Ferrari F2012 – Technical Analysis

Ferrari have clearly chosen to go their own way in 2012. Their design marks a departure from the 2012 “common wisdom”, as displayed in the cars that we have seen so far (CT01, MP4-27 and VJM05). It also marks a departure from previous years and design philosophies, adopting a more explorative and anti-conventional path. The Ferrari F2012 really is an interesting car, so let’s dig our technical teeth into it:

Ok, the most striking feature is the nose. This, by itself, is a strange decision. I can see what Ferrari are trying to do, i.e. maximize the airflow travelling underneath the tub and towards the rear of the car. This is why they have adopted a completely vertical underside (matched with a completely vertical upper side), pushing the nose dimension to the limits allowed by the rules. In my opinion, however, a flat underside is less effective than a curved one (which is the solution that Force India and Caterham have adopted). Furthermore, the gap at the upper part between the two “bulges” is now completely filled (and this was necessary because the upper contour follows the lower, which is also flat). I imagine that this surface that meets the air straight-on is not ideal either for drag or for the airflow trying to go to the back. A case of what were they thinking? Time will tell.

Ferrari F2012 - front view

Staying at the front, the major surprise is the pullrod arrangement. With the nose sitting so high, I was very surprised to see Ferrari adopt this (although rumours were going about) and I even went on record that such an arrangement would not be adopted. I was wrong. The question is, though: were Ferrari right? As you can see in the photo above, the pullrod is nearly parallel to the ground – I calculate the angle to no more than 10-12 degrees. It’s going to be a complete nightmare for Ferrari to restore the suspension dynamics of a pushrod arrangement at such angles (even normal pullrods at increased angles suffer a small disadvantage in that area in comparison to pushrod arrangements).

One of the advantages of a pullrod arrangement is a slightly better CoG, but frankly, in that case, I don’t see it, due to the parallel orientation of the pullrod. You can see that clearly in the picture below, where I have marked where a pushrod would have been. The pullrod definitely sits higher. The other advantage is that a pullrod allows for more and clearer air to travel from the front wing to the back. I have to say that I fail to see how this is necessary and I highly doubt it can balance out the negatives of the substantially altered suspension dynamic characteristics. It may be a strange car to drive.

Ferrari F2012 Pullrod Vs Pushrod

The last car to feature pullrod suspension at the front was the European Minardi PS01 (and PS01 B), which was driven in 2001 by none other than Fernando Alonso himself. It’s a bit ironic, and he will definitely be hoping that his Ferrari’s handling characteristics don’t match those of his old Minardi. Check out the picture below, and you can see for yourself how much more radical Ferrari’s solution is in comparison with a normal pullrod, due to the increased nose of the F2012.

European Minardi PS01 - pullrod suspension

Moving on, the sidepods are very slim and the inlets are small. Another prediction that we made was that Ferrari would be sporting crash structures separate from the sidepods in the shape of wings, in front of the sidepod inlets (rumours which were encouraged by the news that Ferrari had failed early side-impact crash tests). We were wrong too. The sidepods are highly sculpted and undercut, but conventional. The interesting bit comes if we move a bit further to the back…

…and examine the exhaust and cooling outlets. Apparently Ferrari are not adopting the central cooling outlet, a la Red Bull, that has been common in all 2012-spec cars so far. The cooling outlets are merged with the exhaust in the fairings shown in the photograph below. The exhaust outlets are positioned as low and as outboard as possible – Ferrari clearly intend to blow the rear brake ducts (we again have to thank ScarbsF1 for that, who was the first to suggest it a long while back). How the exhaust-flow will combine with the cooling outlet air-flow is a mystery at this point, but I presume both will be directed at the brake duct fins. This fact, combined with the very weird front suspension geometry, could give unwanted handling characteristics to the car. It has long been argued that downforce applied straight to the wheels is very effective, but sudden loss of it (in off-throttle mode) can cause severe unbalance. Have Ferrari, in their quest for ultimate downforce, forsaken mechanical grip and driveability?

