Ferrari F1-75

[deadhead]

Car was going very well before Spa, much slower in the race at Spa and every race after that.

[Andi76]

Just to expand out the thread a bit:

When we talk about this floor "system", i think its necessary to take a small excursion in F1 history. The truth is that the "floor system" that was used this season is nothing new to F1. It was an innovation of Rory Byrne, who innovated and designed it for the F2003 GA. A coincident that it appeared again on a car that Rory helped to design? Probably not, but anyway - Ferrari used this floor untill 2007, when Nigel Stepney, after using and putting it on the car for 4 seasons, suddenly recognized in 2007 that Ferrari used it and decided that "i want to try to win on a fair basis", suggesting that this floor is new and used for the first time in 2007 and illegal. But indeed this system was first used in 2003 and already used for four seasons untill the Spygate Scandal made it illegal in 2007(it was indeed legal as it only exploited the tolerance of 15mm allowed by the regulary at that time).

Like in 2022, the front of the floor was attached via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support was a body with one compression and one tension spring inside which was adjustable, and there was a skirt that sealed this part of the floor to the chassis, made out of rubber and kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system. This system was even copied by some other teams, like BMW, Red Bull and Honda untill it was banned. A rumour was that it could be used as a mass damper. The real benefits of this "floor-system" were the same as in 2022 of course, as it was basically the same system :

1. It allowed to ride the kerbs harder, due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means that you can straigthline the chicanes more than other chassis.

2. Plank wear was reduced, what allowed Ferrari to run the car lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain. From 160-180 kph upwards, the car was about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplied to 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effect were gained all around with the turning vanes and front wing at reduced height.

3. The clever use and tuning of the heave spring to this system(cars ride height dropped below a certain point, the front end hinging up when hitting the ground allowed other areas of the car to get closer to the ground) allowed to bring other areas of the car closer to the ground to choke of the airflow under the car, reducing drag at high speed.

Applied to the F1-75, the loss of this system definetely made the car loose some of its potential to ride the kerbs and straight line chicanes. Front downforce is highly likely to be reduced, too, what would also explain the higher tyre degradation on the front axle. I remember Verstappen saying at the beginning of the season how good the Ferrari was at turning into the corners and that he wished the RB18 would be more like that. The floor-system probably contributed to that and the F1-75 probably also lost this advantage. Maybe these floors were also the reason for the big gap between Ferrari and Red Bull in terms of Topspeed. Maybe Red Bull concentrated completely on the "drag reducing" capabilities of this floor system, while Ferrari went in the opposite direction, focusing on multiplying the downforce gains possible with this system. A theory only, but i think one thats possible. Anyway - Ferrari loosing this floor made Ferrari loose a lot of pace in the race.

One may say that Red Bull also lost this system, but i think it hurt Ferrari much more. Next to the fact(in my opinion) that Red Bull, because of their different aero philosophy and a slightly different construction, used this system in a different way than Ferrari. Also they were less dependant on low ride heights because of their aero philosophy and they had one big advantage - Adrian Neweys experience. After copying Byrnes floor-system after he arrived at Red Bull and because of the ban of this system in 2007, Newey already had experienced the implications of the loss of this system and so he knew exactly what to do to keep the cars ability to still ride the kerbs as hard and straigth line the chicanes. Also Newey always designed suspensions(like on the MP4-13, 14 and 15) with more suspension travel, what helps a lot in that regard. Rory Byrne on the other hand, is only an adviser and helping Ferrari on a part-time basis only, also he is not involved in the developement of the car throughout the season. One may also say now i reduce this down to one person and that there are so many engineers and its about the team. Definetely true. But its also not a coincident that from 1992-2013 all except of three F1 Championships were won by cars designed by either Adrian Newey or Rory Byrne. The experience and genius of people like Byrne or Newey should not be understimated, especially when it comes to implications for the car as a whole because the loss of such a "system". It already makes a big difference when someone has already experienced the implications of the loss of such a system and the implications on the car, but if its someone like Newey or Byrne - it think it makes an even bigger difference.

At the end of the day i think TD39 and the loss of this floor has hurt Ferraris "true ground-effect"-car most of course, while Red Bull, whichs car is relying more on diffuser performance and is less dependant on low ride heights, gained an advantage from TD39.

