Hero's come and go, but legends never die!
Piero Ferrari would be satisfied with 3 wins in 2017
now that is what i'd call a successful year for FERRARI.....anyone else with me on this one????
RedBull is the team to watch for, regulations play into their hands. I hope we are competitive enough to hit regular podiums & occasional wins
“I prefer to beat them on Sunday” -Fernando Alonso, Press Conference Korean GP 2010
"Giornata fantastica !!"- Andrea Stella, European GP 2012
Source:http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017...sione.html?m=1FERRARI 2017 - PART 2: the front suspension is hydraulic
After having spoken of the nose of the Ferrari 2017 ( full article ) that according to information gathered from FUnoAnalisiTecnica Team will be different (obviously) but not too different from that used by the Italian team in the 2016 Formula 1 season (central protuberance but shorter) it is now focus on the front suspension
TECHNIQUE: will the solution to strut, wanted by Allison, on the front of the Ferrari 2017
There was a great doubt that haunted many fans and not in recent months about the new Ferrari 2017: with the departure of James Allison, who has have preferred the return of the suspension push rod on the front of the Italian car, many thought that Ferrari could do again step back going reviving the long chat but loved by Simone Resta solution pull rod. The answer is negative: on the front of the Ferrari 2017 is confirmed the solution to strut (push rod) view on at all victorious Ferrari SF16-H 2016.
Technically, a hold push-rod has a strut which works in compression : it transmits the motorcycle and connects the lower part of the hub carrier to the rocker, also called rocker, which controls the spring group - shock absorber or torsion bar - shock absorber. Conversely a version pull-rod has a rod which works in traction and actuates the spring package - cushion or shock absorber - the torsion bar.
All this is available in the classic scheme wishbone . For some years it is now general practice to install d ue spring groups - torsion bar - shock front and rear, while in the past we have seen on track solutions with monoshock, interconnected to a third element, the component responsible for height control and of 'inclination of the vehicle relative to the ground. A third element inherited from Indy cars (just to reiterate that it is not the only Formula 1 to export ideas and technology ...) introduced for the first time in Formula 1 by Alan Jenkins in 1994 on the Arrows. Then there are the ever-useful anti-roll bars, with increasingly smaller.
The placement of the spring groups - torsion bar - shock is one of the most obvious differences between the push rod and pull rod solutions. The push rod needs to be placed before the groups mentioned above the rider's legs to link them to the body and placing them longitudinally or slightly apart. This solution was married always with so-called "high snouts", in vogue in Formula 1 since the early 90's, in the wake of the revolutionary Tyrrell 019. The need to free the lower part of the face is required if you want to pour a larger quantity of air and if you want above all a less disturbed flow directed towards the vehicle floor. E 'for this reason that the 90's various technical solution had been abandoning the pull rod at the front in favor of the best push rod.
In addition, the push rod allows definitely fast control interventions and less complicated ; it is sufficient to disassemble the upper part of the bodywork of the snout to access the spring groups - torsion bar - cushion, an operation that, on the contrary, requires much more work for a pull-rod.
For its part the pull rod has the advantage of very reduced dimensions , so much for the rod (the section of which is much thinner than a strut push rod) that for the general height of the entire system, therefore, with consequent benefits on the center of gravity of car. The pull rod makes it possible to draw a very clean aerodynamics, streamlined and tapered. It is for this reason that Newey from Red Bull RB5 has opted for a rear pull-rod : cleaner aerodynamics, less disturbed airflow directed at the base of the rear wing, lower side panels at the rear and Coca Cola more tapered with center of gravity slightly lower. All this, without affecting the efficiency of the fund vehicle and extractor.
Ultimately it is the best push-rod or the pull-rod? There is no exact and final answer. Both are reliable, functional, profitable, equivalent. As often happens, the choice of either scheme depends solely on the will and the designer's assessments. And, as often happens when it comes to car technology, there are no dogmas, but only alternatives.
As regards the Ferrari 2017 , entering more in detail, had been taken into account also the installation of the suspension pull rod front (on the front the projects carried out in the second half of 2016 there were two) to take advantage of lower aerodynamic disturbances the tie rod on the more "often" strut push rod. But the confirmation of the latter version is also passed from an important act work to minimize the negative effects of the suspension arms on the direct flow towards the central part of the car , really halftime score for the cars in 2017 that is the part that contains the bargeboard. In addition to this reason, the decision to maintain the push rod design also stems from the fact that the Italian engineers still feel the specter of return to a solution with such high loads yielded both the elements themselves of suspensions in their anchor points to the bodyshell . A conduct which Alonso times has not been able to see too much in the simulations, but it created many headaches for the drivers on the track with a car on the steering imprecise as if the failure would create problems in the wheel angles. And then there is also a reason of convenience in the insertion of the components , mainly the third element as well as the torsion bars that being at the top are easier to handle.
