Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 12 votes

Ferrari F14 T - Part II


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3998 replies to this topic

#1 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,646 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:20

Continuation of the Ferrari F14 T thread, please remember to keep to the topic, this is not the thread for discussing Ferrari management, their problems or other cars.



Advertisement

#2 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,643 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:21

Good luck Ferrari :up:

Jp



#3 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,452 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:25

Ferrari2183, Dude, you are stubborn ! The facts we have today, coupled with observations and comments from both Ferrari and other teams as well as outsiders of some reputation say that we are behind. Period. Most likely third. This is based upon the info we have today.

I am. It saying that therefore that is how it will go for the rest of the season. We will wait and see what Australia brings us. But today we are in no position to claim we are at the top or thereabout.

What we have are people, paddock insiders and outsiders, trying to make sense of a testing program they're not privy to. But let me entertain you... Please reveal these so called facts you're talking about. I will wait with bated breath

Me? I choose to believe what the team and drivers say. That's my reference point.

#4 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:44

That Horse Power documentary.... the face of James Allison when they boot up the engine the night before, absolutely priceless



#5 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:44

yo..neo thread..let us p**s together again... :clap:



#6 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:55

Is there a link for it online?

 

Check your inbox, I just PMd you the link. We cant share it here



#7 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:02

Mika Salo on Radio Nova:

 

- there were laps where Ferrari were the fastest in some sectors and some laps were they were slow in the same sectors 

- they didn't turn up the engine to full power, so their pace is unknown and nobody knows where they lie in the pecking order

- they had some issues with the ERS/PU, but not to the same extent as others



#8 AlainProstX

AlainProstX
  • Member

  • 307 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:03

What we have are people, paddock insiders and outsiders, trying to make sense of a testing program they're not privy to. But let me entertain you... Please reveal these so called facts you're talking about. I will wait with bated breath

Me? I choose to believe what the team and drivers say. That's my reference point.


You should have added how those observers and experts said our car was the one to beat in 2011 after our tests... Best race sims, fast lap times, yet still beaten by a Mclaren which barely managed to leave its garage in testing.

#9 adumbo

adumbo
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:08

I am very excited for this season! Nothing like a bit of mystery and uncertainty and hopes. The team will be prepared for a long ardous battle and so must we with our support. Some of you prefer a domination like championship but lets remind ourselves that a hard fought battle is ok as well. It makes it very savoury if we win and very painful if we lose. That is sport.

 

Please keep us updated with car arrivals and such. I will be very much distracted this week. I am in Sydney but it is to late now to go down to Melbourne. Everything wil be very expensive. :cool:



#10 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,097 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:16

PIJAMAS in previous thread:

 

If we turn out wrong about Ferrari's pace, we'll still have guessed it right based on what we had to create a guess about it all.

 

 

 

But you still would have GUESSED right.



#11 Abranet

Abranet
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:21

I've seen posts stating that the things we 'know' or the 'facts' we have. We don't know anything or have any real conclusive facts. What we have are assumptions/suspicions and theories. The only time we will start to know anything is after Oz.

 

All in all we haven't demonstrated we are outright fastest but that may have been from choice. We appear to to have fairly solid car but until we see what happens next weekend then we don't 'know' anything.

 

Personally I'm optimistic we will be competitive and over the course of the season anything can happen. Forza Ferrari  :clap:


Edited by Abranet, 10 March 2014 - 07:22.


#12 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:23

So people dont start PMing me for the link lol

 

Follow this dude on twitter: https://twitter.com/FiftyBuckss

 

He uploads everything related to Sky and F1, search his timeline and you'll find the documentary



#13 EarnardBeccelstone

EarnardBeccelstone
  • Member

  • 53 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:07

F14T is an instersting cart.

 

Ferrari have had reasonable (not great, but certainly far from the worst) reliability. The car's done just short of 4500 km, they've tested the aero and done heaps of component end of life stuff. They've re-jigged some of the MGU components for better cooling and they've managed to shrink wrap some rear bodywork on the car for better aero.

 

So, in reliability terms, which I believe will count for a lot this season, they're in reasonable shape.

 

As far as the whole power-train goes, as an outside observer, its still an unknown but I'd put them middle of three. The Mercedes lump appears to be the best, both in terms of power and reliability, but its really hard to tell how things will go at full race power and full race distance. The main problem for Ferrari appears to be fuel usage, although they reportedly hadn't been using full MGU-K/MGU-H power for some of the testing.

 

The aero side is more promising than it has been for a few years at least, although the F14T is never going to win any beauty contests. The wind tunnel and trackside numbers are lining up nicely from reports and Ferrari seems to be at least level pegging with the other teams in terms of development pre-Australia (new front wing, new rear quarter, new diffuser, monkey seat development). There's a few detached airflow gremlins on the car (visible from some of the shots of the flow-vis), but nothing that appears majorly wrong.

