Christian Horner said about Ferrari's super quick launches during testing, then it's pretty much a sure thing that they have and own the launch-ace. I suspect it's not something that will be easily be dissected and understood by the other teams, so I wouldn't be surprised if they hold the advantage for the season. Who knows, maybe it's why they never bothered sacrificing their car and tyres for one last stab for the front grid position, knowing that they could trump the Mercedes cars at the start?!?

The other talk that I think I heard our local commentators say, was that Ferrari have a new single clutch transmission that is giving them the lunch-edge. Whatever the gain is from, it's only a matter of time before we fully understand exactly what it is.

[Jax]

Looks like Ferrari didn't really care about qualifying on the first row, they knew they'd be first and second after the first corner :)
Here is the article :
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/te...starts-682182/

[cokata]

HCCI can't improve start's since the bottleneck isn't lack of torque, but lack of grip from the rear tires. The perfect start will be to always be just on the edge of the grip that the tires provide, and never braking it. You can put a top fuel dragster engine at the back of the car, and the 0-100 time will not change one bit.

[PURE PASSION]

Looks like Ferrari didn't really care about qualifying on the first row, they knew they'd be first and second after the first corner :)
Here is the article :
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/te...starts-682182/

I was ready to post the same article!!
But i remember that something almost identical people use to say last year after Hungary.There was the 1st race with a change in regulations as far as the clutches and the starting procedures and peaple said that we have found something better then the Mercs.But then nothing have chenged and Mercs had good starts in the other races.So lets wait and see.

[Jax]

I was ready to post the same article!!
But i remember that something almost identical people use to say last year after Hungary.There was the 1st race with a change in regulations as far as the clutches and the starting procedures and peaple said that we have found something better then the Mercs.But then nothing have chenged and Mercs had good starts in the other races.So lets wait and see.

Actually , Ferrari's always had better starts not just last year but even the one before and before ... remember spain 2011 ... It's just that not every time you make a good start you are sure to gain places, but if memory serves me well, last year they almost certainly gained places every race, well except the Monza thing where kimi was sleeping

[wisepie]

I'm sure Felipe was pretty much the best starter Ferrari had in recent times! Credit where it's due!!

On another note and this is probably not an appropriate time to mention it, but I wonder what effect the sad situation with James Allison may impact on the development of the SF16-H. No doubt there are people at Ferrari who can assume his responsibilities in the short term, so I hope that we can carry any proposed developments forward as planned.

[PURE PASSION]

On another note and this is probably not an appropriate time to mention it, but I wonder what effect the sad situation with James Allison may impact on the development of the SF16-H. No doubt there are people at Ferrari who can assume his responsibilities in the short term, so I hope that we can carry any proposed developments forward as planned.

To tell you the truth,i thought the same thing.But its sad days for him so we have to let him take his time.

[abbottcostello]

I'm sure Felipe was pretty much the best starter Ferrari had in recent times! Credit where it's due!!

On another note and this is probably not an appropriate time to mention it, but I wonder what effect the sad situation with James Allison may impact on the development of the SF16-H. No doubt there are people at Ferrari who can assume his responsibilities in the short term, so I hope that we can carry any proposed developments forward as planned.

Nice call on that one wisepie, like a little lightening bolt!
Tough to say with JA, I've seen guys that throw themselves into their work even harder after a loss. I thought the same, but trust he'll be fine, just such a tough time any way you slice it!

[Smintlemon]

Hi guy's.
I' m not sure but i believe that they dont run the PU with 100%.
the topspeeds on intermediate 1,2 and ST are lower than 2015. the speeds in corners were much better. Also the same from the sauber cars.

[Smintlemon]

May they have a overheating problem with the new PU packaging

[From Treviso]

HCCI can't improve start's since the bottleneck isn't lack of torque, but lack of grip from the rear tires. The perfect start will be to always be just on the edge of the grip that the tires provide, and never braking it. You can put a top fuel dragster engine at the back of the car, and the 0-100 time will not change one bit.

