Ferrari F1-75

[Drift4794]

They were. They're at or very close to the weight limit now.

Source:

I still cant treat these one-off sources as gospel and I'm not sure why others do, either. I know it's difficult cuz it's unlikely we'd get specific confirmation from the team themselves, but it's just all too easy to just say things online as well. And we've seen no end of false rumors and claims by F1 journalists in the past, especially from more national outlets.

Be very wary of just trusting everything you hear. If you did so, you'll end up with many conflicting 'truths'.

I'm aware of those dangers. If you look at my post history, you'll see I pay special attention to share only highly-reputed sources and am very critical of people posting rumors.

[FDD]

This is where you are wrong. Because gear ratios are frozen and can only be changed once during the season to my understanding. My understanding is that Ferrari has a shorter ratio which gives them faster acceleration but taps out at a slower speed. This has been borne out by lap charts shown on here I believe.

It isn't where I'm wrong at all, this entire formula has been pretty benign to gear ratios because your power curve is effectly flat for about 4000rpm. So if your ratios are out a little short you rev the engine a little more or you just change up, doesn't matter too much as your output is effectively linear.

Gear ratios have a small effect, but it's miniscule in terms of other factors for these engines.

Only the last gear may have any influence in determining the top speed, and even then it is not necessarily the limit. If the car is set to run 350km/h in Monza, the fact that is 323km/h instead of 333km/h in Miami is surely not because of gear ratios.

We have info that F1 75 is set to run 350 km/h in Monza?

[matteosc]

It isn't where I'm wrong at all, this entire formula has been pretty benign to gear ratios because your power curve is effectly flat for about 4000rpm. So if your ratios are out a little short you rev the engine a little more or you just change up, doesn't matter too much as your output is effectively linear.

Gear ratios have a small effect, but it's miniscule in terms of other factors for these engines.

Only the last gear may have any influence in determining the top speed, and even then it is not necessarily the limit. If the car is set to run 350km/h in Monza, the fact that is 323km/h instead of 333km/h in Miami is surely not because of gear ratios.

We have info that F1 75 is set to run 350 km/h in Monza?

Not yet, but they will reasonably be faster than Miami, so it does not matter. You can pick any circuit in which they went/will go faster than 323km/h and see that gear ratio is not the issue.
Gear ratio is the "direct" problem only in absolute maximum speed of the car, but in reality there are so many other factor, such as (1) drag (2) ICE power (3) MGU power output strategy (you need to spread a fix amount of energy around the lap) (4) DRS flap size.

[Juzh]

This is where you are wrong. Because gear ratios are frozen and can only be changed once during the season to my understanding. My understanding is that Ferrari has a shorter ratio which gives them faster acceleration but taps out at a slower speed. This has been borne out by lap charts shown on here I believe.

It isn't where I'm wrong at all, this entire formula has been pretty benign to gear ratios because your power curve is effectly flat for about 4000rpm. So if your ratios are out a little short you rev the engine a little more or you just change up, doesn't matter too much as your output is effectively linear.

Gear ratios have a small effect, but it's miniscule in terms of other factors for these engines.

I'm just amazed gear ratio topic still get brought up every few weeks when it's been a complete non-story since 2015. In 2014 there were some big variations between williams and mercedes for instance, but even that really obvious difference was more or less brushed aside by everyone in both teams because they knew it made almost no difference.
To top it off williams which was a very low drag car back then used vastly shorter ratios than mercedes, so completely the opposite of what one might expect, further showing how little impact it had.

[FDD]

Only the last gear may have any influence in determining the top speed, and even then it is not necessarily the limit. If the car is set to run 350km/h in Monza, the fact that is 323km/h instead of 333km/h in Miami is surely not because of gear ratios.

We have info that F1 75 is set to run 350 km/h in Monza?

Not yet, but they will reasonably be faster than Miami, so it does not matter. You can pick any circuit in which they went/will go faster than 323km/h and see that gear ratio is not the issue.
Gear ratio is the "direct" problem only in absolute maximum speed of the car, but in reality there are so many other factor, such as (1) drag (2) ICE power (3) MGU power output strategy (you need to spread a fix amount of energy around the lap) (4) DRS flap size.

So that means that we know that they have a very high drag car

[matteosc]

We have info that F1 75 is set to run 350 km/h in Monza?

Not yet, but they will reasonably be faster than Miami, so it does not matter. You can pick any circuit in which they went/will go faster than 323km/h and see that gear ratio is not the issue.
Gear ratio is the "direct" problem only in absolute maximum speed of the car, but in reality there are so many other factor, such as (1) drag (2) ICE power (3) MGU power output strategy (you need to spread a fix amount of energy around the lap) (4) DRS flap size.

So that means that we know that they have a very high drag car

Ferrari seems to have more inherent drag then Red Bull (or better, RB has very little drag compared to everyone else). On top of that, Ferrari is using higher downforce (and therefore higher drag) than Red Bull, so the difference in term of top speed is pretty large. If they used the same level of downforce they would probably be closer, but still more drag for Ferrari.

