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

    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
    • Anyone know alternatives to powerplus tungsten? Can't find an alternative online. 
    • 95 is just a scam outright. 98 is the real "premium" with all the best detergents and other additive packages, and at least historically, used to be more dense also. 95 is just 91 bargain basement shit with a little extra octane rating. Of course, there's 91 and there's 91 also. I always (back in the 90s early 2000s) refused to put fuel in from supermarket related fuel chains on the basis that it was nasty half arsed shit imported from Indonesia. Nowadays, I suspect that there is little difference between the nasty half-arsed shit brought in by the "bargain" chains and the nasty half-arsed shit brought in by the big brands, given that most of it is coming from the same SEAsian refineries. Anyway - if there's still anything to that logic, then it would apply to 95 also. 98 is only made in decent refineries and, as I said, is usually the "premium" fuel, both in terms of octane rating and "use this because it's good for your engine because it's got the unicorn jizz in it!".
×
×
  • Create New...