Well yes and no. Having a good amount of torque at the lower end of the RPM range enables the clutch to engage earlier due to less RPM being required - that means a smoother, more controllable engagement of power can be transmitted to the rear wheels for much better traction. If traction is broken, then it's also easier to get off and on the gas for some control. Traction being equal amongst the group, but different amounts of torque being applied - some being brutal and some being progressive.

[Rallyrob]

The driver that is able to put the most horsepower down effectively over the first 6-8 seconds is going to shoot ahead. By this time they are already approaching 180 mph and a lot of the available horsepower can be directed into the wheels. Because the cars shift at a rates so quickly during this launch, effective low end horsepower (what people call "torque") at the moment of shifting has a pretty karge effect on acceleration. Its not so much about overall horsepower (peak hp) but rather how much average horsepower is being developed during launch at much lower rpms well below where peak hp levels are measured. One of the main reasons F1 cars have so many gears is to keep them in an effective horsepower band higher in the rpm range because below 6000 rpm they develop very little horsepower compared to how much horsepower they develop above 10,000 rpm. If a F1 car were to fully engage the clutch in first gear at say 1000 rpm, there woulb be so little horsepower available it would just bog right out and be very slow (lack of low end hp). So, f1 cars have to engage at a much higher rpm and slowly engage the clutch to allow more hp to develop to accelerate the car. Because of this reality, f1 cars able to build more low end hp (torque) have a greater advantage through the first few gears enabling them to launch quicker out of the hole.

[Rallyrob]

At the start of the race at Melbourne, by the time Vettel has pulled in front of the mercs, at around the 4 second mark he is already doing around or over 100 mph. But, whats most important is the crucial first half second where not enough hp becomes available to really launch the car into that point where more than enough hp is available and traction becomes a premium. If drivers bog out at too low of an rpm at the start in first gear not enough hp is available. So, if Ferrari have found some massive liw end horsepower gains, it enables them to launch out of the hole in thst first half second that gives them the extra 10 mph right off.

[cokata]

Well yes and no. Having a good amount of torque at the lower end of the RPM range enables the clutch to engage earlier due to less RPM being required - that means a smoother, more controllable engagement of power can be transmitted to the rear wheels for much better traction. If traction is broken, then it's also easier to get off and on the gas for some control. Traction being equal amongst the group, but different amounts of torque being applied - some being brutal and some being progressive.

That is just not true. Engines, especially ones with broad RPM range like the F1 V6, have dips and ups through the RPM at the lower spectrum where the engine rarely runs. That's why you see PU revved beyond 11k RPM before the start so it will be in the sweetspot where the torque curve is much flatter, and you can much more easily and reliably modulate the power.

[NickEice]

Rallyrob, please don't refer to torque as "low end HP" again. That's not what torque is.

[NickEice]

And if I understand what you are trying to say, "traction being equal amongst the group but different amounts of torque being applied" meaning that all the cars have relatively the same amount of traction but their torque differs, I'd venture to say it's the exact opposite. The cars have very different levels of mechanical grip and use the tires very differently, especially when they aren't up to race temperatures.

The strong getaway by the Ferraris isn't down to low rpm engine power, if that was the case I think we all know Mercedes still has that advantage. It is more than likely down to an innovative clutch design and two drivers that are confident in the system when the lights go out.

[WS6TransAm01]

The driver that is able to put the most horsepower down effectively over the first 6-8 seconds is going to shoot ahead. By this time they are already approaching 180 mph and a lot of the available horsepower can be directed into the wheels. Because the cars shift at a rates so quickly during this launch, effective low end horsepower (what people call "torque") at the moment of shifting has a pretty karge effect on acceleration. Its not so much about overall horsepower (peak hp) but rather how much average horsepower is being developed during launch at much lower rpms well below where peak hp levels are measured. One of the main reasons F1 cars have so many gears is to keep them in an effective horsepower band higher in the rpm range because below 6000 rpm they develop very little horsepower compared to how much horsepower they develop above 10,000 rpm. If a F1 car were to fully engage the clutch in first gear at say 1000 rpm, there woulb be so little horsepower available it would just bog right out and be very slow (lack of low end hp). So, f1 cars have to engage at a much higher rpm and slowly engage the clutch to allow more hp to develop to accelerate the car. Because of this reality, f1 cars able to build more low end hp (torque) have a greater advantage through the first few gears enabling them to launch quicker out of the hole.

