Jump to content


Photo

Ferrari being hinest about wheel covers?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 23:51

I was surprised to read this in the interview with Stefano Domenicali

Q. You didn't run the wheel covers yesterday. Were the brakes temperatures higher than expected?

SD: Yeah, the brake temperature… You have seen so many cars had problems with the brakes and of course the ventilation of them is a crucial point so that's the reason why we took them away and I saw that some other cars also did the same.


I thought Ferrari's reason for the covers was to cool the brakes? In that case why would they need to remove them to make them cooler? :confused:

Advertisement

#2 F575 GTC

F575 GTC
  • Member

  • 921 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 June 2008 - 23:57

It could be that keeping them on for other circuits keeps the brakes at the preferred operating temperature, but in Canada they need them removing to attain the same result. I could be (and most likely am) totally wrong though.

#3 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 00:27

they control the airflow around the wheel, and i guess they must limit the exit air, or not be worth bothering with if its really hot

#4 steelyman

steelyman
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 00:47

Originally posted by Perigee

I thought Ferrari's reason for the covers was to cool the brakes? In that case why would they need to remove them to make them cooler? :confused: [/B]


i thought the reason for the covers was to cool the tires. i think they said the covers work with the special gas inside the tires. the gas they use is a good conductor of heat which draws heat away from the tires and the wheel cover directs the heat away. this is also the reason bridgestone told mclaren that the gas ferrari was using was not worth trying on their car. using the gas alone was not enough to achieve the results. the gas must be used with the covers. many people thought it was wrong and that BS were holding back info for ferrari. this came out during spygate release of transcripts.

i could be wrong though. but if they do cool the brakes like you said, why remove them?

#5 steelyman

steelyman
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:12

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 61

Pedro DE LA ROSA
He sounded interested, yes. That is one of the main reasons why I went to Bridgestone.
Nigel TOZZI
He thought it was very important to test the alternative tyre inflation technique, did he not?
Pedro DE LA ROSA
He was interested. He replied saying that we should try this, etc. This is one of the main reasons
why I went to the Bridgestone engineer.
Nigel TOZZI
You came back saying, “I agree 100% that we must test it.” Yet now you are telling us that you did
not.
Pedro DE LA ROSA
Yes. If the Bridgestone engineer had told us that this was a very interesting test – and this would
have been a surprise, as he would have told us in January – then I might have pursued. But I
realised that it was nothing.

this is from the transcripts. mclaren found out what they were using to inflate the tyres and then asked BS engineers if it would help and they said no - just adding the gas will not help. ferrari is using the gas for a reason and it is believed that it works in conjunction with the wheel covers. although all searches for info about the covers says they are to cool the brakes so who knows. doesnt make sense that they cool the brakes then they remove them at a track hard on brake temps??

#6 fukkinen

fukkinen
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:13

The wheels covers were/are and has always been aero devices.
Ferrari and FiA can say anything that the public will swallow.

The Bonneville guys have always used it, for what?
Colling the brakes?
NOOO, better aero penetration and top speed.

#7 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:41

wherent the rims introduced after spygate tho ?

#8 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,596 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:44

Most teams use a version of covers, and all are allowed and welcome to do so, I fail to see an issue.

:cool:

#9 sweetreid

sweetreid
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 10 June 2008 - 03:46

moveable aerodynamic devices

#10 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:32

Originally posted by sweetreid
moveable aerodynamic devices


So are brake ducts, and that has gone on for a long time.

#11 y2cragie

y2cragie
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:49

Ferrari came to canada with a much reduced hole in those wheel rims. They highlighted it in FP2 on the speed channel. They were wondering why the holes were so small compaired to others. I am guessing Ferrari thought they could use that smaller hole as an aero advantage on the straights. Turned out it was overheating the brakes and they had to run the rest of the weekend without them..

#12 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,699 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 10 June 2008 - 08:03

Originally posted by sweetreid
moveable aerodynamic devices


They dont move, they are fixed in relation to the bodywork.

#13 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2008 - 08:19

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


They dont move, they are fixed in relation to the bodywork.

They are fixed in relation to the wheels which themselves move in relation to the bodywork, albeit slightly.

#14 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:09

Originally posted by fukkinen
The wheels covers were/are and has always been aero devices.
Ferrari and FiA can say anything that the public will swallow.

The Bonneville guys have always used it, for what?
Colling the brakes?
NOOO, better aero penetration and top speed.