Ferrari F2012 - exhaust and sidepod cooling outlets

At the back, the bodywork is very tight around the gearbox which has been redesigned. It is now narrower and sits lower – you can also see the driveshafts which are ever so slightly angled upwards, a la Williams FW33 but nowhere near that radical. Another feature that is different in Ferrari F2012 is the air intakes at the top and the roll hoop. Ferrari are the only team thus far to retain the mono-blade carbon-fibre construction, and they have added an additional cooling inlet, apparently dedicated for the gearbox and hydraulics.

Ferrari F2012 - Rear view

All in all, and with the benefit of hindsight (having seen the other 2012 cars so far), it seems that Ferrari were trying to do something radically different to all the rest in 2012, and have accomplished it. A check list would look like that:

Nose shape different? Check.

Cooling and exhaust different? Check.

Front suspension different? Check.

Roll hoop and air intakes different? Check.

Ferrari fans can only hope that Ferrari will be justified for going radical and against the grain. It’s a make-or-break year for several people within the Ferrari organization (from the technical to the management side) and the sheer amount of change from last year’s car to the F2012 could be an indication of a very slight panic building within the team, under the pressure for immediate results.

Force India VJM05 – Technical Analysis

Force India revealed their 2012 car (coded VJM05); in fact, in the hands of Paul di Resta, it became the 2nd 2012-spec machinery to turn its wheels in anger (ok, mild annoyment) for one installation lap today, at Jerez (Williams already shook their car down yesterday, away from the eyes of the press). Allegedly the team was encouraged by di Resta’s feedback (wow, guys, cool new LED’s on the steering wheel!).

Ok, joking aside the new Force India car looks to be a well-thought out and accomplished design, which manages to incorporate some pretty impressive details. I was mostly impressed by the amount of free air allowed to travel to the back and the way the bottle-neck shape at the back is really tight around the gearbox – arguably tighter than whatever we’ve seen so far. This is clear in the picture below (please also mark the opening for the motor starter, marked with yellow).

Force India VJM05 - tight packaging at the back

The exhausts’ angle is at the lower allowable range (as you can see in the photo below, I calculate it to about 13 degrees). The exhausts are mounted quite close to the car’s centerline (as opposed to McLaren’s, as we’ve seen before), and it seems that Force India are planning to blow the lower part of the rear wing. Nevertheless, it is clear that the exhaust outlets have a scope for experimentation, and we expect to see a varying degrees of angles during pre-season testing. There is a winglet mounted atop of the beam wing, which will probably be using the air coming from the central cooling outlet that the team has adopted. With all those exhausts and cooling outlets blowing in the wings, the ducts and around suspension members in 2012 cars, I expect to see all the cars run thermo-strips in their suspensions and wings (at the back) for the first tests. This may be an issue during the year.

Force India VJM05 - exhausts location

The nose, which clearly follows the rules literally, is more refined than Caterham’s version, and definitely more refined than Ferrari’s (the technical analysis of the F2012 will follow soon). As several F1 journalists have already remarked, VJM05 will not be a platypus but a hammerhead shark; check out the onboard cameras mounting at the front. Although I find their nose design quite pretty and streamlined in fact, this black monstrous tip ruins it for me.

Force India VJM05 - aka The HammerHead

Other than the above, the overall designed looks very accomplished and contemporary. The sidepods are slim and heavily undercut, increasing the quality and quantity of the air travelling at the back. The roll hoop structure is substituted with the typical-for-2012 design (with 2 extra mounting pillars, just like Sauber in 2011) that we’ve seen so far (as ScarbsF1 has predicted way in advance, this solution is actually lighter than the full carbon-fibre mono-blade type). The front wing is one which we haven’t seen in the past as well. The suspension solution is typical for 2012 (so far), with pullrod at the back and pushrod at the front. Tried and tested.