Correct, it's the area under the curve that matters more, not peak numbers. Only problem with your argument is you have HP and torque reversed. Torque is the measure of engine output. Horsepower isn't a real measurable number. It's a calculation of torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252 (if torque is in LB/FT)

Torque is what moves a car off the line, it's the measurement of applied force.

[cokata]

Correct, it's the area under the curve that matters more, not peak numbers. Only problem with your argument is you have HP and torque reversed. Torque is the measure of engine output. Horsepower isn't a real measurable number. It's a calculation of torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252 (if torque is in LB/FT)

Torque is what moves a car off the line, it's the measurement of applied force.

Torque is the twisting force. A lot of people seem to think torque>HP or whatever nonsense. The thing is that engines are connected to these things called gearboxes. The job of the gearbox is to multiply the torque of the engine before it reaches the wheels. You can have an engine with twice the torque and half the rpm, and if you match the gear ratios so they hit the limiter at the same speed, you will end up with the same torque at the wheels.

It's why petrol engines are more powerful than diesel's despite having less torque. Torque alone doesn't tell you much, that's why HP or KW is the measurement that is given for engine power, not NM.

[cokata]

.

[WS6TransAm01]

Torque is the twisting force. A lot of people seem to think torque>HP or whatever nonsense. The thing is that engines are connected to these things called gearboxes. The job of the gearbox is to multiply the torque of the engine before it reaches the wheels. You can have an engine with twice the torque and half the rpm, and if you match the gear ratios so they hit the limiter at the same speed, you will end up with the same torque at the wheels.

It's why petrol engines are more powerful than diesel's despite having less torque. Torque alone doesn't tell you much, that's why HP or KW is the measurement that is given for engine power, not NM.

Last I checked, an engine produces a rotational force named torque. When an engine is placed on a dyno you can calculate HP.

Believe me, I know speed/rpm/gear matching. I've been drag racing since 2001. I also fully understand what it takes to get a car to accelerate from a dead stop as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I've had my car on the chassis dyno more times than I can remember. The dyno measures torque because that is what the engine produces. The software calculates HP.

No one said torque is more important than HP. All I said is that an engine produces torque. HP is a calculation based on the torque produced it is not an independent product. If an engine produces X torque at Y rpm it will calculate to be Z Horsepower.

Gasoline engines show more HP than Diesel engines because they run at higher rpm, they are not "more powerful". If you can keep a flat torque curve and carry it to higher rpm you will show more HP. It's simple math. If gasoline engines were more powerful they would be being used in heavy duty equipment, but they are not.

Engine output is torque.

[Rallyrob]

Torque is the turning force, that is correct. Horsepower is the measurement over a set amount of time to move weight with how much torque is applied. In reality though, we do not feel "torque" in acceleration. What we feel is how quick we accelerate which is what horsepower is. Horsepower is just a different way of saying how torque applied to time feels. An engine said to have loads of low end torque is in all reality the same thing as saying the engine has loads of low end horsepower. Horsepower is what we feel in acceleration. For instance- I can have a diesel engine producing over a 1000 foot pounds of torque but if it only turns a few hundred rpm it isnt going to have much horsepower and thus accelerate sliwly even though it may be able to move a lit of weight over more time. What we feel is how fast a body of weight can be accelerated in a set amount of time-thats horsepower and the more you have, the faster you accelerate. Torque is just an amount of force applied to something and stands aline outside of time. When time and distance are applied we then define the work as horsepower-thats what we feel.