Finally i want to add one more thing to this discussion, and a small story about F1 history. The tyre degradation problem Ferrari has could have its root here and in this part of F1 history. Ferrari was the first team in the early 2000's with Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and Marco Fainello introducing the studying and modelling of the interactions between the tyre characteristics, the suspension, the aerodynamics, and the chassis itself and the way they affect tyre temperature, wear, stability and grip and implemented this into the design phase of the car. After the tyre war ended, most team bosses and HR-Bosses got rid of the 2-5 engineers who only worked in this area of technology, only some engineers, like Newey wanted to keep these engineers in exactly this position and put up resistance against this decision. Ferrari also kept them untill 2009, but then Ferrari decided this departement is no longer needee. Red Bull still has two engineers who are only working in this area of technology. Bearing this fact in mind, it is just logical that Red Bull has a big advantage when it comes to the tyres.

[bluechris]

Thank you Andy for a very good analysis.

[Andi76]

Thank you Andy for a very good analysis.

Thank you very much. One thing i may should add, like Vanya also mentioned already, is that Ferrari is compromised set-up wise. This is, next to the reasons i mentioned, another thing that probably worsens tyre degradation even more. A racecar is designed to work around certain set-ups, and ride heights. The F1-75, as a true ground effect car, was designed to work best at low ride heights. With this floor in mind, Ferrari probably even designed it to work best at very, very low ride heights. TD39 now literally makes ride heights mandatory that the F1-75 was never designed for. The only option to "keep" the F1-75 in this small window of its outer limits where it is able to work, just eats the tyres(stiffer suspension, less travel, bad for contact frequencies which then also hardens and stiffens the compound).

We just have to remember the stories at the beginning of the season about how easy the car is to set-up and how well-balanced it is. I have not heard something like that since France. What in my opinion proves the point that Ferrari is also compromissed in set-up since the introduction of TD39 and this further worsens the tyre degradation.

[F1NAC]

Thank you Andy for a very good analysis.

Thank you very much. One thing i may should add, like Vanya also mentioned already, is that Ferrari is compromised set-up wise. This is, next to the reasons i mentioned, another thing that probably worsens tyre degradation even more. A racecar is designed to work around certain set-ups, and ride heights. The F1-75, as a true ground effect car, was designed to work best at low ride heights. With this floor in mind, Ferrari probably even designed it to work best at very, very low ride heights. TD39 now literally makes ride heights mandatory that the F1-75 was never designed for. The only option to "keep" the F1-75 in this small window of its outer limits where it is able to work, just eats the tyres(stiffer suspension, less travel, bad for contact frequencies which then also hardens and stiffens the compound).

We just have to remember the stories at the beginning of the season about how easy the car is to set-up and how well-balanced it is. I have not heard something like that since France. What in my opinion proves the point that Ferrari is also compromissed in set-up since the introduction of TD39 and this further worsens the tyre degradation.

Nice post there. very informative. Kudos for that.

Re. last paragraph. Didn't Ferrari hire ex Bridgestone engineer Hamashima somewhere around 2012ish, later he was fired anyway. I remember Ferrari being gentle during 2012 towards tyres. Something that hurt them in Q but was good in R.

[Andi76]

Thank you Andy for a very good analysis.

Thank you very much. One thing i may should add, like Vanya also mentioned already, is that Ferrari is compromised set-up wise. This is, next to the reasons i mentioned, another thing that probably worsens tyre degradation even more. A racecar is designed to work around certain set-ups, and ride heights. The F1-75, as a true ground effect car, was designed to work best at low ride heights. With this floor in mind, Ferrari probably even designed it to work best at very, very low ride heights. TD39 now literally makes ride heights mandatory that the F1-75 was never designed for. The only option to "keep" the F1-75 in this small window of its outer limits where it is able to work, just eats the tyres(stiffer suspension, less travel, bad for contact frequencies which then also hardens and stiffens the compound).

We just have to remember the stories at the beginning of the season about how easy the car is to set-up and how well-balanced it is. I have not heard something like that since France. What in my opinion proves the point that Ferrari is also compromissed in set-up since the introduction of TD39 and this further worsens the tyre degradation.

Nice post there. very informative. Kudos for that.

