F14-T- Development & News

**JacKy** · 29th June 2014, 00:53

any major update for silverstone ?

**Giallo 550** · 29th June 2014, 04:32

Originally Posted by Hunkelberg

Just take a look at the F14-T head on. Be truthful, do you see the squished, molten ugly slab there ?

No proper windtunel will produce such awkward and funny nosecone. No grace. At all. As if they used a hammer to straighten carbon fiber...it just does not look anything like that has to do with aerodynamics, avionics, etc. For the contrast, take a look at the RB10's. Head on, profile, three quarters, whatever, it just looks so proportionally aesthetically pleasing. It really looks a beaut. Now go back and look at that ugly red car. Ugh....can you see it ?

It might look a bit silly and over-simplistic to judge aero by aesthetics. But I dare to counter that by this example from nature: take a look at what evolution does over billions of years to underwater creatures. Do you see beluga as fast, agile, speedy creature ? Sailfish, Swordfish, Marlin, Wahoo on the other hand...You know, there is nothing to sneeze about that as Nature provides much of the motivational examples that humans unashamedly borrow some of their designs from.

If what little I know about math, symmetry, rates and proportions is any good, then there is a good deal of reason to believe that fast things have certain looks to them. If marine examples do not cut it for you take a look at fighterjets. None of the fast ones have head on features isomorphic to what red team produced in its 2014 racer.

So yeah, it is ugly as sin. And therefore it does not work :)

Love you too, baby.

**PadGeT** · 29th June 2014, 05:09

Originally Posted by F1NAC

Because with that they could accomplish smaller sidepods and will have more space and lower CoG

Well.. that isn't an engine performance differentiator now is it? What you are telling is translating to aero benefit, which isn't a problem for F14 T in my eyes.
Also F14 T is reasonable at keeping its engine bay cool.

**Alesi1** · 29th June 2014, 06:14

Originally Posted by PadGeT

Well.. that isn't an engine performance differentiator now is it? What you are telling is translating to aero benefit, which isn't a problem for F14 T in my eyes.
Also F14 T is reasonable at keeping its engine bay cool.

Of course it can keep its engine bay cool, it doesn't go fast enough to generate any heat!

**Majki2111** · 29th June 2014, 11:40

Originally Posted by Alesi1

Of course it can keep its engine bay cool, it doesn't go fast enough to generate any heat!

What you are saying is relative...

**Rob** · 29th June 2014, 11:48

Cannt see the PU layout changing too much next year, main updates and developements will be turbo and software.

**Samcar222** · 30th June 2014, 17:26

I disagree, I think everything that can be legally redesigned will be for 2015. Renault is bringing an "all new" engine for 2015, I'd expect nothing less from Ferrari. If however we are still slow in 2015 with an Allison designed car from our own wind tunnel, with an updated motor, then it's time to start thinking about LMP1-H, imo.

**FFFerrari** · 1st July 2014, 07:54

Originally Posted by Rob

Cannt see the PU layout changing too much next year, main updates and developements will be turbo and software.

They can change quite a lot and I really think they should, not just the turbo and the software but the whole design of the engine. Just look at the pictures of our engine and the Merc one and you can see that one has a low center of gravity, simple but clever solutions and delivers and the other one is a mess. If Renault is building a totally new PU, so should we.

**PadGeT** · 1st July 2014, 08:56

via AMuS

**wacc** · 1st July 2014, 09:38

A little note to that turning vanes. Amus made it a little bit confusing. From the pictures it may seem as the small part of the turning vane was added. But it was not. The main part of the turning vane under the bulkhead is attached to the chassis. But the small part that the red arrow is pointing at (3rd picuture) is attached to the nose cone which is why it is missing on the 2nd picture .

**PadGeT** · 1st July 2014, 09:41

Originally Posted by wacc

A little note to that turning vanes. Amus made it a little bit confusing. From the pictures it may seem as the small part of the turning vane was added. But it was not. The main part of the turning vane under the bulkhead is attached to the chassis. But the small part that the red arrow is pointing at (3rd picuture) is attached to the nose cone which is why it is missing on the 2nd picture .

Updates all at the rear.

**abbottcostello** · 2nd July 2014, 04:30

Originally Posted by PadGeT

Updates all at the rear.

Picture 3 looks like front end to me, pic 2 not as sure, I just can't tell but far right of pic looks like front of tub with fw removed maybe???

**stefa** · 2nd July 2014, 08:16

Originally Posted by abbottcostello

Picture 3 looks like front end to me, pic 2 not as sure, I just can't tell but far right of pic looks like front of tub with fw removed maybe???

Pictures 1, 4 and 5 REAR
Pictures 2 and 3 FRONT

**Fizzey apples** · 2nd July 2014, 22:21

The only thing I can really see happening is latter half of this year as a test bed for 2015 with as much damage limitation as possible.There has to be a new power unit for next year just for the part of fairness for Honda having a year as a learning curve.Cant see the other manufacturers keeping all the same units as would be the case if any other manufacturer came in.

**tifosi1993** · 3rd July 2014, 12:33

Silverstone, UK (03/07/2014)

via AMUS

**Alesi1** · 3rd July 2014, 13:21

May as well cut n paste pictures from Melbourne, visually very little difference, long gone are the days when cars look like make major changes like eg 1996. Boy I miss the old days

**PadGeT** · 3rd July 2014, 15:58

Gurney back, sidepod flow conditioner the new one tested in Austria.

**Nand0Nand0** · 3rd July 2014, 16:49

Originally Posted by PadGeT

Gurney back, sidepod flow conditioner the new one tested in Austria.

Hard to tell from the pic, but I agree it is the Austrian new type but perhaps slightly modified - does the new lower fat part extend upward a little further?

**PadGeT** · 3rd July 2014, 16:56

Originally Posted by Nand0Nand0

Hard to tell from the pic, but I agree it is the Austrian new type but perhaps slightly modified - does the new lower fat part extend upward a little further?

yes

**Samcar222** · 3rd July 2014, 17:08

Have we ever run bottom (six o'clock) mounted calipers on the rear end of our car? I certainly haven't seen it in recent years, and I'd like to think that I would catch something like that from garage photos.

**PadGeT** · 3rd July 2014, 17:15

you mean in this pic?

**tifosi1993** · 3rd July 2014, 17:37

Silverstone, UK (03/07/2014)

EDIT:

via Sutton

**Samcar222** · 3rd July 2014, 18:00

Yes PadGeT, I honestly can't remember ever seeing bottom mounted calipers on our cars for as long as I've been a visiting guest on TSN (2011). RBR has had all four corners bottom mounted for quite some time now, IIRC enjoying quite significant CoG benefits.

**PadGeT** · 3rd July 2014, 18:27

Originally Posted by Samcar222

Yes PadGeT, I honestly can't remember ever seeing bottom mounted calipers on our cars for as long as I've been a visiting guest on TSN (2011). RBR has had all four corners bottom mounted for quite some time now, IIRC enjoying quite significant CoG benefits.

If its purely CoG then its the best solution, but if its related brake drum changes for KERS packaging, then it points to MGU-K problems, won't it?

I wonder what they keep doing with that 6-element one?
From this pic it seems the lesser elements are associated with higher AoA.

**RedPassion** · 3rd July 2014, 20:43

Originally Posted by Samcar222

Have we ever run bottom (six o'clock) mounted calipers on the rear end of our car? I certainly haven't seen it in recent years, and I'd like to think that I would catch something like that from garage photos.

And it seems that we have new front brake ducts(williams style)on Fernandos car.