Ferrari's Imola speed explained ??

[Mr V]

i read this in this months F1-Racing and found it rather interesting, what do you all think?

Ferrari's super dominant performance at imola was, in the opinion of some of their rivals, acheived via "creative interpretation of the rules" prohibiting moveable aerodynamic devices. during friday practice, rival technical directors appeared to be watching the slow-motion FOCA TV pictures (the same ones i was watching on sky's p-p-v) rather more avidly than might have been expected- especially when either of the ferrari's was to be seen negotiating the Variante Alta chicane.

when asked why, one rival tech director, explained that the ferrari's floor could be seen to be "visably flexing over the bumps" and that the bargeboards attached were "moving about by about 40mm"- a contravention of the "no moveable aerodynamic devices" rule!

on friday evening, FIA delegate Jo Bauer was invited to view a video recording of the footage and was reportedly "visably alarmed" by the extent of the bargeboards deflection. the next day however, Bauer became more sanguine, and told his informer that the flexing was a result of the greart weight of Ferrari's floor (ballast).

a rival tech director was reported as saying "the flexing appeared to be occuring in a highly aero-sensitive area, so it could potentially have been of very great benefit, and since ferrari have been allowed to get away with it, we'll have to look at modifying our cars floor's, because after imola '02 no-one really knows what constitutes a moveable aero device any more"

[f1manoz]

IMO this is grasping at straws by rival designers because their cars are not quick enough!!

However, Ferrari are known to go to the extreme limits within the rule book. Perhaps this is just another example of how they are doing something which may seem illegal to most but how they can explain away.

IMO Ferrari were so much quicker due to the whole tyre issue plus the fact the F2002 is just plain better than all the other cars, movable aerodynamic devices or not.

[Glen]

Although I do not have the blanket "problem" with Ferrari that many carry, I do think that any defence along the lines of "it moves, but only because we can't stop it... it's natural flex" is bull'. If the rules require rigidity, then the manufacturers just have to make it heavier and stiffer until it doesn't move anymore. Hoerver, since there has been no official complaint from FIA or other teams, you have to suspect the entire story is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There is a similar rumour circulating about the F2002 rear wing - mainly because Schumacher referred to the rear wing as being on of their advantages.

[Adam43]

I saw Patrick Head looking at the Ferrari on telly at Imola. I think they are concerned about it and are trying to get it sorted without nasty protests etc... IMO Ferrari are not deliberately breaking the rules here.

However I'm sure that all us well informed intelligent people here will be able to sort it out. For the record (when it gets nasty ) I don't think that Williams or McClaren are whinging or that Ferrari is cheating. Sorry.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Glen
Hoerver, since there has been no official complaint from FIA or other teams, you have to suspect the entire story is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

according to F1-Racing, both williams and mclaren where going to appeal, but decieded against it! maybe the think that it could be of an advantage to them to go the flexible route to?

[Adam43]

There is a bit about the rear wing and also the barge board flexing in the Autosport that has just dropped through my door. How did it know I was just thinking about this?

It also includes a top picture of Patrick looking at the Ferrari on the telly.

[Red]

Now, now, do they use ballast located at the bottom of the bargeboards? hmmmm...... other than that how exactly would they move by about 40 mm. Anyway, wasn't mr Bauer the guy that got hysterical for about 8 mm of missing bargeboard? He must've getting old.

Since the regs say that in order to ensure that this requirement is respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion but no tests or complains were made, I believe that it's easier to suspect another F1Racing "30 ms illegal gearbox" story.

[calais]

it all boils doen to the fact that if it is a movable aero device on a ferrari, is is legal.
on any other car, it is illegal!!!!!!

[Red]

Yeah I know I know. But was it moveable?

[Glen]

Calais

If none of the other bosses have complained, how can you justify your remark?

[calais]

Originally posted by Glen
Calais

If none of the other bosses have complained, how can you justify your remark?

glen, you should know me by now.
i'm just adding some herbs and spices to the pot!!!

[Adam43]

but do the spices and herbs add to the flavour or just make it inedible?

[Glen]

Calais

Just digging you. But seriously, some people take things like that at face value - Ferrari can be frustrating as hell when no-one else can get on the same lap but in the main it's just because they are bigger and better.

I hope this is all not true - and I especially hope that they don't try to reason that the word "movable" implies intent, and that anything that moves accidentally can be excused. That defence didin't work for Mclaren with their over-low front wing at Interlagos a few years back.

[Bibendum]

This is quite interesting; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there actually *is* movement -- never mind intent or design. I'd be interested to know if anyone has described the precise character of the movements, or theorized the potential advantage it gives: In what plane does the barge-board move? Does the floor undulate, or deflect in a particular way? Does it provide more downforce (and drag) at a critical moment, removing it at others? Does it deflect more air asymmetrically to assist in yaw movements as the car crosses curbs? And so on... If there is anything in this, I imagine we'll be hearing more about it, and with luck more technical analysis.