Totally agree. They should never have been allowed.

#15 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:13

Originally posted by Clatter
Totally agree. They should never have been allowed.

I agree too.

#16 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:15

We are almost pedantic in this I think. Does a front wheelcover move? Yes it does - when the driver steers the front wheels the front ones move in relation to the car. When the car goes over a kerb and the suspensions, front and/or back, move up and down the front and/or rear wheelcovers move in relation to the car as well.

Charlie Whiting knows it is an aero device and it moves. The whole pitlane knows. They have been allowed and everybody can put them on. They should never have been allowed but they are. Now almost everyone has them, what is the problem?

#17 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,742 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:28

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


They dont move, they are fixed in relation to the bodywork.


No kidding....

They certainly move with respect to the sprung part of the car, the bodywork, but are exempt for occupying space where brake duct rules are enforced and therefore are exempt of the movable aerodynamics rule. The covers almost certainly are solely for reducing drag, I certainly have not seen a single credible comment to suggest they help to cool brakes, rather the opposite.

Oh the trick with CO2 to inflate wheels my be as simple as realizing that CO2 has significantly higher heat capacity than N2 and O2 (well air) which implies it takes more energy to increase the temperature of the gas by any given amount. Considering that C02 like N2 and O2 follow the ideal gas state equations pretty well, the net result should be smaller tire pressure variation with C02 than with more commonly used N2.

#18 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:28

Moveable aero parts are forbidden for a very simple reason. Engineers designed them to alter downforce/drag levels during a lap. This isn't a problem in itself. The real problem is, that such constructions are bound to fail if you try to find the most extreme solution. And if that happens the car goes ballistic. That's why they are forbidden.
A wheel fairing cannot cause the car to go ballistic since it's not generating downforce itself but only helping the make the aero more efficient.

Also it's just as moveable as the suspension parts like the track rod, wishbones... Those are also designed to help having the most efficient aero. There is no reason to complain about it.

#19 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:39

From the technical regs on moveable aero:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:



Advertisement

#20 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,596 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:25

Quote and dislike as much as you want.

They are allowed = legal.

All teams can, and most do run them.

They are not, and never were a movable aerodynamic device, and will never become one. I don't like them, but there are no issue with using or not using them, unless you are looking for non-issues to discuss.

:cool:

#21 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,478 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:30

Some of you guys are too funny, if not actually in need of some psychiatric care.

Ferrari puts wheel covers on = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy.

Ferrari takes wheel covers off = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy/Ferrari not being hinest (I thought only pit babes had nice hinests)

:rolleyes:

Neil

#22 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:35

Am I developing Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or have title thread spelling mistakes become mandatory?

#23 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2008 - 15:16

Originally posted by Option1
Some of you guys are too funny, if not actually in need of some psychiatric care.

Ferrari puts wheel covers on = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy.

Ferrari takes wheel covers off = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy/Ferrari not being hinest (I thought only pit babes had nice hinests)

:rolleyes:

Neil

I think the thread starter asked an honest question and it's been debated in a reasonably adult way. The claim was that the covers allow more efficient cooling of the brakes, but the race and interview reveals that this is not the case. This might not be news to you but it clearly is to the thread starter. It's a long long way from a bash. If you want to see proper bashing, try the 'Why is Hamilton so disliked?" thread or, well, any thread with 'Hamilton' or 'Alonso' in the title.

#24 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 10 June 2008 - 15:23

Originally posted by Option1
Some of you guys are too funny, if not actually in need of some psychiatric care.

Ferrari puts wheel covers on = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy.

Ferrari takes wheel covers off = Ferrari cheating/FIA conspiracy/Ferrari not being hinest (I thought only pit babes had nice hinests)

:rolleyes:

Neil

Well, I'm a Ferrari fan through-and-through, so no conspiracy theory from me, just an honest question. Or does supporting one particular team mean you cannot question or criticise them in your view?

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Am I developing Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or have title thread spelling mistakes become mandatory?

Granted - it is something that riles me too...unfortunately I missed it when checking, and, as we know, cannot edit thread titles.

#25 Lontano

Lontano
  • Member

  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 June 2008 - 15:27

Originally posted by Perigee

Well, I'm a Ferrari fan through-and-through, so no conspiracy theory from me, just an honest question. Or does supporting one particular team mean you cannot question or criticise them in your view?


Apparently not, if you criticise it you'll become a basher of the team you support

#26 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 15:43

Originally posted by Buttoneer
The claim was that the covers allow more efficient cooling of the brakes, but the race and interview reveals that this is not the case.


