Ferrari F1-75

[Sevach]

Binotto on new car. Thay can repack sidepods during seasong if needed;

“If you look at the body shape we have got, [it is] quite wide, certainly, we have not filled underbody the full space, so we have got flexibility certainly in the middle of the car, in the bodywork. It’s worth somehow the regulations have got most of the freedom.

“If you look at the regulations it’s quite [prescriptive] on the front wing, on the nose, rear wing but there’s much more flexibility around the bodywork but the way we have packaged our power unit that will leave us some freedom in the future if we do at least at the start if there are other directions that can be promising.”

This interview shows that ferrari are unsure of their concept and are ready to act during the season. Sidepods are WIDE and draggy. Just compare to W13 and RBR18. Packaging of Ferraris PU, bodywork and sidepods, I am concerned…

The most basic thing you can read from this statement is that they don't need to be this "chunky" for cooling(which should've been obvious yet people were still arguing), the car looks like that because they found gains by shaping the bodwork in this fashion.

Number 2 is that they can still fiddle with it (and probably will), most likely with an evolved version of the body we've seen at launch(very possible for early season i would say, possibly even a race one package).

If they are somehow forced into a "abandon ship" and revert to the simpler concept Mercedes uses, then yeah that would be bad and put Ferrari in the backfoot for this season.

[Mitch2.0]

I get the general concern regarding the extreme nature of the bodywork, and you can get a whiff of Ferrari doing a Ferrari and trying to be just a bit too novel with a new car.

That said if it proves to be competitive, I’ll be happy.

[Emag]

To be honest, I don't think the drag penalty would be hugely significant. It's definitely going to be draggier than the slimmer cars we have seen, but I don't think it's the primary "cause for concern".

The only concern that I would have for this car, being completely unaware on the data, is flow detachment on those long sidepods.

Conceptually, all I know is that it's very hard to "forcefully" push air where it doesn't want to naturally go without suffering some losses on the way.

If Ferrari has minimized those losses while achieving most of their sought benefits, they should be fine.

[dialtone]

Also from someone that isn't an expert in aerodynamics: I would think the difference in wing configuration is more important for the increase in drag than the slight increase of surface area in the sidepod configuration. I don't think it's possible, by just looking at the picture, to establish wether Merc or Ferrari has chosen the right trade-off between drag and downforce.

Merc has a more loaded front wing and a single piece rear beam wing and a double spoon rear wing with a much bigger center cooling that also should reduce the amount of downforce generated by the rear wing itself. Ferrari on the other hand appears to have a less loaded front wing and similarly a more standard dual beam wing.

We also have no idea how much downforce the floor is generating from these cars which really determines how much wing you need on the chassis. On top of it all, it's not just about peak downforce but about how the car can generate downforce also through slow and medium speed corners.

As it was already said... It seems realistic to think that Ferrari followed every path, they said so themselves in the car release interviews. One of their goals was to have no regrets about car development. It's too early to tell how they are doing. To me the car looks amazing and I really like that they are experimenting.

[Henri]

Also from someone that isn't an expert in aerodynamics: I would think the difference in wing configuration is more important for the increase in drag than the slight increase of surface area in the sidepod configuration. I don't think it's possible, by just looking at the picture, to establish wether Merc or Ferrari has chosen the right trade-off between drag and downforce.

Merc has a more loaded front wing and a single piece rear beam wing and a double spoon rear wing with a much bigger center cooling that also should reduce the amount of downforce generated by the rear wing itself. Ferrari on the other hand appears to have a less loaded front wing and similarly a more standard dual beam wing.

We also have no idea how much downforce the floor is generating from these cars which really determines how much wing you need on the chassis. On top of it all, it's not just about peak downforce but about how the car can generate downforce also through slow and medium speed corners.

As it was already said... It seems realistic to think that Ferrari followed every path, they said so themselves in the car release interviews. One of their goals was to have no regrets about car development. It's too early to tell how they are doing. To me the car looks amazing and I really like that they are experimenting.

Barcelona will reveal all the secrets. But i trust ferrari this year because the pu was designed by wolf zimmerman so it will be righ5 up there with merc like 2018

[jumpingfish]

I'm also a noob and I'm worried about the excessive thickness of the Ferrari sidepods looking at it through the CFD in my eyes. Is it possible that in Maranello the upper part where I painted in blue was made like a empty tube to direct the inner air flow exactly where they want?