The team have set their goals high for 2012, hoping to secure 5th place (i.e. go one better than their best ever finishing position, which was 6th in 2011). This, practically, means that there will be a lot of pressure on the shoulders of Paul di Resta and Nico Hulkenberg, two young and relatively inexperienced drivers. It means that the drivers will have to display maturity and work together towards securing constant points finishes. A good example to follow would be the way Sergio Perez and Kamui Kobayashi operated last year.

Join me in wishing them good luck….

The story behind the “Mercury” suspension – Part A

Again, thanks to my friend for this article below…:

There has been a lot of discussion going on in various websites and forums about our proposed system, over the last couple of days. Sadly, most of this discussion has revolved around its legality and/or the impact of Mercury on the environment, rather than its merits and the technical reasons behind it.

We will leave it to the self-proclaimed “experts” on the different forums to argue about its legality, as we trust that finally the real experts (i.e. the FIA) will decide if it’s legal or not. Just an interesting observation. ScarbsF1’s report on the new McLaren MP4-27 mentions that he asked Paddy Lowe regarding the Lotus anti-dive brake system and he said that the team looked into it but dismissed it immediately because the engineers felt that it was illegal. However, when ScarbsF1 inquired with regards to interlinked systems, the team refused to comment…

Enough with that. In the meantime, we will try to explain over the next couple of days, to the few fans with an interest in the technical aspects of the sport, the idea behind the system, and more specifically:

1. Why it is not just another” interconnected /hydro-elastic suspension” – as some like to claim,

2. Why it is not “enough” to just “lock out” the front suspension under braking, and

3. Which specific characteristics of an F1 car, have been  leading  to the development of the Lotus –Renault “reactive ride height” system [now banned by the FIA] and our proposed system.

In order to do so, let´s first take a look at a “generic” F1 car according to the 2011 rules.

First, we will define, which loads we have in a hard braking manoeuver at top speed [5G deceleration] and we will later show what this means to the front ride height [front wing height over the ground] of the car.

We will show all the maths [no panic – it´s simple], and we will make some assumptions along the way. Now as is the case with every assumption, we can make some “wrong” assumptions, but this will not take away from the general principle or overall concept, nor will it render the final conclusion void. So, if you feel we have made some wrong (or inaccurate) assumptions in terms of overall downforce levels, centre of gravity [CoG] height, % of front downforce or tyre stiffness, we encourage you to do the calculations based on your own numbers, and to see what the end result looks like. We are confident, that it will not be night and day different from our final values.

So let´s look at some numbers:

To comply with the 2011 rules, a Formula 1 car must have a minimum weight of 640 kg including the driver.  To complete a race distance of approximately 300 km without refueling, the car will need an estimated 160 kg of fuel. The weight distribution between the front and the rear axle is set by the rules to 45.5-46.7% front and 53.3-54.5% rear and we assume a maximum downforce value of 15000 N [1523 kgf] and a distribution of 43% at the front axle [feel free to use your own values here].

Therefore the fuel load changes the total weight of the car by approximately 25% between Qualifying and the start of the race. This in itself is already a great challenge when it comes to choosing the appropriate setup for the car. On top of this, the amount of downforce generated by current Formula 1 cars will change the load at the wheels by about 300% at the front and about 322% at the rear. For the suspension and the tyres, the car appears to be three times as heavy at high speeds, than it is at low speeds. Combine this 300% increase in vertical load with the very low ground clearance of a Formula 1 car, and you start to see, where the challenge for the race engineers lies. The lower the car can run to the ground, the more downforce it will produce, as long as a minimum clearance is maintained, and the skid block/plank does not get excessively worn.

During braking, load will be transferred from the rear axle to the front axle; the underlying calculation for the load transfer is:

Total load transfer = (total weight of the car x longitudinal acceleration x CoG height) / wheelbase

We use a car with a ½ full tank as basis for our calculations. Please see the graphics below for the results.

