Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Ferrari F14 T - Part III


  • Please log in to reply
3380 replies to this topic

#1 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:42

I applaud the positive thoughts of those hoping for race wins, but at the moment I think 3rd and 4th ahead of the Red Bulls and the Mercedes customer teams are a good place to aim for in the races ahead. Here's hoping for more podiums for the men and women from Maranello. :up:

This is where I stand at present. Best of the rest is the best I'm going to hope for going forward.

The Spain update should allow further gains but that gap to Mercedes is just too huge.

Advertisement

#2 raiderhall

raiderhall
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:46

a new nose is coming?



#3 OneAndOnly

OneAndOnly
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 13:09

a new nose is coming?

Where did that come from?



#4 Ragingjamaican

Ragingjamaican
  • Member

  • 639 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 13:40

How do you think the Ferrari will perform in Spain?

 

Both drivers in the top 6?

 

No sure how this track will suit them.



#5 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 13:40

Where did that come from?

Italian press have reported it. Several in fact.

#6 AngelaTifosi

AngelaTifosi
  • Member

  • 484 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 14:18

La Gazetta is surprisingly accurate so far.



#7 OneAndOnly

OneAndOnly
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 14:18

Italian press have reported it. Several in fact.

I just hope it won't be phallus nose :) 



#8 keiichi

keiichi
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 14:35

So by now this new nose should've already passed the crash tests? I'm assuming it'll be a part of the extensive update for Spain.



#9 crespo

crespo
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:00

Damn, three already..



#10 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:02

Damn, three already..

 

Thread seems like it's rolling like the Mercedes, if only the car itself was as fast! 



#11 Vibe

Vibe
  • Member

  • 53 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:24

19112910.jpg

 

Some random concept...



#12 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:26

19112910.jpg

 

Some random concept...

 

That concept reminds me of the short-nose Mercedes had for China, looks obese though. 



#13 jrwb6e

jrwb6e
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:28

We've heard of a new nose and front wing for Spain, but what about the tightening of the body work around the sidepods?



#14 Bongodrums

Bongodrums
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:28

Yes I would say that was following the Merc concept, but still a butt ugly nose.



#15 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:39

Apparently crash tests will be happening this week. I cannot see them going any other way than the Mercedes nose due to the step in the monocoque.

#16 jrwb6e

jrwb6e
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:42

Apparently crash tests will be happening this week. I cannot see them going any other way than the Mercedes nose due to the step in the monocoque.

 

I wonder how many teams will be abandoning the appendage in Spain or will they still use them to compensate for something else?



#17 Ragingjamaican

Ragingjamaican
  • Member

  • 639 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:46

Are Ferrari looking good for Spain?

 

When I mean 'good' I mean better than what they have been this season :p



#18 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:47

Will they be able to pass the test in the first try. Took Mercedes 2 months to get it passed the crash tests...



#19 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 15:57

Will they be able to pass the test in the first try. Took Mercedes 2 months to get it passed the crash tests...

I think they will, but in the event that they don't they still have 2 more weeks to perfect it.

I still think the Red Bull solution is the best from an aerodynamic and aesthetic point of view but like Mercedes They already have the step incorporated into the monocoque. A change of that magnitude would suggest a B chassis.

Advertisement

#20 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,399 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:03

I wonder how many teams will be abandoning the appendage in Spain or will they still use them to compensate for something else?

I don't think anybody will be going with an entirely new nose concept this early in the season. It would require a massive overhaul of the entire aero package.

As for Spain, its gonna depend a lot on what everybody else does. I think if things were as they were, it would be ok for us. Maybe not quite as good as China, but better than we've seen at the other tracks. Thing is, that last couple turns in Barcelona does actually contribute a lot to the laptime, so teams with good traction and grunt can definitely make gains there, while there wasn't really anywhere in China where this is matters as much, so that would likely be our weakness against the Mercedes teams. But this area might improve for us, so who knows.

@jrwb6e - tightening of the sidepods would involve repackaging of the internals. That's a pretty drastic change for a team to make. I wouldn't expect it, although with a new nose and front wing, it would be the right time to do it...

#21 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,601 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:09

didn't Allison said nose design had no big effect...? :confused:



#22 jrwb6e

jrwb6e
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:13

@jrwb6e - tightening of the sidepods would involve repackaging of the internals. That's a pretty drastic change for a team to make. I wouldn't expect it, although with a new nose and front wing, it would be the right time to do it...

 

According to rumors, Red Bull's B-spec car is going to have a complete redesign with new sidepods.  It's a daunting task for any team to make, but we'd think Ferrari would have the resources to implement such a change.  Ferrari played it conservatively and has had no PU failures, so is there room to extract more aerodynamic efficiency around the body work?