 

Mechanically, Ferrari seem to have the break-by wire smoothed out and good low/medium speed stability. I think the main issue will be Ferrari's rear tyre use, as some of the press have already been indicating.

 

I'd say, solid development platform with a sensible, if slighly conservative design philisophy. If the drivers can get the bet out of it, and I think they can, I'd predict one car in the top six, both in the top eight in qualifying at Melbourne.



#14 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,976 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:18

So people dont start PMing me for the link lol

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ary dailymotion

It's not hard guys.
 


Edited by Jovanotti, 10 March 2014 - 08:19.


#15 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:57

Last time I linked a Sky video I got in trouble, sorry for being safe!

#16 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 7,311 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:03

F1 - Ferrari sandbagged in winter testing - Salo

 

http://motorsport.ne...Salo,73548.html

 

Not too long to find out :blush:



#17 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:29

Autosprint reports today about Ferrari's "secret". As I understand it they use the electric engine for gear changes in order to save fuel. Don't know what doppietta means in this context, any help from the italians? 

http://autosprint.co...lettrica/13579/ (italian)



#18 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:35

Analysing the data collected after Bahrain test. The MERC W05 produces more downforce than FER F14-T. Similar power output.

 

Also, he's claiming he's 100% certain Ferrari were running more fuel onboard during short runs than Mercedes.



#19 tass

tass
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:01

Autosprint reports today about Ferrari's "secret". As I understand it they use the electric engine for gear changes in order to save fuel. Don't know what doppietta means in this context, any help from the italians? 

http://autosprint.co...lettrica/13579/ (italian)

 

'Doppietta' is double clutching while breaking.



Advertisement

#20 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:38

 

Analysing the data collected after Bahrain test. The MERC W05 produces more downforce than FER F14-T. Similar power output.

 

Also, he's claiming he's 100% certain Ferrari were running more fuel onboard during short runs than Mercedes.

 

 

Jesus this guy is full of s***!



#21 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:39

Btw, in the docu Mattia Binotto says the ERS gives around 3 seconds per lap. Just for those of you calculating how much faster could the F14T have gone in Bahrain with a fully functional PU.



#22 keiichi

keiichi
  • Member

  • 323 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 13:54

Btw, in the docu Mattia Binotto says the ERS gives around 3 seconds per lap. Just for those of you calculating how much faster could the F14T have gone in Bahrain with a fully functional PU.

 

I sure am one of those that choose to believe Ferrari is not in such a bad shape as we've been recently led to believe, but still even if those 3 seconds are true we were certainly not being deprived of the whole 3 seconds, probably not even half of that.

 

And we still have to account for the possibility of Mercedes and/or Williams also not going for the full performance with their cars (nobody knows their fuel load for instance).



#23 rodlamas

rodlamas
  • Member

  • 8,058 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:05

Btw, in the docu Mattia Binotto says the ERS gives around 3 seconds per lap. Just for those of you calculating how much faster could the F14T have gone in Bahrain with a fully functional PU.

Let's not forget you have to be able to deploy full ERS. It would be stupid to turn it fully on the 1st race, get a one-two in qual (I doubt Ferrari can make it to the front row) and then coast to a halt during the race.



#24 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:08

In that documentary, Kimi mentions during the Jerez test that during braking, the rear locks and if he tries to push, he doesn't know "which way it's going to go". That sounds a lot like the odd behavior of the car during cornering in Bahrain and the way he says it makes me think about the power delivery. Or rather faulty steering.



#25 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:20

I sure am one of those that choose to believe Ferrari is not in such a bad shape as we've been recently led to believe, but still even if those 3 seconds are true we were certainly not being deprived of the whole 3 seconds, probably not even half of that.

 

And we still have to account for the possibility of Mercedes and/or Williams also not going for the full performance with their cars (nobody knows their fuel load for instance).

I wasn't trying to say the lap times could be 3 second faster because of the ERS. My point was the difference between using 100% of ERS or just 60-80% could be measured in several tenths or even a second which is a lot. I'm not saying Ferrari will gain all this time to other teams because as you said there's a lot of variables and question marks. That just adds to the idea that we can't say where each team really stands.  



#26 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:25

Let's not forget you have to be able to deploy full ERS. It would be stupid to turn it fully on the 1st race, get a one-two in qual (I doubt Ferrari can make it to the front row) and then coast to a halt during the race.

I know, I wasn't necessarily aiming at Melbourne. I just think it's important to know that there's a lot to gain from extracting everything from the PU. Everyone seems to take for granted the Mercedes engine is the best, maybe it's just the only one that has been used to its full capacity. Who knows...