FERRARI 2017: the choice fell on a hydraulic suspension like Mercedes 2016
It would be understood FUnoAnalisiTecnica the front suspension Ferrari 2017 will resemble a lot to the one mounted on the Mercedes W07 or Force India VJM09 ie a suspension with hydraulic inerter , something that the SF16-H did not use.
As repeatedly stressed in recent weeks on these pages the purpose of the letter sent by Simone Resta (Ferrari) to the FIA was not to "reject" the patterns suspensive 2016 Mercedes and Force India ( which remain completely LEGAL according to our information) but simply to block 2016 idea of RedBull (HERE to find out more) that Mercedes was carrying on his car in 2017 (HERE to learn more) .
As already explained that both Mercedes Force India last season had the ability to precisely control body roll through an accumulator installed in the right belly; accumulator which was nothing more than a metal tank or piston diaphragm loaded with nitrogen before use. This type of suspension ensured above all to the German Team a perfect balance in terms of movements of the frame due to the load transfers to ensure ideal imprint on all four tires at the same time, thus generating a perfect exploitation of the same with unreachable range for all other teams who did not use a similar system. In this section you can well understand what was then the main difference between the system used by RedBull and used by the team of 2016 world champion; and if Red Bull had in his front suspension (but it is thought that even at the back there was something similar) a hydraulic actuator with purely aerodynamic purposes (purpose: to decrease the entire car body angle of attack on the straights to overcome low power the Power Unit Renault), the system used by Mercedes was more "classic" and without components of the car so obvious subservient to the aerodynamics of the car. Even now Ferrari has rightly adequate, limiting thanks to the letter sent to FIA developments Mercedes and especially putting "in crisis" Team Milton Keynes a few weeks ago in this part is adapting the suspension of RB13 the new technical directive issued by Charlie Whiting just after the middle of December. Helmut Marko has been clear in recent days: RedBull may not use suspensive systems designed for the RB13 but now will have to study a new solution which according to former Austrian driver will be less efficient but will take them well back into the broad lines of the technical regulations . A "temporary" solution useful at the beginning of the season to make room then again to a new "border line" solution? NOTE: Some technical indications of this post are the work of Paolo Pellegrini
FERRARI FOR EVER !!!!!!!
Thanks Pure Passion for the info and translation from the source: buenisimo!......I guess after reading the HPC system it boils down to the engine now......Melbourne will be the deciding the factor.
but as optimistic as i am, i'm hoping that Ferrari will be up tehr with the BIG boys......well i would really want US to be the BIG boys.....but....well you knwo what i mean
I didnt do anything special.i'm not an expert and i dont try to play it.i come here to read any news about our team.Then i search the net on sites that i learned here and in a group on facebook.If i find something interesting there ,and nobody have post it here,i do it so someone else can read it.As for the translate, its just from google.i dont know italian and my english are on perfect either!!
Thanks for your good words ,and let's hope that we will built a championship winning car!!!!!!
FERRARI FOR EVER !!!!!!!
I'm getting those withdrawn butterfly feeling's coming it must be getting close to testing :)
Source:http://scuderiafans.com/simone-resta...d-strong-2017/Ferrari chief designer Simone Resta is confident that the development of the 2017 car is going according to plan and suggests there is no reason why the Scuderia shouldn’t aim for top results in the next season, after a dissatisfying 2016 Formula 1 Championship which the Maranello team began with great expectations, but ended in disappointment, after the Scuderia failed to produce a car that could match the pace and speed of rival Mercedes.
“This is a crucial time in the life of any Formula 1 team, and of course this year more than ever we have to plan everything carefully, because there are a lot of things which will change as compared to previous seasons.” – Simone Resta said, as reportat by the Italian newspaper Corriere dello Sport – “We are in the final stages of our scheduled development work, although there are still a lot of things to be carried on, because we all know that we need to learn a lot of things about the new car and about the best solutions which can be used with the major rule and regulation changes being made for the 2017 season. But the team is working hard for a strong 2017 and we are eager to get the car on track.”- Scuderia Ferrari’s chief designer added.
Simone Resta did not want to comment on the letter sent to F1 race director Charlie Whiting regarding a system that could replicate FRIC without a physical connection between the front and the rear of the car, which was considered not in compliance with the regulations, nor on the involvement of Rory Byrne in the development of the 2017 Scuderia Ferrari car.
Rory Byrne, a renowned car designer whose name carries as much weight as Red Bull’s Adrian Newey within the paddock of Formula 1, has been working with Ferrari for some time now, although only in a consulting position, without actually being part of the the management team. Byrne worked with Benetton during the mid-90s, designing the title winning cars from the 1994 and 1995 seasons, before joining the Maranello team with legendary German driver Michael Schumacher, back in 1996. He had a significant contribution, alongside Jean Todt and Ross Brawn, in the succes of Scuderia Ferrari until 2004, a period in which the Italian side dominated Formula 1.
