Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

[Blackout]

And it seems to me that Ferrari's 2016 exhaust pipes didnt merge before penetrating the Gbox/bellhousing like they used to do/like other cars, but it looked like they all 3 penetrated the housing through a big hole*/or three holes on each side and merged inside...
*Which explains the early lack of stiffness?
http://cdn.f1i.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... n-2_FR.jpg

[ME4ME]

I doubt that they designed the gearbox insufficiently rigid to experience tortional issues while driving on a straight. The drop speed, I'd put that down to engine mapping and ERS recovery strategy.

Why?

Because it actually makes sense to stop MGU-K drive or even engage generator mode at the end of the straight if they were marginal on electrical energy.

Ferrari have their issues but I don't think their engineers are so incompetent that they fail to designing a gearbox with satisfactory torsional rigidity to the extent that they drop 7 km/h at the end of the straight. If i recall correctly Ferrari even have a full chassis and drivetrain test bench. Major structural flaws would have been noticed at a very early stage.

Obviously that's my opinion on what I see likely vs unlikely. Can't prove either way

[bhall II]

*Which explains the early lack of stiffness?

Picture something kinda sorta like this...



Then imagine what might happen if an insufficiently stiff gearbox case squeezes a turbine housing--containing turbine blades spinning at whatever absurd rpm--that's not quite strong enough...

[LookBackTime]

The Gazzetta illustrates what could be the Ferrari 2017 highlights a very similar to Mercedes (sharp) nose and rear flap
credit: Pius Gassó ‏@piusgasso and @joseluisf1

[ME4ME]

*Which explains the early lack of stiffness?

Picture something kinda sorta like this...

http://i.imgur.com/gm6QDVU.gif

Then imagine what might happen if an insufficiently stiff gearbox case squeezes a turbine housing--containing turbine blades spinning at 50,000rpm--that's not quite strong enough...

http://nextgen-auto.com/IMG/arton101730.jpg

Lets return the favour. Why do you think your idea is more likely than ERS management?
And do you think it is realistic that Ferrari design, test and validate a gearbox that is so floppy that it negetivly affects top speed on the straight? In that case, what about corners? Ferrari weren't that bad in China, and could (should?) have had pole position.

[bhall II]

And do you think it is realistic that Ferrari design, test and validate a gearbox that is so floppy that it negetivly affects top speed on the straight?

Yes.

Also... https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/756474001799647232

[Big Mangalhit]

Bhall, As you said drag increases with the square of speed. It is then way more usefull to have 100hp in lower speeds than in higher speeds. For instance the veyron needed 120hp to go from 414km/h tp 415km/h but my car goes from 0 to 200 with the same hp and probably more drag (not sure though).

So it is only logical that teams will dump all energy at low speeds after corners and then stop spending it and start generating energy at higher speeds where hp is less valuable. For me it seems also pretty clear this was down to the maps of the engine which I still think are very important for lap time.

[bhall II]

Bhall, As you said drag increases with the square of speed. It is then way more usefull to have 100hp in lower speeds than in higher speeds.

If I send you my mailing address, will you send me some of what you're smoking? Please?

[Big Mangalhit]

Bhall, As you said drag increases with the square of speed. It is then way more usefull to have 100hp in lower speeds than in higher speeds.

If I send you my mailing address, will you send me some of what you're smoking? Please?

That pretty much makes you against the idea.

Drag is proportional to the square of speed, and the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of speed. That means you'd need an entirely unreasonable amount of power to push F1-like, open-wheel drag though the air at 450kph. (Think: horsepower in the thousands.)

Here's Gordon Murray's idea of extreme...

http://i.imgur.com/TiKtxxC.jpg
(Click to enlarge)

[turbof1]

Bhall, As you said drag increases with the square of speed. It is then way more usefull to have 100hp in lower speeds than in higher speeds. For instance the veyron needed 120hp to go from 414km/h tp 415km/h but my car goes from 0 to 200 with the same hp and probably more drag (not sure though).