Where was that claim ?

They only thing that connects them with brake cooling is that any bodywork located in this place on the car is classified as "brake duct" whether it improves the cooling or not.

#27 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 June 2008 - 15:45

Originally posted by SchumiBoy


Where was that claim ?

They only thing that connects them with brake cooling is that any bodywork located in this place on the car is classified as "brake duct" whether it improves the cooling or not.


It was their claim way back when they first introduced them.

edit
http://www.formula1....06/754/267.html

#28 steelyman

steelyman
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:24

this is from an article on speedtv.com

"It has been widely reported that the gas used by Ferrari was carbon dioxide and, whilst this is partially correct, it's not the whole story.

In fact, the gas used by Ferrari is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-based mixture designed specifically for use in racecar tyres, though not dissimilar in composition to gasses used in refrigerators, which are comprised entirely of hydrogen, carbon and fluorine.

A team headed by Andrea Seghezzi of Monza, Italy, in association with Gruppo Sapio developed the gas and subjected it to extensive track testing.

It was discovered that the HFCs were able to effectively conduct the heat generated during the rotation of the tyre to the wheel rim at a more or less constant pressure. The wheel
rim then acts as a radiator, exchanging the heat with the outside air, maintaining a lower internal temperature and preventing it from overheating. This is particularly effective on aluminium or magnesium wheels.

Racing rubber inflated with air also suffers from the effects of some internal chemical interactions, which damage the structure of the tyre, and can result in a sudden drop in performance. Due to the high capacity for heat transfer, tyres inflated with the new gas mixture achieve excellent longevity, since the temperature of the tyre is kept low and the pressure is constant.

After extensive tyre testing the best blend of HFCs was found to be 52 per cent Tetrafluoroethane, 44 per cent Pentafluoroethane and four per cent Trifluoroethane. This mixture, known as HFC R404 A, was found to be most effective in a racing tyre when it was inflated with a blend of 50 per cent HFC R404 A and 50 per cent CO2."


i cant remember exactly but there was a reason BS engineers told mclaren why this would not work for them. it may be that the wheel covers work with it or that mac engineers only knew about the CO2 element and not the other gases.

anyone know if the wheel covers work with this at all or are they just for aerodynamics? could this be why ferrari are able to extract better performance from the soft compounds?

#29 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:32

Originally posted by Clatter


It was their claim way back when they first introduced them.

edit
http://www.formula1....06/754/267.html


Not entirely. That article you linked merely states that they are part of the brake duct. It does not state anywhere that it is more efficient or offer better cooling than a more traditional brake duct. I assume that it offers adequate cooling in most cases while offering other benefits. There is no rule that states they have to use the most efficient brake cooling system available to them.

#30 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:35

Originally posted by Clatter


It was their claim way back when they first introduced them.

edit
http://www.formula1....06/754/267.html

Exactly, and this was also the case here.

The brake cooling case for Ferrari is upheld as the cooling flow (blue) from the discs passes back out the inside of the rear wheel (red). The fairing (yellow) prevents the flow passing out through the outer face. Therefore, improvement in overall drag was merely a coincidental by-product.

I don't think anyone who has been paying attention to the issue will have missed the aero issue, but the devices have clearly reached a tipping point now and the brake cooling is hampered rather than improved. Otherwise surely Montreal is where they would be the most use to you?

#31 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:36

@steelyman:
Interesting stuff. :up:

HFC apparently is not that good for global warming. But neither is burning 150kg of fuel to drive 300km.;)

#32 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:36

Originally posted by Frank Tuesday


Not entirely. That article you linked merely states that they are part of the brake duct. It does not state anywhere that it is more efficient or offer better cooling than a more traditional brake duct. I assume that it offers adequate cooling in most cases while offering other benefits. There is no rule that states they have to use the most efficient brake cooling system available to them.


Never said it was more efficient, but it does show the argument that some thought it an aero-dynamic device whereas Ferrari claim its for brake cooling.

#33 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:40

Maybe the reason why Ferrari removed them for the Canada race is, that the amount of brake dust generated on this circuit could clog the covers and thus reduce the colling effect. Remember that Canada is the circuit which is hardest for the brakes.