FERRARI FOR EVER !!!!!!!
Source:http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017...ngo-e.html?m=1After having revealed some features of the front of the Ferrari, with internal project code 668, let's find out through this last post other features of the new car in Maranello .
To improve the aerodynamic balance of the new car, in addition to the interventions on the nose and front wing, it will be incremented up to about 10 - 15 cm compared to that of Ferrari SF16-H that was equal to 3494 mm, slightly lower than the SF15-T 2015 (not only Ferrari longer stride, HERE to learn more ). Recall to less technical that the step is no more than the distance between the axis of a front wheel and the axis of the rear wheel on the same side. This increase in distance was thought to have a car with a better distance in the fast corners and greater stability thanks to higher downforce values and tires with greater footprint.
Beyond that, the step increase was thought by Maranello's engineers also make the most of the technical regulations in 2017 which leaves complete freedom to designers in the area between the front wheels and the bellies of the car. In this area of the car, from the information gathered by FUnoAnalisiTecnica, will be placed to the bargeboards sizes quite generous compared to those who were used to seeing in recent years as the technical regulations not allow great inventiveness in that specific area of the cars. The bargeboards of the flow diverters are simply placed behind the front wheels , in correspondence of the air intake outlets of the cooling radiators. A quick historical sketch: have been introduced for the first time in Formula 1 season by McLaren in 1993. These aerodynamic particular serve multiple functions, such as separating, channeling and directing the flows coming from the wing front to the back, the air vents radiators and the outside of the sides. All bargeboards, from the simplest to the most complex, they all share one characteristic: they never go to link up with the leading edge of the radiator air intakes, but the prowl. In this way, the switches do not discharge their boundary layers inside the air vents radiators, on the contrary, dump them outside the car. Furthermore bargeboards are used to guide the turbulent air from the front wing wake, far away from the vital air flow under the car. The lower edge and back of a bargeboard creates a vortex that travels along the lower edge of the outer sidepod, acting as a skirt or dam which helps to seal the lower pressure area under the car.
In the coming cars will be particularly crucial as understood since, in addition to the above functions, will become veritable vortex generators that will ensure the improvement of the direct flow to the vehicle floor; because this will be essential food the rear diffuser with very energetic flow that results in an increase of efficiency in the generation of aerodynamic load through the diffuser.
Bargeboard that will become fundamental to try to better seal the wider diffuser thus allowing the use of increasingly driven rather rake structure that so important to improve the efficiency of the new rear wing. A wing that for technical regulation will be well wide 950 mm (750 mm against the version of 2016) and with a height of only 800 mm limit above the reference plane (against 950 mm of version 2016). What we can indicate that the rear wing in version 2017 may be less efficient than the 2016 version as being in a lower position would go to collect in its top much of the turbulent flow of the front of the car coming.
Precisely for this reason the Ferrari 668 will be located in the terminal part of the engine hood a stabilizing fin of significant size ( we had anticipated in this article ). The bonnet, thanks to the new regulation, will return to play a very important aerodynamic function to try to "clean up" the direct airflow toward underperforming rear wing. Quickly sifting through the technical regulations in 2017, and more precisely by analyzing the article 3.9.1, that already by far in 2011 was to abolish the giant fin on the rear and the subsequent development called the F-Duct, is to point out that in Regulation technical 2017 that article was deleted. But there is to report the presence of Article 3.8.4 does not preclude the development of giant fins.
FERRARI FOR EVER !!!!!!!
By: Matt Somerfield, Assistant Technical Editor
Yesterday at 9:19am
Formula 1 is gearing up for the start of a bold new era in 2017 when a major revamp of aero regulations is set to deliver faster laptimes, meaner-looking cars and a better spectacle.
But it would be wrong to think that the only changes coming for the season ahead are on the chassis front, because underneath the fin-style engine covers that are expected this year will be some big developments too.
Gone is the engine token system and with it the shackles of limited development that the likes of Honda were constrained by.
Instead, there are new restrictions in terms of weight and materials in order to define the design direction and limit the manufacturer's scope in terms of chasing exotic and expensive alternatives.
Furthermore, restrictions surrounding the fuel used by the teams have been introduced, as they will now only be able to nominate five fuel blends for the season - of which only two can be used throughout a race weekend.
The token system was a logical move by the FIA ahead of the new turbo hybrid era, as it looked to keep spending and development contained by closing down development avenues over time.
However, it did not account for the monumental gap that Mercedes had over its counterparts, leading to a futile chase from rivals who struggled to bridge the gap.
