Fell out the ugly tree

[Shug]

Wheelbase is much shorter in this comparison shot (even though the rear wheels are further back too)

[Dominic]

The wheels look smaller to me; I wonder how much foot print the new tyres will have in relation to the previous- i.e., is there any gain in rubber on tarmac contact patch?

[jason]

I wonder what effect the front wheel/wishbone arrangement will have on the handling??

Seems a lot further back, so should effect the weight distribution, and also angled rearwards, compared to right angles.


Anybody any ideas?

Wishbone angles are probably more to do with locating the wishbones at a convenient place on the tub for mounting points, rather than any thrust reasons (F1 teams have been compromising suspension geometry for aero for some time now - see zero keel cars) The usual reason for cutting wheelbase is to make the car more nimble (although Ross Brawn has gone on record saying that in some cases, this isn't necessarily true) Last years Ferrari had a massive wheelbase - for aero reasons, to get cleaner air to the front of the sidepods and maximise the airflow-taming that went on across the body. I suppose there could be a couple of reasons for hacking it - 1. the new regulation front wing plane is bigger and it might be regulated where that has to be in relation to the rear (dunno about this exactly) 2. they are running full slicks again and will have more mechanical grip to take advantage of a quicker-turning car - less need to tame twitchiness with more low-speed grip on offer.

(disclaimer) opinions of an F1 anorak only

Don't forget there's a lot less ballast to play with for 2009 (once the extra weight of KERS is accounted for - some teams think they'll have nearly zero ballast available for tuning the balance forward) so that's another reason for shortening the wheelbase.

The penalty for a shorter wheelbase is higher tyre wear at the rear - modern F1 rears are significantly undersized (proportional to fronts) in relation to the demand on them. [Devil's Advocate mode] ...so does this mean Ferrari have more inside info from their 'brothers' at Bridgestone? [/Devil's Advocate mode].



[I'll also apply an anorak disclaimer ]

[BiggestNizzy]

The wheels look smaller to me

look the same to me, the old car is darker around the wheels that make them look bigger

[jason]

The wheels look smaller to me; I wonder how much foot print the new tyres will have in relation to the previous- i.e., is there any gain in rubber on tarmac contact patch?

Wheels/tryes shoudl be same... I think there's some distortion in this overhead split comparison pic.

[Dominic]

The wheels look smaller to me

look the same to me, the old car is darker around the wheels that make them look bigger

Rears are smaller, as far as I can see, and measuring with a ruler on my computer screen

[Shug]

I wonder what effect the front wheel/wishbone arrangement will have on the handling??

Seems a lot further back, so should effect the weight distribution, and also angled rearwards, compared to right angles.


Anybody any ideas?

Wishbone angles are probably more to do with locating the wishbones at a convenient place on the tub for mounting points, rather than any thrust reasons (F1 teams have been compromising suspension geometry for aero for some time now - see zero keel cars) The usual reason for cutting wheelbase is to make the car more nimble (although Ross Brawn has gone on record saying that in some cases, this isn't necessarily true) Last years Ferrari had a massive wheelbase - for aero reasons, to get cleaner air to the front of the sidepods and maximise the airflow-taming that went on across the body. I suppose there could be a couple of reasons for hacking it - 1. the new regulation front wing plane is bigger and it might be regulated where that has to be in relation to the rear (dunno about this exactly) 2. they are running full slicks again and will have more mechanical grip to take advantage of a quicker-turning car - less need to tame twitchiness with more low-speed grip on offer.

(disclaimer) opinions of an F1 anorak only

Don't forget there's a lot less ballast to play with for 2009 (once the extra weight of KERS is accounted for - some teams think they'll have nearly zero ballast available for tuning the balance forward) so that's another reason for shortening the wheelbase.

The penalty for a shorter wheelbase is higher tyre wear at the rear - modern F1 rears are significantly undersized (proportional to fronts) in relation to the demand on them. [Devil's Advocate mode] ...so does this mean Ferrari have more inside info from their 'brothers' at Bridgestone? [/Devil's Advocate mode].



[I'll also apply an anorak disclaimer ]

Good point - Ferrari was allegedly almost 100kg underweight to let them tune balance with ballast, no?

[kenny]

I thought the wheels were meant to be wider this year?

[jason]

Good point - Ferrari was allegedly almost 100kg underweight to let them tune balance with ballast, no?

I think you're right. Certainly read of figures in the 70+kg ballpark. Most teams must have been hovering around that mark, since Kubica has been moaning that being one of the heavier drivers his car could be overweight with KERS fitted.

Got to be yet another good thing that the cars will no longer have great 70-100kg lumps of metal in their noses or on the 'tea trays' under the nose...

[jamie]

There was certainly a lot of noise made about the fact that this year larger heavy drivers have a big disadvantage due to the Kers and limited balast.

[jason]

Why not take a walk around the F60? Judge it's looks up close....

360 deg viewer here

[jamie]

I am actually OK with the back end of the car in that 360 deg thingy but the front just looks overly long. I think this is increased due to the lack of barge boards etc

[Scotty C]

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/motorsport ... ryId=19233

Video of testing

[kenny]

Toyota unveiled.

http://www.tf109-premiere.com/pictures.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 830287.stm
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=44927
http://www.pitlanefanatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=532