So it is only logical that teams will dump all energy at low speeds after corners and then stop spending it and start generating energy at higher speeds where hp is less valuable. For me it seems also pretty clear this was down to the maps of the engine which I still think are very important for lap time.

That would lead on its own to higher speed. Atleast, if traction can handle the torque. Else it ends up just being wasted.

Like Ben is trying to tell, your logic is flawed. Your car is not getting Veyron drag numbers simply because it is nowhere near a veyron. If you'd limit the veyron to 200bhp, it will actually have less drag than your car.

The only thing you can do is leverage additional amounts of power for additional downforce (and drag along with it).

Ultimately, the goal is not necessarily the horsepower. The goal is average speed across the lap. So you naturally want to have higher speed at all times! Horsepower, downforce and drag are variables in function of that.

[bhall II]

Bhall, As you said drag increases with the square of speed. It is then way more usefull to have 100hp in lower speeds than in higher speeds.

If I send you my mailing address, will you send me some of what you're smoking? Please?

That pretty much makes you against the idea.

Drag is proportional to the square of speed, and the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of speed. That means you'd need an entirely unreasonable amount of power to push F1-like, open-wheel drag though the air at 450kph. (Think: horsepower in the thousands.)

Here's Gordon Murray's idea of extreme...

http://i.imgur.com/TiKtxxC.jpg
(Click to enlarge)

Correct. You want all the power you can possibly muster at high speeds in order to overcome the drag force. It's at low speeds, especially when the car is traction-limited, that you don't need max power.

[Big Mangalhit]

If I send you my mailing address, will you send me some of what you're smoking? Please?

That pretty much makes you against the idea.

Drag is proportional to the square of speed, and the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of speed. That means you'd need an entirely unreasonable amount of power to push F1-like, open-wheel drag though the air at 450kph. (Think: horsepower in the thousands.)

Here's Gordon Murray's idea of extreme...

http://i.imgur.com/TiKtxxC.jpg
(Click to enlarge)

Correct. You want all the power you can possibly muster at high speeds in order to overcome the drag force. It's at low speeds, especially when the car is traction-limited, that you don't need max power.

Obviously not when traction limited, but as soon as you spot being limited you want to dump all your power on lower speeds. In other words if you could lend power you have on the end of the straight to the begining of the straight you would have a better laptime. Which is btw exactly what these cars do with the MGU-H. As you said you need "thousands of HP" to push the car faster at 450km/h but that hp is way more efective and valuable at lower speeds.

So a system of borrowing and lending hp through the use of an acumulator is be used to lower the laptime.

[turbof1]

Correct. You want all the power you can possibly muster at high speeds in order to overcome the drag force. It's at low speeds, especially when the car is traction-limited, that you don't need max power.

Obviously not when traction limited, but as soon as you spot being limited you want to dump all your power on lower speeds. In other words if you could lend power you have on the end of the straight to the begining of the straight you would have a better laptime. Which is btw exactly what these cars do with the MGU-H. As you said you need "thousands of HP" to push the car faster at 450km/h but that hp is way more efective and valuable at lower speeds.

So a system of borrowing and lending hp through the use of an acumulator is be used to lower the laptime.

That is a question of acceleration vs top speed, and has little to do with drag.

[jonas_linder]

I believe that it is an intentional strategy by Ferrari and not a weak gearbox.

It is well known in the automatic control community that "bang-bang" control will achieve minimum time solutions. This means that it is quicker to use the energy to get up to top speed as fast as possible rather than to use the energy averaged over the whole distance. See, for instance, "Bang–bang solutions in optimal control" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang–bang_control

The implication for this case is that it is better to dump all energy as fast as you can to get maximum acceleration.

[Big Mangalhit]

wikipedia:
Power

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).[16] With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Matematically the ratio of power/drag decrases with speed. So power has a more pronounced effect of the accelaration at lower speeds. So it is more valuable to sump power at lower speeds