#27 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 9,349 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:27

 

Analysing the data collected after Bahrain test. The MERC W05 produces more downforce than FER F14-T. Similar power output.

 

Also, he's claiming he's 100% certain Ferrari were running more fuel onboard during short runs than Mercedes.

 

That's not a surprise though is it?  I thought it was common knowledge that Ferrari didn't really carry out any qualification runs?



#28 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:32

Jesus this guy is full of s***!

 

Why? Sky Sports were also saying they were unsure Ferrari did proper low fuel runs, and that they could only evaluate their race sims. Even those were rather fuel saving race distances, instead of full-blown race simulations. 

 

Paolo Filisetti was on scene in Bahrain so I bet he knows more than someone following testing from behind a laptop screen. 



#29 keiichi

keiichi
  • Member

  • 323 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:37

I wasn't trying to say the lap times could be 3 second faster because of the ERS. My point was the difference between using 100% of ERS or just 60-80% could be measured in several tenths or even a second which is a lot. I'm not saying Ferrari will gain all this time to other teams because as you said there's a lot of variables and question marks. That just adds to the idea that we can't say where each team really stands.  

 

Ok mate, thanks for clearing that up  :up:



#30 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:39

In that documentary, Kimi mentions during the Jerez test that during braking, the rear locks and if he tries to push, he doesn't know "which way it's going to go". That sounds a lot like the odd behavior of the car during cornering in Bahrain and the way he says it makes me think about the power delivery. Or rather faulty steering.

 

Or as people here would put it.... sandbagging.... oh wait!


Edited by charly0418, 10 March 2014 - 14:40.


#31 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,156 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:43

Mika Salo on Radio Nova:

 

- there were laps where Ferrari were the fastest in some sectors and some laps were they were slow in the same sectors 

- they didn't turn up the engine to full power, so their pace is unknown and nobody knows where they lie in the pecking order

- they had some issues with the ERS/PU, but not to the same extent as others

 

I have to say that I like the hope the comments about sandbagging by Force India and by Mika Salo give. It will be good to see the two Ferraris in the first row, blitzing everyone. When did that last happen in the history of the Prancing Horse?

 

Here's to the F14T!



#32 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 14:50

I doubt they were sandbagging, but they haven't shown their cards either. Mainly because they couldn't. 

 

I think it's safe to conclude based on Kimi's comments from the documentary and the various news/rumors we read these past few days that the issue is with the power delivery from the ERS. The ERS was rarely run at full capacity because it would result in a lot of tyre eating and car instability. 

 

The question is whether they solved the problem and can run ERS at full 160HP without the car sliding all over the place. 



#33 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:07

Myabe they could hook up a potentiometer to the ERS power deivery, then maybe turn it down so it doesn't engage so ubruptly...

 

</sarcasm>



#34 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 3,954 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:12

Jesus this guy is full of s***!

Somebody had to take the mantle from Jose Luis.



#35 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:14

Or as people here would put it.... sandbagging.... oh wait!

Imagine if during the course of 12 days of testing, Ferrari actually tested stuff --different set ups, parameters, limits, etc -- to try and get a handle on which way was best.  



#36 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,452 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:25

Imagine if during the course of 12 days of testing, Ferrari actually tested stuff --different set ups, parameters, limits, etc -- to try and get a handle on which way was best.

Nooooooo, it would make too much sense.

#37 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:28

AMuS wrote a race sim analysis about Bahrain:

 

http://www.auto-moto...rg-8167002.html

 

In short, they conclude Williams are somewhat faster than Merc on race trim, and both McLaren and Force India are faster than Ferrari. However, when Alonso ran the race sim, it was windy and thus, the result is inconclusive. 

 

Average lap times:

 

1. Bottas - 1:40.342 (47 laps - 3 pit stops)

2. Rosberg - 1:40.621 (54 laps - 4 pit stops)

3. Button - 1:41.574 (51 laps - 3 pit stops)

4. Sergio Perez - 1:42.336 (48 laps - 2 pit stops)

5. Fernando Alonso - 1:42.551 (52 laps - 3 pit stops)



#38 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,421 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 15:56

Why? Sky Sports were also saying they were unsure Ferrari did proper low fuel runs, and that they could only evaluate their race sims. Even those were rather fuel saving race distances, instead of full-blown race simulations.

Paolo Filisetti was on scene in Bahrain so I bet he knows more than someone following testing from behind a laptop screen.

His last couple of comments have been utterly ridiculous..doesnt matter whether he was at the track or not..Raikkonens 1 35 being on a full/heavy tank....Jesus christ!

