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

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...