Ferrari SF1000

[aral]

If ackerman works automatically, then it is legal. if the change of toe-in requires a physical input from the driver, then it is illegal. but of course it will be up to the stewards and FIA to police the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN. no point in speculating at this moment in time.

You just did.

Sorry, i didnt ! I said that it will be up to the stewards and FIA to decide on illegality or not. That is not speculation !

[kimetic]

Sorry, i didnt ! I said that it will be up to the stewards and FIA to decide on illegality or not. That is not speculation !

It's difficult to say much about F1 rules without speculating. As I understand it, the way the most relevant rule is written, the limitation only applies if the steering wheel is fixed, so if it moves axially the clause doesn't apply. But if there's some fine adjustment of steering angle going on in corners with 'a device', then that might be a 'driver aid', or not.

[SiLo]

How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?

I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.

So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.

[henry]

How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?

I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.

So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.

No. They do the same underlying thing. DAS is functionality on top of this underlying functionality.

I think they both do this underlying thing.

As the steering wheel rotates the angle through which each wheel rotates depends on two things.

First, the outboard static steering geometry, so called Ackerman, which is on all the cars. Normally the inboard steering joint on the racks moves equal amounts as the steering wheel turns and so the the turning angles of the inside and outside wheels only vary by the amount caused by the Ackerman geometry.

Second With the fancy rack systems there is a variable amount of road wheel movement that comes from a mechanism in the rack assembly which moves the inboard steering connection a variable amount in addition to the normal movement of the rack. This allows better control over the individual movement of the wheels than Ackerman on its own.

The DAS system provides an additional control over this basic mechanism which can turn the two wheels in opposite directions to adjust toe.

Warning. This is my personal interpretation of what is happening base on what I’ve read from Scarbs, Paola, and others. There may be other explanations.

[SiLo]

I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.

So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.

No. They do the same underlying thing. DAS is functionality on top of this underlying functionality.

I think they both do this underlying thing.

As the steering wheel rotates the angle through which each wheel rotates depends on two things.

First, the outboard static steering geometry, so called Ackerman, which is on all the cars. Normally the inboard steering joint on the racks moves equal amounts as the steering wheel turns and so the the turning angles of the inside and outside wheels only vary by the amount caused by the Ackerman geometry.

Second With the fancy rack systems there is a variable amount of road wheel movement that comes from a mechanism in the rack assembly which moves the inboard steering connection a variable amount in addition to the normal movement of the rack. This allows better control over the individual movement of the wheels than Ackerman on its own.

The DAS system provides an additional control over this basic mechanism which can turn the two wheels in opposite directions to adjust toe.

Warning. This is my personal interpretation of what is happening base on what I’ve read from Scarbs, Paola, and others. There may be other explanations.

Ok I think I understand now. So the Ferrari system is passive? Like having a non-linear response curve to steering input for each wheel depending on the direction it is being turned in?

[henry]

I think both Ferrari and Mercedes have similar passive behaviour as you say. But Mercedes has additional Active behaviour.

[SiLo]

I think both Ferrari and Mercedes have similar passive behaviour as you say. But Mercedes has additional Active behaviour.

Ok cool. I guess we need to wait for some more details to be shed on it.

[PlatinumZealot]

How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?

I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.

Best wait until clearer images appear before declaring the lever. I can't make out any lever there.

The Ferrari system is passive it seems. Progessively changes the distance between the rack end depending on steering angle.

The Mercedes system does this too more likely, but has two settings which the driver can select from.

[henry]

Best wait until clearer images appear before declaring the lever. I can't make out any lever there.

The Ferrari system is passive it seems. Progessively changes the distance between the rack end depending on steering angle.

The toe can be varied by changing the position of the rack ends in two ways, or a combination of them. One, as you say, is to change the distance between the rack ends. The other is to move the location of the track rod end in a plane at right angles to the rack.

The first draft of the regulation that bans this only dealt with option one. The second draft additionally bans option two. That addition in the second draft suggests that one of Ferrari or Mercedes, or both, may have used that technique.

The Ferrari rod end is located eccentrically to, but within, the cylinder housing the rack(s). The Mercedes is wholly outside of that cylinder which is why I referred to the attachment as a lever. It might also be termed a cantilever. See it now?

[PlatinumZealot]

They banned any fore and aft motion of the rack-ends because it is another possible way to adjust the toe. However bodywork openings where the tie rods emerge on Mercdes and Ferrari do not seem to have the clerances for fore and aft motion. The casted end peice on the rack does not seem to support that either. Unless... The tie rod is sheathed inside an outer shell.. But anyway. I think the split rack or hydraulic piston method are more likely used.

[Just_a_fan]

They banned any fore and aft motion of the rack-ends because it is another possible way to adjust the toe. However bodywork openings where the tie rods emerge on Mercdes and Ferrari do not seem to have the clerances for fore and aft motion. The casted end peice on the rack does not seem to support that either. Unless... The tie rod is sheathed inside an outer shell..

The steering rod is inside an aero shell that is coincidental with the upper wishbone front leg. That's why there is no hole where the rod passes through the chassis - it's hidden inside the shell. This is a design used by many teams over the years to reduce the aero impact of the steering rod.

[MtthsMlw]

So is this the reason vettel had that special lever on his steering wheel?

I think the handbrake theory is more likely.

[ScrewCaptain27]

According to Motorsport.com there is a design flaw in the gearbox casing, which is too thin and flexible and causes inconsistent behaviour in corners.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/formu ... 0/4793926/

[MtthsMlw]

According to Motorsport.com there is a design flaw in the gearbox casing, which is too thin and flexible and causes inconsistent behaviour in corners.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/formu ... 0/4793926/

At launch they talked about having put much effort in to making the gearbox more compact so there is that.
Could also just be speculation based on them mentioning it officially.

[saviour stivala]

Franco Nugnes got his nickers in a twist with that totally confusing article as suspension loads are not carried by the gearbox casing.