#39 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:02

His last couple of comments have been utterly ridiculous..doesnt matter whether he was at the track or not..Raikkonens 1 35 being on a full/heavy tank....Jesus christ!

 

I explained before he didn't mean a full tank. He meant a significant amount of fuel. Could have been 10-15 laps worth since he was on a 60 lap race sim and only did 48. 



Advertisement

#40 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,421 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:06

I explained before he didn't mean a full tank. He meant a significant amount of fuel. Could have been 10-15 laps worth since he was on a 60 lap race sim and only did 48.

Yes u explained before but your explanation wasnt accurate at all..his comments said "full tanks"...which means ...well what it says ,"full tanks"...i even gave him some undue benefit of doubt by assuming he could have meant heavy tanks instead of full.
There is no frikkin way that 1'35 was on anything close to heavy loads of fuel.utterly ridiculous

#41 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:09

AMuS wrote a race sim analysis about Bahrain:

http://www.auto-moto...rg-8167002.html

In short, they conclude Williams are somewhat faster than Merc on race trim, and both McLaren and Force India are faster than Ferrari. However, when Alonso ran the race sim, it was windy and thus, the result is inconclusive.

Average lap times:

1. Bottas - 1:40.342 (47 laps - 3 pit stops)
2. Rosberg - 1:40.621 (54 laps - 4 pit stops)
3. Button - 1:41.574 (51 laps - 3 pit stops)
4. Sergio Perez - 1:42.336 (48 laps - 2 pit stops)
5. Fernando Alonso - 1:42.551 (52 laps - 3 pit stops)


So it was only windy for Alonso?

#42 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:09

Yes u explained before but your explanation wasnt accurate at all..his comments said "full tanks"...which means ...well what it says ,"full tanks"...i even gave him some undue benefit of doubt by assuming he could have meant heavy tanks instead of full.
There is no frikkin way that 1'35 was on anything close to heavy loads of fuel.utterly ridiculous

 

Full tanks meant carrying the fuel from the race sim, minus what he obviously burned during. That's how he explained it on twitter as well. Like I said, English is not his first language and twitter isn't exactly the place to describe what you mean using long sentences. 



#43 Antonov

Antonov
  • Member

  • 592 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:09

If Ferrari were not running on maximum performance, I think the big question is:

- were they not running on max performance because they couldn't from a reliability point of view? -> not good

- were they not running on max performance because they were sandbagging? -> promising



#44 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:14

So it was only windy for Alonso?

 

It doesn't matter, since Hamilton was doing three quarters of a race sim and averaging around the 1:42 mark, while Rosberg was 2 seconds quicker than him. Either track or weather conditions on different days or simply Lewis was simulating a fuel saving run. Same thing with Kimi. 

 

Point is, even if you look at race sim times, it's almost impossible to draw any definitive conclusions due to different track conditions on different days and most likely different programs for each driver.



#45 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,452 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:14

His last couple of comments have been utterly ridiculous..doesnt matter whether he was at the track or not..Raikkonens 1 35 being on a full/heavy tank....Jesus christ!

I went to go and look what the fuss is about and I see no tweet saying that...

#46 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,421 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:16

I went to go and look what the fuss is about and I see no tweet saying that...

It was probably 5 or 6 pages back in the now closed thread.

#47 UPRC

UPRC
  • Member

  • 4,618 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:17

- they didn't turn up the engine to full power, so their pace is unknown and nobody knows where they lie in the pecking order

 

Music to my ears!



#48 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,452 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:18

It was probably 5 or 6 pages back in the now closed thread.

Oh. I went to go and look based on your "last couple of comments".

Anyway, never mind.

#49 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,452 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:22

Music to my ears!

As per LorenzoDL83, AMuS reports that Ferrari ran the turbo well under the 3.5 bar as well as only using 120 bhp from the ERS.

Question is whether this is due to drivability or reliability? I'm leaning towards the former based on Montezemolo's comments.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 10 March 2014 - 16:29.


#50 TheSingularity

TheSingularity
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 10 March 2014 - 16:25

If Ferrari were not running on maximum performance, I think the big question is:

- were they not running on max performance because they couldn't from a reliability point of view? -> not good

- were they not running on max performance because they were sandbagging? -> promising

 

I mentioned this in part I of this thread, 

 

There is a third option. They tested max performance of engine, battery and turbo at different points. But rarely at the same time. (Might explain why the top speeds on fastest laps are so different to the best top speeds Ferrari achieved. Unless the setup changes they made had radical philosophy changes). I highly doubt they never tested max performance of all items. They have to, it'd have been on the checklist. However running them all on low fuel might not be a requirement when chasing reliability and fuel consumption data with a changing situation.