Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

surely just running a bit more angle of attack on the front wing aerofoil elements would be a less retarded solution??

I reeeeally hope (as I suspect it won't) this doesn't turn out to be a successful design feature

I can't see it making much difference

obviously Ferrari think so considering they haven't done the concave design like the other 2 ugly ducklings launched so far.

Sauber have the step, haven't heard much talk about the other cars as yet

in future can we link pictures of this... car... rather than embedding them on the forum pages

i dont need to accidentally see this while im eating

:laugh:

3 days to go until we find out whether Newey's turned the RB8 into a swamp-monster or not

Overheard at Ferrari F1 design studio-

"hay guise- how we gunna get the nose of this car lower than last year?"

'screw this noise, just step that f*kker down at right angles after the pedal-box and let's go get some lambrusco...'

perhaps ferrari have adopted a different mindset to their new design

maybe they are looking at it fundamentally differently to us

as in

'we'll we cant have fcuked this worse that that cruise ship captain'

so from that perspective

it looks pretty good

Edited by ctjet

Ferrari chief designer Nikolas Tombazis defends 'ugly' new F1 car.

Ferrari chief designer Nikolas Tombazis has defended the look of the new Ferrari amid widespread comments that its stepped nose makes the F2012 'ugly'.

The new regulations for 2012 that force the front section of the nose to be low down - while teams desire the chassis section to be higher up - has led to a number of outfits featuring dramatic step changes along that area of the car.

Ferrari's solution on the F2012 is the most extreme seen so far, but Tombazis does not agree with comments that the new car does not look good.

"There have been some rumours saying that this car is ugly and I have to confess that I am not objective on that, as I don't share that opinion," said Tombazis in a video interview broadcast on Ferrari's website.

"For me I have got used to the bump on the nose. I think the rest of the car has been the fruit of a lot of detail work.

"Ultimately, as far as I am concerned, an ugly car is one that doesn't win and a beautiful car is one that does win. So, for now, I want to believe it is a beautiful car and we will have to review that after the first few races."

Tombazis has promised that the Ferrari is also likely to feature a lot of upgrades before the opening race in Melbourne, with a particular focus being made in pre-season testing of defining its exhaust configuration.

"This car is still destined to change quite a lot before the first race," he said. "We have been working in the wind tunnel and the design office on aerodynamic upgrades of the car - but we also have some very important experiments

we want to carry out in the first tests so we can finalise the first race configuration."

Team boss Stefano Domenicali said he was unfazed by the look of the car as long as it's competitive.

"Actually it is not really so pretty from my personal perspective but this is a value that doesn't count in F1. These kind of choices come from technical and regulation constraints, and the choice is to try and maximise the performance of the car.

"As our chairman has already said, [whether] it is ugly or very nice doesn't count a lot. The most important thing is if the car performs."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97292

^that's very italian.

Pretty amusing that anyone in here thinks they can tell even the lowliest of F1 teams how a car should be designed.

fair play

... but I will tell them the front of their cars are uglier than dog turd :teehee:

the exhaust exit on the ferrari and Mclaren doesnt seem to match with the rule:

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2012/0/925.html

both the mclaren and ferrari engineers must have measured it to within a bees dick of the rules. Mclaren have just added to the sidepods at the back where they stick out so they flow over the rear wheels. On the offical tech spec it shows the exit of the exhaust pretty much pointing to the centre of the car???

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
×
×
  • Create New...