[Rallyrob]

Last I checked, an engine produces a rotational force named torque. When an engine is placed on a dyno you can calculate HP.

Believe me, I know speed/rpm/gear matching. I've been drag racing since 2001. I also fully understand what it takes to get a car to accelerate from a dead stop as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I've had my car on the chassis dyno more times than I can remember. The dyno measures torque because that is what the engine produces. The software calculates HP.

No one said torque is more important than HP. All I said is that an engine produces torque. HP is a calculation based on the torque produced it is not an independent product. If an engine produces X torque at Y rpm it will calculate to be Z Horsepower.

Gasoline engines show more HP than Diesel engines because they run at higher rpm, they are not "more powerful". If you can keep a flat torque curve and carry it to higher rpm you will show more HP. It's simple math. If gasoline engines were more powerful they would be being used in heavy duty equipment, but they are not.

Engine output is torque.

Any engine that produces more horsepower regardless of how much torque it has is more powerful and can do more work. They dont use gasoline engines producing more horsepower in heavy equipment because they would not last very long working at high rpms all the time.

[Rob]

I'm sure Felipe was pretty much the best starter Ferrari had in recent times! Credit where it's due!!

On another note and this is probably not an appropriate time to mention it, but I wonder what effect the sad situation with James Allison may impact on the development of the SF16-H. No doubt there are people at Ferrari who can assume his responsibilities in the short term, so I hope that we can carry any proposed developments forward as planned.

All car development upgrades are planned 2-3 months ahead.

[wisepie]

All car development upgrades are planned 2-3 months ahead.

Thanks for that inside info, Rob, obviously you have friends in high places! Hope any upgrades will be effective!

[WS6TransAm01]

Any engine that produces more horsepower regardless of how much torque it has is more powerful and can do more work. They dont use gasoline engines producing more horsepower in heavy equipment because they would not last very long working at high rpms all the time.

You can't produce more HP without more torque and RPM. It's really simple math.

[cokata]

You can't produce more HP without more torque and RPM. It's really simple math.

The reason big industrial engines are diesels is because big engines can't rev that high to begin with, so a diesel one will be more powerful and more efficient.

And about the torque thing and how it relates to engine power the best example is the old V8 F1 engines. Just about any diesel engined car you can buy has more torque than the V8 engine, but also they redline sub 5k RPM, while the V8 is at 18k. What happens is that the F1 car will have much several times shorter gear ratios than the diesels, therefore the torque that reaches the wheels (the one you care about) is much higher.

[Rallyrob]

You can't produce more HP without more torque and RPM. It's really simple math.

Yes, the rpm the torque is developed at is the key to how much power an engine has, thats whats called "horsepower" or "how much power" an engine is rated at. I build engines for a living and most customers are concerned with how much peak horsepower it will have or how much lower end torque it will have. I explain to them the power curve and then discuss where they want that power curve at. Invariably, with old vintage engines you can have the power curve starting sooner or later depending on the overall use of what their desires are. I can build an engine with a peak of 450 lbs of torque and relatively lower horsepower and be slower than another engine with 375 lbs of torque with a lot more horsepower. Its all in what rpm range I want to make power. Thats my power curve. I try to help my customers realize that when you look at a horsepower graph, thats what you feel as the car accelerates- the horsepower, or "power curve". Do they want that power coming on stronger initially or later on in the power band? For most strret car engines we want that power sooner more than later for everyday driving. This type of engine will generally have around the same torque as a race engine but at much lower rpms. On the other side, a hot street/strip muscle car engune will have around the same torque but much higher up in the rpm range and deliver half again more horsepower.

[Rallyrob]

We built a supercar exotic v-12 engine for a customer rated at around 600 horsepower. In comparison the CAT c16 is a 15.8 litre beast found in large heavy equipment. Its horsepower is also around 600 horsepower. Which one is more powerful? They are the same. They both have the capacity to do the same amount of work. Its just that the power in the diesel is made at a whole lot less rpms and so its more suitable and dependable.