Load @ the wheels (no braking)

Load @ the wheels - braking & decelerating with 5Gs

5G Braking values

As you can see, from the calculations above, the weight on the front axle increases by +267 kg and decreases by -267 kg at the rear axles during the 5G braking maneuver in our example. What this means to our front ride height and front wing and splitter (tea-tray) height, we will explain in the next blog entry.

Stay tuned…..

McLaren MP4-27 – A first analysis

McLaren took the covers off their 2012 machinery today, the long anticipated MP4-27. The car carries their hopes of winning their first Constructors World Championship since 1998.

McLaren MP4-27

At first look, the car looks more like an evolution of the MP4-25 that was used during the 2010 campaign than last year’s car. It has a shorter wheelbase and gone are some of the striking features of last year’s car. McLaren also have a history of presenting fairly “bog standard” show cars in their car launches, and it’s no different in 2012. I expect several things to “grow” in the car, as they go about their pre-season testing. Nevertheless, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, the packaging at the rear is very slim. The mechanical arrangement (gearbox, drive shafts, etc) is situated a little bit lower than MP4-26, but it’s not as low as the arrangement of Williams FW33 with the extreme angles adopted for their drive shafts (you can see the comparison below). The cooling outlet is now unique (unless some more spring out during testing), it’s much smaller in comparison to last year and is situated directly above the diffuser. The diffuser itself is blanked, so we will get to see it for the first time in testing only. Also gone are the L-shaped sidepod cooling inlets – we have a more conventional arrangement now. Interestingly, there is an additional cooling inlet inside the sidepod inlets, which will probably be dedicated for KERS cooling. The sidepods themselves are heavily undercut and sculpted.

MP4-27 - view from the rear

Williams FW33 - view from the rear

The most interesting feature of the new McLaren is the exhaust outlets location. Situated at this position, so far out from the car’s centerline (the exhaust outlets protrude from the back of the sidepods like cracked bones in a footballer’s foot), it points to the conclusion that McLaren will be exhaust-blowing their rear brake ducts. I therefore expect some heavily finned ducts to appear for the first pre-season tests – stay tuned for that. It will be interesting to read what the drivers have to say about that. Popular wisdom has it that, although the downforce produced directly at the wheels is more efficient, it is expected to affect the handling of the car in off-the-throttle mode. Considering that extreme engine mapping to blow the exhausts is no longer allowed by the FIA, the jury is out on whether the drivers can live with it or not. A tail-happy car in high speeds will definitely suit Lewis but not Jenson. The car is expected to be planted to the ground in corner exits, which is another plus for Lewis, because Jenson is slightly better than Lewis in getting the power down, so that’s another advantage that Jenson will have to give up.

The nose is much smoother than Caterham’s solution, and nothing indicates that the engineers were forced to extreme measures to deal with the 625 mm Vs 550 mm rule. Apparently McLaren feel there’s more to be gained from streamlined bodywork at the front and who are we to argue with their windtunnel calculations.

McLaren MP4-27 - front view

All in all, this appears to be a concept bordering in the conservative, with a few interesting ideas thrown in. We will have to wait of course for their first tests to make a final judgement, seeing as a lot of features on the car have been either blanked or not presented at all. The history of F1 is riddled with winning cars that have been evolved from less successful predecessors – Red Bull being a prime example of that. McLaren seem to have decided that their basic concept is not that bad and all it needs is some innovation in key areas.

The jury is out…

Anti-dive / anti-squat stability system – a further analysis

Following our yesterday’s blog where we revealed the basic concept behind an anti-dive / anti-squat system (possibly similar in scope and design to what Mercedes AMG are rumoured to be running), my friend who is behind this idea was kind enough to provide a few insights into the concept, as well as some figures, which will help everybody understand its application a little bit better.