#23 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,399 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:21

didn't Allison said nose design had no big effect...? :confused:

Yea. I don't think its quite the difference maker people think it is.
 

According to rumors, Red Bull's B-spec car is going to have a complete redesign with new sidepods.  It's a daunting task for any team to make, but we'd think Ferrari would have the resources to implement such a change.  Ferrari played it conservatively and has had no PU failures, so is there room to extract more aerodynamic efficiency around the body work?

9 out of 10 'b spec' rumors turn out false.

If Red Bull truly have a redesigned aerodynamic package, I'll be quite impressed. And puzzled, cuz that doesn't seem to be a weak area for them to go to such drastic measures.

And Ferrari have not had perfect reliability by any means. Unlikely they are so confident of pushing things further by redesigning the packaging both internally and externally so early in the season.

Edited by Seanspeed, 22 April 2014 - 16:24.


#24 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,469 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:37

 

Are Ferrari looking good for Spain?

 

As things stands now, we don't know how everyone will develop in 3 weeks, Spain should favour the car characteristics. It also depends on tires.



#25 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,601 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:39

As things stands now, we don't know how everyone will develop in 3 weeks, Spain should favour the car characteristics. It also depends on tires.

we will be nowhere if traction lacks....that's our biggest weakness,a tad bit more than engine management...



#26 Darrenj

Darrenj
  • Member

  • 1,467 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 April 2014 - 19:25

I think Ferrari may have been planning a B spec development already after the mayhem of Bahrain.. If so they may have time on their hands... ditto Red Bull 



#27 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,280 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 19:52

I think Ferrari may have been planning a B spec development already after the mayhem of Bahrain.. If so they may have time on their hands... ditto Red Bull

Im positive there is no b-spec planned for Ferrari this season..they havent mentioned anything about one..a b-spec generally means a complete overhaul of the chassis designs which would involve repackaging of all components...i cant see how that would be possible with the current regulations..
The weakness Ferrari has right now seems to be all down to the PU..yes the aero and traction could improve a lot as well but you have to see how much cost/resource effective would it be to invest heavily in a new design when the biggets gains to be made are from the PU ?

#28 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 19:58

we will be nowhere if traction lacks....that's our biggest weakness,a tad bit more than engine management...


Poor driveability could partly contribute to poor traction so the engine and engine mapping does have a say in that. Otherwise, I guess mechanical grip is also important for traction but I am not sure what exactly mechanical grip is (suspension setting, FRIC, camber angels??).

Anyway, sector 3 in Barcelona has been a weak point for some years now for Ferrari whereas merc killed everybody in that sector last year due to good mechanical grip I think.

#29 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,280 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 19:59

About the new nose,like someone quoted what Allison said at the start of the season about noses not being as important as they were once,i think we have to be believe him on this..as we dont have an opposing view from any other technical directive on tbe grid either.
The sheer amount of different noses on the grid right now seem to only reaffirm his opinion.

#30 jrwb6e

jrwb6e
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 20:04

Im positive there is no b-spec planned for Ferrari this season..they havent mentioned anything about one..a b-spec generally means a complete overhaul of the chassis designs which would involve repackaging of all components...i cant see how that would be possible with the current regulations..
The weakness Ferrari has right now seems to be all down to the PU..yes the aero and traction could improve a lot as well but you have to see how much cost/resource effective would it be to invest heavily in a new design when the biggets gains to be made are from the PU ?

 

The only real gains to be made from the PU are software related, and there comes a point of diminishing returns.  Because Mattiacci is already trying to recruit Mercedes members, Ferrari is serious about fixing the PU woes for next year.

 

In the mean time, I think it's going to take a B-spec car if Ferrari wants to be the best of the rest because Red Bull keeps out developing Ferrari every year.  Is it cost effective and worth sacrificing development on the 2015 car?  Absolutely not.



#31 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,503 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 22 April 2014 - 20:07

I do not believe in the rumoured B-spec RB10. The talk around that started when they couldn't string together five laps in testing, but it soon turned out they had what looks like a very good foundation, something that is good enough to build on and develop.

Has the PU failures Sauber has suffered been due to the engine itself, or because of Sauber's packaging?

 

As for the competitiveness of the F14T around Barcelona; I think it will be improved again - they have aero-updates and further PU-software tweaks, and the track should be good for them. The team result should also be better, as the likely higher temps should make things easier for Räikkönen, if they haven't found fixes in set-up or suspension-updates then.

With soft and medium tires, perhaps Räikkönen could make it through the race doing one stop less even….?