Re. last paragraph. Didn't Ferrari hire ex Bridgestone engineer Hamashima somewhere around 2012ish, later he was fired anyway. I remember Ferrari being gentle during 2012 towards tyres. Something that hurt them in Q but was good in R.

Thank you and you are right about Hammy(Hamashima). Ferrari indeed hired him in 2012 because someone realised that it was a mistake in 2009 to completely get rid of the "tyre departement". If memory serves, Pat Fry was very active in getting someone responsible for tyres etc. When Ferrari fired Fry in 2014, they also fired Hammy. So i thought it was not worth mentioning this short exception, especially since, again, if memory serves, it was more Pat Frys merit. But anyway, with the exception of this short period, Ferrari(as most F1 Teams)has no one responsible for tyre related things since 2009.

Hamashima most certainly was responsible for the Ferrari being gentle to the tyres in 2012. And that goes back to the early 00's, when Ferrari(Brawn/Byrne/Fainello/Hamashima/Schumacher) did a lot of research in that regard. They looked for a way to get the tyres up to temperature very fast(for qualifying), but also have low degradation(for the race). This was not possible and i think no one has found a way to do this. After this research, the cars were always very gentle to the tyres, but needed some time to get up to temperature in qualifying(or after a safety car). These things have not changed. Ferrari gets their tyres up to temperature very fast, but has high degradation. Mercedes does not get their tyres up to temperature fast, but has low degradation. Its still a compromise and Red Bull has definetely foukd the best one(and they have kept their "tyre engineer").

[FDD]

Just to expand out the thread a bit:

When we talk about this floor "system", i think its necessary to take a small excursion in F1 history. The truth is that the "floor system" that was used this season is nothing new to F1. It was an innovation of Rory Byrne, who innovated and designed it for the F2003 GA. A coincident that it appeared again on a car that Rory helped to design? Probably not, but anyway - Ferrari used this floor untill 2007, when Nigel Stepney, after using and putting it on the car for 4 seasons, suddenly recognized in 2007 that Ferrari used it and decided that "i want to try to win on a fair basis", suggesting that this floor is new and used for the first time in 2007 and illegal. But indeed this system was first used in 2003 and already used for four seasons untill the Spygate Scandal made it illegal in 2007(it was indeed legal as it only exploited the tolerance of 15mm allowed by the regulary at that time).

Like in 2022, the front of the floor was attached via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support was a body with one compression and one tension spring inside which was adjustable, and there was a skirt that sealed this part of the floor to the chassis, made out of rubber and kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system. This system was even copied by some other teams, like BMW, Red Bull and Honda untill it was banned. A rumour was that it could be used as a mass damper. The real benefits of this "floor-system" were the same as in 2022 of course, as it was basically the same system :

1. It allowed to ride the kerbs harder, due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means that you can straigthline the chicanes more than other chassis.

2. Plank wear was reduced, what allowed Ferrari to run the car lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain. From 160-180 kph upwards, the car was about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplied to 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effect were gained all around with the turning vanes and front wing at reduced height.

3. The clever use and tuning of the heave spring to this system(cars ride height dropped below a certain point, the front end hinging up when hitting the ground allowed other areas of the car to get closer to the ground) allowed to bring other areas of the car closer to the ground to choke of the airflow under the car, reducing drag at high speed.

Applied to the F1-75, the loss of this system definetely made the car loose some of its potential to ride the kerbs and straight line chicanes. Front downforce is highly likely to be reduced, too, what would also explain the higher tyre degradation on the front axle. I remember Verstappen saying at the beginning of the season how good the Ferrari was at turning into the corners and that he wished the RB18 would be more like that. The floor-system probably contributed to that and the F1-75 probably also lost this advantage. Maybe these floors were also the reason for the big gap between Ferrari and Red Bull in terms of Topspeed. Maybe Red Bull concentrated completely on the "drag reducing" capabilities of this floor system, while Ferrari went in the opposite direction, focusing on multiplying the downforce gains possible with this system. A theory only, but i think one thats possible. Anyway - Ferrari loosing this floor made Ferrari loose a lot of pace in the race.