[ryaan2904]

Guys @Godlameroso might have been right with his 140°C radiator/sidepod exhaust temperature thing

[wowgr8]

I get the general concern regarding the extreme nature of the bodywork, and you can get a whiff of Ferrari doing a Ferrari and trying to be just a bit too novel with a new car.

That said if it proves to be competitive, I’ll be happy.

I totally agree here. I think they took "thinking out of the box" and "being brave" too literally here and just came up with the most unorthodox concept they could. The SF1000 is probably the most impressive Ferrari ever packaging wise, the engine cover and sidepods on that were incredibly tight, I really wish they went down that route (of course while fixing the problems the SF1000 had)

Nugnes reported that apparently this sidepod concept proved to be 7% more efficient than the sloped sidepods, I hope he is right but he isn't really trustworthy

[JPBD1990]

7% more efficient than what sloped sidepods? McLaren? Williams? Merc? They all have different interpretations of that concept. What we’ve seen so far from redbull suggests the same.

Like sure it may have been 7% more efficient than the version Ferrari tested but it seems an arbitrary number/comparison

[FittingMechanics]

I'm also a noob and I'm worried about the excessive thickness of the Ferrari sidepods looking at it through the CFD in my eyes. Is it possible that in Maranello the upper part where I painted in blue was made like a empty tube to direct the inner air flow exactly where they want?

That "tube" area is from my understanding mandated by the rules - there is a minimum radius any bodywork can take there so Ferrari was forced to make it in a tube instead of being sharp edged.

[LM10]

I just don't understand how people can make bold statements such as they're concerned because the car has less floor area than others or looks draggier. Excuse my words, but it appears really absurd to do that when on the other side a team consisting of countless highly skilled engineers has analyzed concepts and developed the car with the help of state-of-the-art tools for years.
Even the likes of jjn9128, Vyssion or Vanja on this forum who are CFD/aerodynamics engineers have not said anything along those lines. In fact, a couple of days ago Vanja said that he and others would CFD model some cars (Ferrari included) and then share the results with us and give their opinion.

I'm glad there are examples from the past that we can use. Regarding the fact that Ferrari is the car whis has gone for a unique concept and the concern this might have been the wrong idea I can (again) only think of 2017 when Ferrari was the only car going for a totally new concept - and it perfectly worked to such an extent that it was copied by all others.

We’ll find out soon. Or a bit later than sooner this season, as it will take more time for the teams and drivers to understand the car.

[jumpingfish]

I'm also a noob and I'm worried about the excessive thickness of the Ferrari sidepods looking at it through the CFD in my eyes. Is it possible that in Maranello the upper part where I painted in blue was made like a empty tube to direct the inner air flow exactly where they want?

That "tube" area is from my understanding mandated by the rules - there is a minimum radius any bodywork can take there so Ferrari was forced to make it in a tube instead of being sharp edged.

Perhaps I said badly. I meant that this "tube" with a diameter of 4-6 cm is intended not for cooling radiators, but for purposefully directing air to the beam wings or diffusor through this tube. Is it worth it? It seems to me that it is more controllable than on the surface of the body.

[FittingMechanics]

Perhaps I said badly. I meant that this "tube" with a diameter of 4-6 cm is intended not for cooling radiators, but for purposefully directing air to the beam wings or diffusor through this tube. Is it worth it? It seems to me that it is more controllable than on the surface of the body.

Yes - that tube can't be smaller due to rules. No idea if they are using it to guide air through that tube. Doesn't seem to have a big exit if that is the case.

[JPBD1990]

I wonder if the much more backed off front wing indicates that they’re generating tonnes of downforce elsewhere so it isn’t necessary, or that they’re unable to generate that much downforce at the rear so need a backed off front wing to balance it.

Kyle.engineers asked this in his video and I’ve been pondering it ever since as Ferrari’s seems to be almost flat compared to the others.

Edit: link for comparison

[F1doc]

I wonder if the much more backed off front wing indicates that they’re generating tonnes of downforce elsewhere so it isn’t necessary, or that they’re unable to generate that much downforce at the rear so need a backed off front wing to balance it.

Kyle.engineers asked this in his video and I’ve been pondering it ever since as Ferrari’s seems to be almost flat compared to the others.

Edit: link for comparison

Thanks for sharing this. The caveat is that the photo angles are marginally different, but clearly the Ferrari has the flattest angle of attack. I don't think the full regulation box for the front wing area has been maximised either, but I've not seen a top down view to confirm it.