Edited by race addicted, 22 April 2014 - 20:09.


#32 Wes350

Wes350
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 20:17

As we all know the most important thing to do in these kind of situations when somethingr is not meeting expectations, is to properly apportion blame!   ;)   

 

So who really designed the Ferrari F14T chassis? Wikipedia has 3 designers listed: Nicholas TombazisRory Byrne and James Allison. Seems a bit inefficient...

 

Allison has made proven race winning chassis the last two years with Lotus which had little more than half the budget of Ferrari. But he moved over in 2013 and it is my understanding that the car was already being made at that point.

 

So is he stuck trying to make lemonade out of a lemon he had limited input in?

 

I realize that for PR reasons he can't come out and say "I had nothing to do with this shit, the car was already ****ed when I got here. I'm just doing the best that I can..."

 

Does anyone else get the impression that it was a case of too many hands in the pot?

 

Is this a normal situation at Ferrari?



#33 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 00:09

The chassis is fine.



#34 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 00:26

The chassis is fine.

 

Those were the famous last words Domenicali heard before Barhain disaster...



#35 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,469 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:18

 

So who really designed the Ferrari F14T chassis? Wikipedia has 3 designers listed: Nicholas Tombazis, Rory Byrne and James Allison. Seems a bit inefficient...

Allison was not there and Byrne is apparently an adviser only. So it must be Tombazis from that list. The perceived lack in chassis is what bring Allison.

 

 

It is also clear we have problems with chassis. The way the car gets worse with rain cannot only due to bad engine mapping and even less due to aero. The setup also seems to give some problems in some curves.

It is also said that the car can heat the tire fast, i wonder how that will play in hotter temps of mid season since this chassis seems to be chewing tires and i doubt that the sweet spot that Alonso found in China will be easily repeated. Alonso said he was unsure if China represented the true performance or a fluke due to circumstances.

 

It should be noted that China was the first GP where tires played a significant part.  Also Barcelona is a noted harsh surface for tires, and it will also depend on temps.


Edited by AlexS, 23 April 2014 - 03:26.


#36 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,319 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:51

Kimi's already using his third Control electronics. So only two new ones left before penalties. 



#37 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:52

I thought a couple of the fuel reading graphics were odd when watching China. Because if correct they seem to imply Ferrari carried less fuel than Mercedes and RBR. Good news and a sign of progress.

http://imgur.com/a/xmgLw



#38 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 5,833 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:45

As we all know the most important thing to do in these kind of situations when somethingr is not meeting expectations, is to properly apportion blame!   ;)   

 

So who really designed the Ferrari F14T chassis? Wikipedia has 3 designers listed: Nicholas TombazisRory Byrne and James Allison. Seems a bit inefficient...

 

Allison has made proven race winning chassis the last two years with Lotus which had little more than half the budget of Ferrari. But he moved over in 2013 and it is my understanding that the car was already being made at that point.

 

So is he stuck trying to make lemonade out of a lemon he had limited input in?

 

I realize that for PR reasons he can't come out and say "I had nothing to do with this shit, the car was already ****ed when I got here. I'm just doing the best that I can..."

 

Does anyone else get the impression that it was a case of too many hands in the pot?

 

Is this a normal situation at Ferrari?

 

 

Tombazis is the designer (like he has been since 2006) with the help of Byrne. Allison´s results will only really be seen next year as he has only little influence on this years car...maybe some upcoming updates are his desings together with Tombazis and Byrne. Ferrari has tried to follow McLarens path thanks to Pat Fry, thats why so many hands in the pot.



#39 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:55

Allison was not there and Byrne is apparently an adviser only. So it must be Tombazis from that list. The perceived lack in chassis is what bring Allison.

 

 

It is also clear we have problems with chassis. The way the car gets worse with rain cannot only due to bad engine mapping and even less due to aero. The setup also seems to give some problems in some curves.

It is also said that the car can heat the tire fast, i wonder how that will play in hotter temps of mid season since this chassis seems to be chewing tires and i doubt that the sweet spot that Alonso found in China will be easily repeated. Alonso said he was unsure if China represented the true performance or a fluke due to circumstances.

 

It should be noted that China was the first GP where tires played a significant part.  Also Barcelona is a noted harsh surface for tires, and it will also depend on temps.

The tires getting chewed up isn't necessarily going to worsen with higher temps. It may even get better. Often tires degrade as much when they aren't warm enough as they do when they're too warm.



Advertisement

#40 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:57

I thought a couple of the fuel reading graphics were odd when watching China. Because if correct they seem to imply Ferrari carried less fuel than Mercedes and RBR. Good news and a sign of progress.

http://imgur.com/a/xmgLw

Nice catch! I did not notice that discrepancy in the numbers.