One may say that Red Bull also lost this system, but i think it hurt Ferrari much more. Next to the fact(in my opinion) that Red Bull, because of their different aero philosophy and a slightly different construction, used this system in a different way than Ferrari. Also they were less dependant on low ride heights because of their aero philosophy and they had one big advantage - Adrian Neweys experience. After copying Byrnes floor-system after he arrived at Red Bull and because of the ban of this system in 2007, Newey already had experienced the implications of the loss of this system and so he knew exactly what to do to keep the cars ability to still ride the kerbs as hard and straigth line the chicanes. Also Newey always designed suspensions(like on the MP4-13, 14 and 15) with more suspension travel, what helps a lot in that regard. Rory Byrne on the other hand, is only an adviser and helping Ferrari on a part-time basis only, also he is not involved in the developement of the car throughout the season. One may also say now i reduce this down to one person and that there are so many engineers and its about the team. Definetely true. But its also not a coincident that from 1992-2013 all except of three F1 Championships were won by cars designed by either Adrian Newey or Rory Byrne. The experience and genius of people like Byrne or Newey should not be understimated, especially when it comes to implications for the car as a whole because the loss of such a "system". It already makes a big difference when someone has already experienced the implications of the loss of such a system and the implications on the car, but if its someone like Newey or Byrne - it think it makes an even bigger difference.

At the end of the day i think TD39 and the loss of this floor has hurt Ferraris "true ground-effect"-car most of course, while Red Bull, whichs car is relying more on diffuser performance and is less dependant on low ride heights, gained an advantage from TD39.

Finally i want to add one more thing to this discussion, and a small story about F1 history. The tyre degradation problem Ferrari has could have its root here and in this part of F1 history. Ferrari was the first team in the early 2000's with Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and Marco Fainello introducing the studying and modelling of the interactions between the tyre characteristics, the suspension, the aerodynamics, and the chassis itself and the way they affect tyre temperature, wear, stability and grip and implemented this into the design phase of the car. After the tyre war ended, most team bosses and HR-Bosses got rid of the 2-5 engineers who only worked in this area of technology, only some engineers, like Newey wanted to keep these engineers in exactly this position and put up resistance against this decision. Ferrari also kept them untill 2009, but then Ferrari decided this departement is no longer needee. Red Bull still has two engineers who are only working in this area of technology. Bearing this fact in mind, it is just logical that Red Bull has a big advantage when it comes to the tyres.

You and Vanja made some excellent analysis for F1-75 and RB18 also.
Since TD39 hurts a lot FER car floor concept, what do you think do they have to change the floor concept for the next year in parallel with aero concept of the whole car.
Somebody said that they introduce a bit of rake with last floor modifications but till now I did not find any comparation pictures or maybe I missed.

[Andi76]

You and Vanja made some excellent analysis for F1-75 and RB18 also.
Since TD39 hurts a lot FER car floor concept, what do you think do they have to change the floor concept for the next year in parallel with aero concept of the whole car.
Somebody said that they introduce a bit of rake with last floor modifications but till now I did not find any comparation pictures or maybe I missed.

Thank you very much. I think the F1-75 was the best concept in terms of the spirit of the rules in 2022. It was a "true" ground effect car with a concept maximising ground effect perfectly. Unfortunately ground effect will be further reduced by the changes in 2023, what of course has an huge impact on the aerodynamic concept of "a true ground effect car" like the F1-75. I think Ferrari, unfortunately, has to change their concept completely, focusing more on diffuser performance. Unfortunately this probably also means Ferrari has to abandon their highly interesting and unique sidepod design. I do not see a solution how Ferrari should be able to keep their current aero concept. But without proper aerodynamic research, thats an opinion. Maybe there is a way to do this. But i highly doubt it. I think the changes for 2023 favours Red Bulls(except of their throat) and Mercedes concepts more than Ferraris.

I think its true that Ferrari introduced a bit of rake as i remember an engineer telling that the new floor was optimised for that. I think this is also the first indicator for Ferrari changing their concept for 2023.

[Vanja #66]

When we talk about this floor "system", i think its necessary to take a small excursion in F1 history.

***

As always, thanks for these insights Andi, always a pleasure to read!