The first picture is a logical extension of yesterday’s sketch, with a gas (N2) cylinder accounting for the increase in system volume due to thermal expansion. For the benefit of our presentation we will assume that the system operates with mercury (and all calculations have been based on that assumption) but other heavy fluids can be used as well, such as gallium and its alloys (gallium-indium-tin), cesium formate, barium sulfide, sodium metatungstate, etc etc. Less heavy fluids will require pistons & cylinders of increased diameters to reach the required force (due to the inevitably reduced ΔP), but it’s do-able.

The mercury circuit is set at an approximate fixed volume of 500 cc, with a pipe line of 8 mm (inner diameter) connecting the front and the rear heave cylinders at a distance of approximate 3200 mm (i.e. the wheelbase of the car). As you understand, the volume of heavy liquid required is quite minimal.

The oil circuit and the mercury circuit are set at a constant pressure of 200 bar. The accumulator decides the “system pressure”, since lower pressure values can also be used without any primary effect on the system (10 bar would do as well). The benefit of this system, in comparison to the Lotus one that was recently banned by the FIA, is that the car is not “rested” on it, so any changes on its stiffness will not have dramatic effects. The beauty of this system is that it’s not “in-line” with the main suspension load, but “in-parallel”, so it doesn’t carry it all the time.

During the braking phase, a -5g deceleration would produce a delta-P (differential pressure between front and rear) of around 22 bar (similarly, a 1.5g acceleration during the accelerating phase would produce a delta-P of around 6.6 bar), counter-acted by higher spring load at the front and lower at the rear, thereby creating a legal high density fluid anti-dive / anti-squat suspension system.

These 22 bar of ΔP when put into work against a piston of 65mm diameter will produce a force of around 7200N. Assuming that the front downforce is at around 40.6% of the overall, then it’s easy to calculate (taking into consideration the aerodynamic force, the mass of the car, the driver and 1/2 fuel tank) that the force which the system will need to overcome during the maximum (5g) deceleration phase is in the order of 6200N, approximately. All very straightforward and easy, even accounting for a 5% approximation error.

A sealed crossover (utilizing a floating piston) between oil and mercury circuits is provided in order to allow movement in the heave mode – front and rear axles move simultaneously. The high-pressure system is set in order for the deceleration-induced pressure at the crossover not to cause too much of a circuit volume change, and also to secure a low percentage of system-pressure differential from both deceleration and thermal expansion taken up by the accumulator, as well as to increase the “stiffness” of the oil and avoid possible localized cavitation effects in the circuit during operation.

The gas cylinder, as we explained, allows for the thermal expansion. This presents another advantage against the banned Lotus RRH system. The Lotus system would operate in working temperatures of around 130C for the oil (the pistons and fluid lines situated next to the 850C red-hot ceramic brakes). However, the system that we assume Mercedes is running is completely inboard, which means that the working temperatures are not expected to be higher than 70 – 85 degrees Celsius, therefore things like the change of the oil bulk modulus due to temperature and pressure do not come much under consideration.

Another, purely mechanical advantage, is that in order to raise the pushrod (as in Lotus’ system) you will need a higher force to counter the “bad” motion ratio of the inclined pushrod, whereas in this system you can have a 1:1 ratio in relation to force Vs wheel movement.

Anti pitch / anti squat control system with gas reservoir - Mark I

 The second figure below shows an iteration of the above system, that utilizes a position-sensitive valve which controls the maximum amount of lift of the nose. This arrangement is implemented to prevent the nose from “overshooting” the desired position, lifting all the way to the end of the suspension travel. Please do not assume that this can be termed as “fully active” because it’s not – the valve can be triggered mechanically. This closing valve can be arranged just in front of the front and rear heave cylinders and can be mechanically activated by the suspension positioning in order to ensure optimal ride height during braking / accelerating as well as preventing the overshoot.

Anti pitch / anti squat control system with position sensitive valve - Mark III

It is fair to assume that Mercedes are probably using two separate systems, cross-linking the left rear to the right front, and the right rear to the left front. The underlying principle and function remain the same but such a system can also account for combined condition (longitudinal + transverse acceleration), helping in conditions where braking is combined with turn-in (i.e. majority of the cases). By fighting the roll as well as the dive, the overall aero platform is more stable and predictable to drive.