[PlatinumZealot]

So much for low drag sidepods. Evidence so far shows these side pods are made for downforce!

[matteosc]

So much for low drag sidepods. Evidence so far shows these side pods are made for downforce!

They definitely help the rear of the car to work in they way Ferrari intended, so they are "made for downforce", but simulations also showed how they reduce the drag by easily managing the front tires wakes and more importantly the drag from the rear tires. I do not think that sidepods are giving lot of drag just because they are large.

Red Bull seems to have done a better work on the overall drag (or better put: aerodynamic efficiency), but it is difficult to point to a single part of the car. There is also the possibility that Red Bull is simply very efficient with mid-low downforce levels, an area in which Ferrari is struggling. This may explain why Ferrari is consistently using higher levels of downforce, maybe in an area in which their efficiency (downforce/drag) is better.

[AR3-GP]

So much for low drag sidepods. Evidence so far shows these side pods are made for downforce!

Why can't it be both? They can be low drag relative to other concepts. Doesn't mean they will be "the lowest"

[AR3-GP]

So much for low drag sidepods. Evidence so far shows these side pods are made for downforce!

They definitely help the rear of the car to work in they way Ferrari intended, so they are "made for downforce", but simulations also showed how they reduce the drag by easily managing the front tires wakes and more importantly the drag from the rear tires. I do not think that sidepods are giving lot of drag just because they are large.

Red Bull seems to have done a better work on the overall drag (or better put: aerodynamic efficiency), but it is difficult to point to a single part of the car. There is also the possibility that Red Bull is simply very efficient with mid-low downforce levels, an area in which Ferrari is struggling. This may explain why Ferrari is consistently using higher levels of downforce, maybe in an area in which their efficiency (downforce/drag) is better.

I suspect that both the RB and the Ferrari are "set in their ways" so to speak due to a need to maintain a specific aero balance. It's not so simple as to run bigger or smaller wings. What does this do to the aero balance? Does this cause the tire to destroy itself? RB had the bigger wings in Australia and their race was a disaster.

[matteosc]

So much for low drag sidepods. Evidence so far shows these side pods are made for downforce!

They definitely help the rear of the car to work in they way Ferrari intended, so they are "made for downforce", but simulations also showed how they reduce the drag by easily managing the front tires wakes and more importantly the drag from the rear tires. I do not think that sidepods are giving lot of drag just because they are large.

Red Bull seems to have done a better work on the overall drag (or better put: aerodynamic efficiency), but it is difficult to point to a single part of the car. There is also the possibility that Red Bull is simply very efficient with mid-low downforce levels, an area in which Ferrari is struggling. This may explain why Ferrari is consistently using higher levels of downforce, maybe in an area in which their efficiency (downforce/drag) is better.

I suspect that both the RB and the Ferrari are "set in their ways" so to speak due to a need to maintain a specific aero balance. It's not so simple as to run bigger or smaller wings. What does this do to the aero balance? Does this cause the tire to destroy itself? RB had the bigger wings in Australia and their race was a disaster.

I agree, they have different "windows" in which they operate. So far Red Bull seems to have managed tires slightly better while retaining the top speed advantage, especially in the last two races. We will see in Barcelona, where Ferrari should finally have some real update.

[GrrG]

Miami GP Telemetry: RedBull is not ahead for top speed

https://www.formulapassion.it/opinioni/ ... 16933.html

[dialtone]

Miami GP Telemetry: RedBull is not ahead for top speed

https://www.formulapassion.it/opinioni/ ... 16933.html

Yep, that's just about the same conclusion I got to yesterday.

[carisi2k]

This is where you are wrong. Because gear ratios are frozen and can only be changed once during the season to my understanding. My understanding is that Ferrari has a shorter ratio which gives them faster acceleration but taps out at a slower speed. This has been borne out by lap charts shown on here I believe.

It isn't where I'm wrong at all, this entire formula has been pretty benign to gear ratios because your power curve is effectly flat for about 4000rpm. So if your ratios are out a little short you rev the engine a little more or you just change up, doesn't matter too much as your output is effectively linear.

Gear ratios have a small effect, but it's miniscule in terms of other factors for these engines.

Except you are wrong again. The cars can't just rev a little more as they are all restricted by fuel usage and fuel flow. If they could just rev the engine some more then the Ferrari's wouldn't be topping out on top speed where they are. They would be able to go all the way to where the Red Bull is. The gear ratio's actually play a huge part in how a car performs on acceleration and top speed.

[PhillipM]

Except you are wrong again. The cars can't just rev a little more as they are all restricted by fuel usage and fuel flow. If they could just rev the engine some more then the Ferrari's wouldn't be topping out on top speed where they are. They would be able to go all the way to where the Red Bull is. The gear ratio's actually play a huge part in how a car performs on acceleration and top speed.

What a load of nonsense, the RPM limit is 15000rpm, peak flow/power is about 10.5-11k or so, these engines are never restricted by the gear ratios for top speeds because they never operate even close to the limiter, the difference of a few hundred rpms on top speeds between the RB and the Ferrari is probably only measurable in their own simulators, it's going to be fractions of a percent.