#41 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,203 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:22

Nice catch! I did not notice that discrepancy in the numbers.


It implies nothing of the sort. The weight is in kilograms. In percentage terms Rosberg is in the green, meaning that he is ahead on fuel use, where as Alonso is bang on target. The FIA do not know how much fuel is in each car at the start of the race and the percentage used is based on the amount of fuel allowed for the race. Ie 100kg.

Edited by bonjon1979a, 23 April 2014 - 07:23.


#42 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:28

It implies nothing of the sort. The weight is in kilograms. In percentage terms Rosberg is in the green, meaning that he is ahead on fuel use, where as Alonso is bang on target. The FIA do not know how much fuel is in each car at the start of the race and the percentage used is based on the amount of fuel allowed for the race. Ie 100kg.

Not saying you're wrong, but just trying to understand...then why are Alonso & Rosberg's fuel target indicators divergent when they've used almost the same amount of fuel, and why are Alonso & Ricciardo's fuel target numbers virtually identical with different amounts of fuel used?



#43 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,203 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:06

Not saying you're wrong, but just trying to understand...then why are Alonso & Rosberg's fuel target indicators divergent when they've used almost the same amount of fuel, and why are Alonso & Ricciardo's fuel target numbers virtually identical with different amounts of fuel used?


I can't explain the alonso ricciardo graphic other than to say that perhaps it isn't a very accurate representation. No idea why. It is a fact however that cars aren't weighed before the race, Fia can only monitor amount of fuel used not the amount in the car. No one knows this apart from the teams themselves.

#44 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,203 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:06

Not saying you're wrong, but just trying to understand...then why are Alonso & Rosberg's fuel target indicators divergent when they've used almost the same amount of fuel, and why are Alonso & Ricciardo's fuel target numbers virtually identical with different amounts of fuel used?


I can't explain the alonso ricciardo graphic other than to say that perhaps it isn't a very accurate representation. No idea why. It is a fact however that cars aren't weighed before the race, Fia can only monitor amount of fuel used not the amount in the car. No one knows this apart from the teams themselves.

#45 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:50

It implies nothing of the sort. The weight is in kilograms. In percentage terms Rosberg is in the green, meaning that he is ahead on fuel use, where as Alonso is bang on target. The FIA do not know how much fuel is in each car at the start of the race and the percentage used is based on the amount of fuel allowed for the race. Ie 100kg.

 

It surprised me too - but the combination of weight used and proportion against a target implies that the fuel load is known. If that isn't the case then the graphic is nonsense. Do they have to declare it perhaps?



#46 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,673 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 23 April 2014 - 13:37

Really good news.

 


Edited by kosmos, 23 April 2014 - 13:37.


#47 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,415 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 April 2014 - 13:56

I can't fathom why the broadcasters don't explain to the viewers exactly what the graphic represent.



#48 zengiman

zengiman
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 23 April 2014 - 14:04

Wow, sounds like a press release from North Korea...

#49 GVera

GVera
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 23 April 2014 - 14:08

The only real gains to be made from the PU are software related, and there comes a point of diminishing returns.  Because Mattiacci is already trying to recruit Mercedes members, Ferrari is serious about fixing the PU woes for next year.

 

It's not so simple, you can also make changes to the PU for reliability reasons, in the case that Ferrari is not being able to exploit 100% some component of the PU due to reliability issues, they can ask permission to modify it. As an example,  Lotus is saying that they got a 2 seconds a lap upgrade from Renault in China, I don't beleive it was exclusively software changes.



#50 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 23 April 2014 - 14:29

I don't know if it has been discussed but here is Matt Sommerfields take on the performance differences in PU layout. Also posted in the Merc thread

 

http://somersf1.blog...erstanding.html

 

The bit about Ferraris struggles:

 

Ferrari powered teams thus far seem to have fallen a little short of the mark with a large disparity in top end performance which was clear to see when it left Alonso a sitting duck for an attack by Hulkenberg in Bahrain.  It seems their issues revolve around the way in which the two MGU's distribute power to one another and could be the result of mistakes made in selecting the size of their turbocharger.  Towards the top end of the powerband it would be wise for the MGU-H to be harvesting power (ie curtailing power) and sending it directly to the MGU-K for additional power.  However it seems that the Ferrari powered teams are unable to do this and instead are using energy from the ES which in turn is being depleted too rapidly, resulting in less top end horsepower.

 

Personally, I don't understand much of it but if some can elaborate, please be welcome.