Ferrari F10

[scarbs]

I doubt pull rod will be copied (nor used by RBR) this year. DDD demands a slim profile ahead of the diffuser, a pull rod set up places the bulky end of the rocker\damper set up in just that area. Perversely a pullrod would suit quick ride height adjustment, as the fixed ends of the torsion bars are at the top of the gear, making adjustment easier. But I doubt that’s enough to warrant its adoption. Pull rod did benefit a low CofG which is hard to achieve at the rear, however with weight distributions moving rearwards this (slimmer front tyres) the higher CofG with pushrod can be offset with low placed ballast.

There’s no doubt that the RB5 was one of the best aero cars last year, it produced lots of efficient downforce, but that doesn’t mean it’s the car to be copied. The RB5 had the low line sidepods, low slung gearbox\differential\crash structure. These were aimed at better rear (beam) wing performance and low CofG. But in fact hampered the DDD, obstructing the onset flow and reducing internal volume. Its surprising that the car did so well with these handicaps.

[WhiteBlue]

There’s no doubt that the RB5 was one of the best aero cars last year, it produced lots of efficient downforce, but that doesn’t mean it’s the car to be copied. The RB5 had the low line sidepods, low slung gearbox\differential\crash structure. These were aimed at better rear (beam) wing performance and low CofG. But in fact hampered the DDD, obstructing the onset flow and reducing internal volume. Its surprising that the car did so well with these handicaps.

I would like to shamelessly speculate what had happened if the DDD were outlawed. The RB5 would probably have obliterated the competition. Vettel would probably be 2009 WDC. KERS would still be around and probably BMW as well. Ferrari would still have been no higher than third in constructors.

[marcush.]

with this type of oiltank I´d say moving the oiltank into the bellhousing is a useless task ....it looks like there is a lot of scope for optimising the shape in the toyota design to reduce the compromise in terms of fuel volume if the oiltank snugs more into the shape of the engine face ...typical CAD optimisation stuff ,i´d say.

http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/1/medi ... -car_4.jpg
http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/1/medi ... -car_2.jpg

the ferrari layout seems a bit bulkier,though

[GTO]

I don't think it's accurate in this thread title to call the new car Ferrari 281. 281 & 282 are the chassis numbers & not the new car designation for 2010. 661 is only Ferrari's internal designation for the car, but is accurate. Last years car was called F60 (internal code 660) because it was Ferrari's 60th year in F1. They may not necessarily call the new car F61. I wish Ferrari followed a standard alpha-numeric designation with the number progressing sequentially yearly.

Moderators pls. note: I think the thread should be renamed Ferrari F2010 until car lauch.

[Saribro]

<snip> if the DDD were outlawed.<snip>

And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

[segedunum]

True, but IIRC those rumours started after the car was unveiled and tested for the first time.

No actually. The rumours swirled before even the first test.

[Astro1]

<snip> if the DDD were outlawed.<snip>

And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

That's cruel.

[donskar]

Interesting: far less interest in this thread than the one dedicated to the "mythical" USF1 -- you know the complete sham being perpetrated by some NASCAR hicks?

On topic: any further word on rumors that the 281/2010/661 aero figures are causing concern and that Ferrari has already talked of introing a "B" spec car about the 6th or 8th race of the season?

Any room in the road car division for Domenicali and Costa?

[WhiteBlue]

Any room in the road car division for Domenicali and Costa?

=D>

[mike]

in 2008 the car literually had 5 new parts throughout the season, it wouldn't be the 1st time they screw up the car.....

[Fil]

On topic: any further word on rumors that the 281/2010/661 aero figures are causing concern and that Ferrari has already talked of introing a "B" spec car about the 6th or 8th race of the season?

i haven't seen a single article showing anyone from Ferrari saying anything about a 'B-spec' for 2010 either actually.

only Alonso is being publicly conservative about his expectations.

[Astro1]

If I had to put money on it, I would go with Ferrari coming out with a rocket rather than thinking it's a flop.

HOW, in the world after a significant development head-start would they come up with a brick? That's if I had to bet money on it and used logic.

But, because I'm not betting; I'd say it's entirely possible that it's a flop however unlikely it may be.

Ferrari in recent years have done some questionable things on the pit wall, so who knows what could be going on at the factory.

[Fil]

HOW, in the world after a significant development head-start would they come up with a brick? That's if I had to bet money on it and used logic.

*COUGH*bmw*COUGH*

[donskar]

If I had to put money on it, I would go with Ferrari coming out with a rocket rather than thinking it's a flop.

HOW, in the world after a significant development head-start would they come up with a brick? .

Simple: at the beginning of the design process you set certain goals -- aero for example. Then at or near the end of the process you find:
1) You have missed your goals. (Fire Costa)
2) (more likely) you set your goals too low relative to the competition (Fire Domenicali)

Poorly translated articles in other forums suggest that Ferrari set certain aero goals, which have not been achieved.

Other "sources" say they are about to test the 2010 version in the wind tunnel versus the 2009 car. (Seems very late to be doing that?)

[ISLAMATRON]

FERRARI CHEATING AGAIN!

http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/6918.html

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80980

Hmmm, I wonder if they will be working on fuel milage in that F2008 that Rossi will be driving... SINCE IT HAS THE SAME TYPE 056 ENGINE IN IT AS IN THE 2010 CAR.

All this extra engine test time is clearly outside the spirit of the rules.