Interesting move for Jules…

If you haven’t heard yet, Jules Bianchi is moving to Force India, to take up the 3rd driver role and participate in Friday free practice sessions. The Frenchman, who comes from a family with racing pedigree (his grandfather was 3x world champion in the GT category and his father’s brother was a winner of Le Mans and a F1 racer from 1959 – 1958) has an ongoing collaboration with Ferrari. He is managed by Nicholas Todt (also a manager of a certain Felipe Massa) and has climbed the motor sport ladder in convincing fashion. From karting, to French Formula Renault champion, to Masters of Formula 3 winner, to dominating the F3 Euroseries alongside team-mates Valtteri Bottas (2012 Williams’ 3rd driver) and Esteban Gutierrez (2012 Sauber’s 3rd driver).

His Ferrari association peaked when he participated in the 2011 Abu Dhabi Young Drivers test, where he displayed maturity and speed. However, his meteoric rise to the top seems to have stalled a bit, following two consecutive fruitless seasons in GP2 Asia and GP2 Series, which yielded few race wins or poles and no championships, against decent but not mouth-drooling competition.

Bianchi had the option to remain in GP2 for another year, but his move to Force India makes a hell of a lot more sense. To start with, another season in GP2 would not have guaranteed a championship, and in that case the perception of him by the F1 circus would suffer as a result.

Furthermore, Force India are known to test drivers who are seriously considering for a race seat. He is, hence, going to a team who will consider him for a driver if he delivers the kind of performance and maturity that they expect. His contract with FI allegedly assures at least 9 Fridays of running, which is a great opportunity for Bianchi to get some exposure and put his name out there, next to some decent laptimes.

Once cannot help but consider the possibility that Ferrari had a role in this deal and that they will be monitoring the young Frenchman’s performances very closely. In my opinion, it’s an indication that they have started to accept the fact that Massa will not continue in 2013 and are preparing all the alternative solutions. One is Sergio Perez, who has acquitted himself nicely in his rookie year. Mark Webber is the 2nd one, and now Jules Bianchi could be the third, but definitely not for 2013 (Ferrari won’t take a rookie) but for the years to come, provided Jules does well and lands a race seat in 2013.

Anyone else sees Perez moving up to Ferrari and Bianchi stepping in at Sauber? Kobayashi should be alarmed with the news of Bianchi signing for FI’s, for it’s his job on the line in 2012. Sauber will be happy to go with Gutierres and Bianchi if Kamui doesn’t show considerable steps of improvement, particularly in qualifying which remains his weak spot.

Is this Mercedes’ secret Reactive Ride Height (RRH) stability system?

For a long time there have been rumours that Mercedes are about to run an innovative ride height stability system. A friend of mine just sent me this picture, which shows what could be Mercedes’ secret ride height stability system. It involves hydraulically interlinking the front and rear suspension. The system works around the basic equation for hydrostatic pressure (relative density (rho) of the fluid x g (acceleration) x L (length of the cylinder), taking advantage the different density of the fluids involved (i.e. 13.5 for mercury and circa 0.88 for typical hydraulic oil), by using the pressure difference under acceleration to work the piston. The design, which is copyrighted as per the image below, is legal since it does not involve any driver input and it doesn’t alter the configuration of the suspension. It’s a step forward from what teams are already doing by linking their left and right suspensions (see scarbsf1’s blog for more on that). The system proposed below by my friend can be termed as a “Mercury anti pitch / anti squat” system and is along the lines of what Mercedes GP are rumoured to be using…

Anti-Pitch & Squat Control with Mercury interlinked suspension

Caterham CT01 – more…

Caterham has released photos of their 2012 contender (nothing new, just better quality), so we have a first chance to take a look at the back of the car:

Caterham CT01 - Rear view

As we can see, the similarities with RB7 are very obvious: The team are using a pullrod arrangement at the back. The sidepods are very sculpted and tight, “hugging” the gearbox. There is one main cooling outlet, which is situated at the fin tale, while there are no other cooling outlets that we can see. From this photograph we cannot determine the angle that the exhausts have been installed with regards to the reference plane, so we cannot tell if Caterham have decided to blow the rear wing or not. It remains to be seen whether this is the final exhaust solution. Overall, the rear of the car is very tightly packaged, leaving a lot of the floor exposed. It’s a very neat design, and definitely the most modern and contemporary that Caterham (ex Team Lotus) have ever produced. It bodes well in their efforts to bridge the gap to the midfield. It certainly looks the part. It’s also clear that their technical collaboration with Red Bull and Renault will continue to bear fruit in the future. With the rules remaining relatively stable in 2013, Caterham need to throw all they’ve got in developing this car, which can make or break their entire F1 participation project.

First pictures of Caterham 2012 car leaked

The first pictures of the Caterham 2012 car have been leaked today and we present them to you here. The team was supposed to launch the car via the upcoming issue of F1 Racing. One would presume F1 Racing is not thrilled to bits about it. Oh, well, here goes:

Caterham 2012 car - side view

Caterham 2012 car

Caterham 2012 car - front view

Our first observation has to do with the nose. It has been raised to reach the maximum allowed height of 550 mm, in order to maximize the airflow travelling underneath and towards the rear of the car. Behind it, we find these 2 “bulges” that are used to raise the car up to 625 mm, in order to conform with the rules. The bulges are also used as housing hard points for the upper front wishbones and the push rod. The result is this “platypus” styled nose, which is a trend most F1 teams are expected to follow. It will be interesting to see which teams will go for a slightly lower or slightly more rounded nose, and what kind of benefits / drawbacks such a choice may present.

In terms of suspension, Caterham have gone for pushrod at the front and, although I can’t see what’s going on at the back, I presume it will be a pullrod. Rumours that have Ferrari going for a pullrod at both ends are probably unfounded.

The sidepods is a big departure from the past. They are heavily sculpted, with an undercut, to increase airflow to the back, which will be critical in 2012 (ok, arguably it’s always critical, but with the ban on EBD’s that’s where all the loss in downforce has to be regained). The roll hoop is of conventional design (gone is the blade) with parts of the supporting members showing. The exhausts are not shown and just like the front wing (which is nothing new, we’ve seen it before and it’s there for presentation purposes only) the final solution may not appear until the first pre-season tests.

Although we don’t have a clear view of the back, we can surmise that it will have a lot of 2011 Red Bull features, since Renault is supplying the Engine and the KERS, whereas Red Bull themselves will be supplying the gearbox and the hydraulics.

Witnesses in Sutil’s case

According to F1 enigma (writing for the Greek site “Go Car” – you can find the like here, but it’s in Greek), the list of witnesses to testify in Sutil’s trial has been given to publicity and it does not include Lewis Hamilton, who has requested to be excused (a request which was subsequently granted, arguably with prosecution’s consent who would probably not want to see one of Sutil’s close friends on the stand).

Some names that are listed are:

Jerome d’ Ambrosio – Ex F1 driver for Marussia Virgin team.

Emma Brixton – That’s how she’s spelled at the Greek site, but I presume they are referring to Emma Buxton, who worked as contact press officer for Force India at the 2011 Australian, Malaysian, Chinese, British and Indian Grand Prix’s.

Manfred Zimmermann – Adrian Sutil’s manager

Youssef Hammad – I’ve never heard of before.

Eric Lux is also, obviously, called as a witness. The trial, which is due to take place on January 30 and 31 will more or less determine whether Adrian Sutil will have any future dealings with F1. One also has to wonder whether Caterham’s delay to announce that Trulli won’t be driving for them, as well as HRT’s delay in naming a 2nd driver has to do with waiting for the outcome of the trial.

Time will tell.