Zoe

#34 steelyman

steelyman
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:43

good point Zoe

#35 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 10 June 2008 - 16:54

Occam's razor ;)

#36 Milt

Milt
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 19:16

It seems fairly obvious that Ferrari pulled a fast one on Charlie, away back in 2006
"Ferrari say the lip is a functional part of the air intake system for brake cooling", and it is, but Ferrari just 'forgot' to tell Charlie that it restricts, rather than enhances, the cooling of the brakes.
It was allowed on the basis that it was a part of the brake ducting.


I was wondering why the Ferraris were faster on the straights than most other cars, up until Montreal.
Is it an 'aerodynamic device'?
I think the answer to that question is obvious, but feel free to disagree, and I'm sure somebody will.
Does it move?
Does a bear shit in the woods?

#37 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 10 June 2008 - 19:33

Under article 11.4 "Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system".

So it doesn't matter whether the ducts are more or less effective at cooling the brakes. If they are air ducts and are within the specified area, they are part of the braking system.

If they are air ducts within this area, they are also excluded from the provisions relating to moveable aerodynamics (see article 3.15 posted earlier in this thread).

Hence they are legal, regardless of aerodynamic influence or how efficient (or unefficient) they may be at cooling brakes.

#38 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 19:55

Originally posted by Milt
It seems fairly obvious that Ferrari pulled a fast one on Charlie, away back in 2006
"Ferrari say the lip is a functional part of the air intake system for brake cooling", and it is, but Ferrari just 'forgot' to tell Charlie that it restricts, rather than enhances, the cooling of the brakes.
It was allowed on the basis that it was a part of the brake ducting.


I was wondering why the Ferraris were faster on the straights than most other cars, up until Montreal.
Is it an 'aerodynamic device'?
I think the answer to that question is obvious, but feel free to disagree, and I'm sure somebody will.
Does it move?
Does a bear shit in the woods?


It was allowed because you can put whatever you like within a specific box around the wheels and as a bonus whatever you put there gets a free pass on the "aerodynamic influence" rule.

#39 Milt

Milt
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 20:00

Originally posted by Gareth

Hence they are legal, regardless of aerodynamic influence or how efficient (or unefficient) they may be at cooling brakes.

I don't question whether they are technically 'legal' or not. They have been judged as 'legal', by the FIA
But so was Renault's TMD, for more than just a few races, until it was 'discovered' that the TMD had a minute effect (2 to 3%?) on the aerodynamics.

Advertisement

#40 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 20:04

Originally posted by Milt
I don't question whether they are technically 'legal' or not. They have been judged as 'legal', by the FIA
But so was Renault's TMD, for more than just a few races, until it was 'discovered' that the TMD had a minute effect (2 to 3%?) on the aerodynamics.


They weren't judged legal, the dimensions of this box around the wheels is explicitly specified in the rule book. Couldn't be more legal.

#41 Milt

Milt
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 20:05

Originally posted by SchumiBoy


It was allowed because you can put whatever you like within a specific box around the wheels and as a bonus whatever you put there gets a free pass on the "aerodynamic influence" rule.

How is this "specific box around the wheels" defined?
I haven't seen that one in the rulebook.

#42 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 10 June 2008 - 20:08

Originally posted by Milt
How is this "specific box around the wheels" defined?
I haven't seen that one in the rulebook.


11.4 Air ducts : 

 Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not 

protrude beyond : 

 - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the 

wheel; 

 - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the 

wheel; 

 - a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the 

centre line of the car. 

 Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm 

from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel. 

 All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.


#43 Milt

Milt
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 21:34

Originally posted by SchumiBoy


11.4 Air ducts : 

 Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not 

protrude beyond : 

 - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the 

wheel; 

 - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the 

wheel; 

 - a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the 

centre line of the car. 

 Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm 

from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel. 

 All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.

Thank you. I stand corrected.
I hadn't read that one.

#44 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,022 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 11 June 2008 - 03:08

Originally posted by Hippo
Moveable aero parts are forbidden for a very simple reason. Engineers designed them to alter downforce/drag levels during a lap. This isn't a problem in itself. The real problem is, that such constructions are bound to fail if you try to find the most extreme solution. And if that happens the car goes ballistic. That's why they are forbidden.
A wheel fairing cannot cause the car to go ballistic since it's not generating downforce itself but only helping the make the aero more efficient.

Also it's just as moveable as the suspension parts like the track rod, wishbones... Those are also designed to help having the most efficient aero. There is no reason to complain about it.


Yeah but there are rules as to the ratio of the height vs. length of the susp. members exposed to the free air flow to minimize their use as aero aids.