[f1truestory]

i think if ferrari r using this sort of movable body...
so william and Mac should copy them

[neilap]

I feel all the teams cheat! Some just do it better than others. I am sure Ferrari has found a way to make their car work better while "not really" breaking any rules. Maybe other teams do this too. I feel it is a case of teams trying to figure out how to catch Ferrari. They have more power and still cant keep up. They are looking for Ferrari's cheats!

[z2252314]

I cant believe people believe all the **** they read!! Journos will make up any stories to start a controversy.

both williams and mclaren where going to appeal, but decieded against it!

That is the funniest thing Ive heard all week! If Ron suspected for 1 sec that the car was illegal he would be up to the stewards room in a flash. Anyway, this shouldnt concern Ferrari fans too much because if the rumour does gather momentum, the parts would be put under loading tests which would settle the debate. Of all the areas you could gain an advantage by cheating, why would you choose to make flexible wings!! It is so easy to get caught. We've got digital tv, multiple angles, so why hasnt anyone come up with a clip or a lap number where we can see these wings flexing?

FACT: The stewards deemed the F2002 to be legal
FACT: No member from a rival team has claimed that the F2002 has broken a rule

a rival tech director was reported as saying "the flexing appeared to be occuring in a highly aero-sensitive area, so it could potentially have been of very great benefit, and since ferrari have been allowed to get away with it, we'll have to look at modifying our cars floor's, because after imola '02 no-one really knows what constitutes a moveable aero device any more"

Why cant the journo get the name of this tech director?Surely it couldnt be so hard as there are only 11 tech directors!!!! Journo's do this to get away with bull$hit stories all the time.

A piece of advice to all forum members:- When reading F1 articles, a good technique to filter through the bull$hit is to ignore articles which contain sentences such as
"An 'unnamed' mclaren mechanic......" or "It was reported that 'some' drivers........".
If it really does happen, you can be sure the director, mechanic, or driver will be named in the piece.

[race aficionado]

For those wishing to read more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/engli...00/1937371.stm

it will probably just be talk - talk - talk and nothing will be done.

Just imagine this bit of news:
"FIA is taking away Ferraris F2002 victories due to seriouse misconduct.
New podium ceremonies wil be re-enacted at the end of the Spanish podium ceremony.
thank you."

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by Bibendum
This is quite interesting; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there actually *is* movement -- never mind intent or design. I'd be interested to know if anyone has described the precise character of the movements, or theorized the potential advantage it gives: In what plane does the barge-board move? Does the floor undulate, or deflect in a particular way? Does it provide more downforce (and drag) at a critical moment, removing it at others? Does it deflect more air asymmetrically to assist in yaw movements as the car crosses curbs? And so on... If there is anything in this, I imagine we'll be hearing more about it, and with luck more technical analysis.

First of all the barge boards is something that is placed either infront of the sidepods or the front suspensions and it's main function is to smoothen the airflow around the sidepods & to the radiators. I don't see it as to provide more drag or downforce because drag is something that most teams
want to rid off while downforce is usually created at the front & rear wings and at it's diffuser.

It's clear that the other teams are trying to find ways to make Ferrari look that they are doing something illegal.

[f1truestory]

but if the rearwing flexible it will make a big difference jukebox.
in high speed, the wing go flat more,
underbraking the wing comes up due to downforce.

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by f1truestory
but if the rearwing flexible it will make a big difference jukebox.
in high speed, the wing go flat more,
underbraking the wing comes up due to downforce.

They claimed that the bargeboards & the floor of the F2002 that are flexible...

to your theory of flexible rear wing planks....you are right on the concept but
just imagine when the cars are braking hard to negotiate corners, it will be dangerous and causes oversteer if from a flat position the planks dosen't position itself to the right angle. Only if the ECU
component is directly linked to those planks. But then FIA rules say that aero parts are not allowed to be made movable/flexible.....great idea though!

[Jukebox]

and oh wait till Monaco GP..those planks on the rear wings will be positioned at almost 90 degrees where there are more drag to enable them to take more clean corners but definitely less speed...but then those are not their main concern as it's impossible to overtake at that track...that's why i said in another thread that Monaco is the most boring track as the cars will move slower and we'll know who's gonna win the race after knowing the grid positions.

[Inigo Montoya]

Usual bs about Ferrari cheating. **Yawn**

[paulzinho]

The article says the rivals were concerned about their wing at Brasil not Imola. Ferrari had changed it to shut them up.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Usual bs about Ferrari cheating. **Yawn**

well inigo, i posted this topic and not once did i mention the word "cheat" i just said it was interesting thats all!