For 2017, the manufacturers and FIA agreed to a different approach – with restrictions being in terms of weight and dimension in a bid to put an effective ceiling on the benchmark unit.
From now on, the weight of the MGU-K and MGU-H can be no less than 7kg and 4kg respectively, plus the weight of the pistons, rods and crankshaft (no less than 300g, 300g and 5300g respectively).
Further the rules have added dimensional restrictions to the crankshaft bearings, limiting the compression ratio of the cylinders (no higher than 18.0) and limiting coating thickness for Gold, Platinum, Ruthenium, Iridium and Rhenium to 0.035mm.
These changes are designed to limit development, preventing the manufacturers from chasing finite gains - and updates will have to be more considered too, now that drivers only get four power units per season.
Fuelling a revolution
There is change in terms of what is going on inside the engine too.
For 2017, each team will only be able to nominate five fuel blends for the season, and only two at any given race weekend. Previously, an unlimited number was on offer.
This should really narrow the teams' abilities to make vast changes between qualifying and race conditions, along with restricting their choices as they visit differing circuits.
These changes will undoubtedly impact those that have had a close relationship with their fuel and lubricants partners, perhaps none more so than Mercedes and Petronas.
But the impact will also be felt by the shuffle going on elsewhere – as Red Bull switches to Exxon/Mobil, and McLaren moves to BP/Castrol. Renault too is poised to confirm a move away from Total imminently.
Red Bull can perhaps be seen to have the upper hand in this scenario of change, at least in the early stages, because it will be carrying over the wealth of experience that Mobil built up with McLaren and its previous engine partners Mercedes and Honda.
However, whilst BP's return to F1 sees it three season behind in terms of a development understanding, it will be able to build up its database very quickly – especially if it does add Renault and Toro Rosso to its roster.
It's perhaps an understated component in the engine but, without the right lubricants, the internal combustion unit fails to operate correctly - be it in providing power or mileage.
The lubricants being supplied to teams are critical to power output throughout the rev range, in terms of outright power and efficiency. Component deterioration must also be factored in, with their life cycle placed under close scrutiny in order to get the most performance at each and every GP.
This is why a driver's engine allocation is so important, with the demands placed on components at certain circuits limiting their output at others.
Consider, if you will, the disparity between the low-speed street circuit of Monaco, the high altitude in Mexico or the time spent on full throttle at Monza, where there are totally unique demands that call for very different characteristics.
Such is the importance of the fuel and lubricants that the suppliers travel around the world with the teams, setting up their own labs in the pitlane to check legality, monitor their products' performance, help make decisions on what specifications should be used and, in some circumstances, spotting failures before they even happen.
There is a hefty workload at each race. As fuel is shipped direct to each GP, the engineers' first order of business is to check that it hasn't been contaminated and won't fall foul of the FIA's scrutineering processes.
A gas chromatography machine is employed, breaking down the fuel and making sure the molecular makeup of the fuel matches the sample held by the FIA. Around 40 samples are tested each GP weekend.
It's not only the fuel that is under scrutiny in the fuel suppliers' trackside lab though, with tests conducted on the oil being run through the V6 hybrid power unit and the gearbox, too.
Shell, for example, uses a rotating disc electrode optical imaging spectography device (or RDEOES for short), to test the lubricant for any sign of metallic contaminants that might signal too much wear and an onset failure.
In fact, Shell has numerous examples of when it has saved Ferrari'
blushes, although the science still isn't entirely foolproof as various gearbox failures for Sebastian Vettel last season go to prove.
Pushing the limits
The aerodynamic changes to the regulations will result in the cars producing significantly more downforce than they have in the last few years, with the FIA suggesting that speeds could be up by 40km/h in some corners.
This should create a more physically engaging experience for the drivers, who'll be cornering at much higher speeds, with many of the high-speed corners becoming no more than a kink in the straight.
This increase in cornering speeds puts an onus on the fuel and lubricants manufacturers as it skews their usability at each circuit, with the increased forces placed on the car making a difference to the power unit's performance and life expectancy of the components.
It will require a change of formula of their products, which could have an impact on the competitive order.
More from Gazzetta on today's issue: Ferrari is working on a "extreme" nose design + there will be the S-DuctFrom Gianlu on twitter.1/2 | Gazzetta says that the gearbox will be redesigned (trying to keep same dimensions) + the Power Unit will be deeply different from the
2/2 | one of 2016 (Ferrari is working on new combustion chambers + electrical part)
FERRARI FOR EVER !!!!!!!
The name of the new car will be SF-17 JB
No word yet on the crash test ?
Project 668 has passed the FIA's mandatory crash tests ahead of pre-season testing .
Also based on SmilexTech FIA has given the green light for the front nose of project 668 / Should we expect something extreme ?
Brilliant news. Thank you.