All in all, I don't think we will see dramatic changes to 2023 Ferrari, at least visible changes. The floor is another story. I think they will want to streamline the sidepod design in front end (like RB/AT/Alpine/AM), but I think they will want to keep the tubs and inward tapering to the rear. If they manage to do some repackaging of electronics to achieve this streamlining, they can have the best of both worlds.

[FDD]

When we talk about this floor "system", i think its necessary to take a small excursion in F1 history.

***

As always, thanks for these insights Andi, always a pleasure to read!

All in all, I don't think we will see dramatic changes to 2023 Ferrari, at least visible changes. The floor is another story. I think they will want to streamline the sidepod design in front end (like RB/AT/Alpine/AM), but I think they will want to keep the tubs and inward tapering to the rear. If they manage to do some repackaging of electronics to achieve this streamlining, they can have the best of both worlds.

Alberto Aimar said exactly the same about making a more streamline sidepod design, to eliminate the drag generated by the sidepods undercut which have strong outwash in a very short line, using a lot of energy generating more drag, as he said. I am not an aero expert but it has logic. They already made a bit of elongating in that part, but for more serious streamlining as you said repackaging is must.
PS Excellent input by You as always.

[Andi76]

When we talk about this floor "system", i think its necessary to take a small excursion in F1 history.

***

As always, thanks for these insights Andi, always a pleasure to read!

All in all, I don't think we will see dramatic changes to 2023 Ferrari, at least visible changes. The floor is another story. I think they will want to streamline the sidepod design in front end (like RB/AT/Alpine/AM), but I think they will want to keep the tubs and inward tapering to the rear. If they manage to do some repackaging of electronics to achieve this streamlining, they can have the best of both worlds.

Thank you very much. I would love to see them keep the tubes, and i hope you are right that this will be a solution without having a compromise that leaves them with a small disadvantage concept-wise.

[Blackout]

Repackaging should be easy, they have a lot of room and options... but what really stands in the way is the lower impact structure. Ferrari, like Mclaren (and Haas....) put it inside the sidepod (and forward, unlike Mclaren), whereas many teams put it inside the floor...

Motorsport

[Vanja #66]

Alberto Aimar said exactly the same about making a more streamline sidepod design, to eliminate the drag generated by the sidepods undercut which have strong outwash in a very short line, using a lot of energy generating more drag, as he said.

Great info, thanks for sharing.

Repackaging should be easy, they have a lot of room and options... but what really stands in the way is the lower impact structure. Ferrari, like Mclaren (and Haas....) put it inside the sidepod (and forward, unlike Mclaren), whereas many teams put it inside the floor...
https://i.imgur.com/zLB9z7F.jpg
Motorsport

Indeed, lower SIS needs to be redesigned, meaning chassis must be changed as well, but it's safe to assume all teams will have a new chassis next year. After all, there are floor edge and throat height changes coming and this will have a significant impact.

[Andi76]

Alberto Aimar said exactly the same about making a more streamline sidepod design, to eliminate the drag generated by the sidepods undercut which have strong outwash in a very short line, using a lot of energy generating more drag, as he said.

Great info, thanks for sharing.

Repackaging should be easy, they have a lot of room and options... but what really stands in the way is the lower impact structure. Ferrari, like Mclaren (and Haas....) put it inside the sidepod (and forward, unlike Mclaren), whereas many teams put it inside the floor...
https://i.imgur.com/zLB9z7F.jpg
Motorsport

Indeed, lower SIS needs to be redesigned, meaning chassis must be changed as well, but it's safe to assume all teams will have a new chassis next year. After all, there are floor edge and throat height changes coming and this will have a significant impact.

Our friend Latios continued his excellent work on about the 2022 cars and his CFD Simulations here :

viewtopic.php?t=30734

You probably have seen that already, and that he seems to have made some basic simulations for 2023 already. He says it seems that higher floor edges make less lost for cars with higher rake. Ferrari optimising their floor to add some rake(like an engineer said recently) would make a lot of sense and shows the developement they do is more for 2023 than anything else.

[FDD]

Alberto Aimar said exactly the same about making a more streamline sidepod design, to eliminate the drag generated by the sidepods undercut which have strong outwash in a very short line, using a lot of energy generating more drag, as he said.

Great info, thanks for sharing.

Repackaging should be easy, they have a lot of room and options... but what really stands in the way is the lower impact structure. Ferrari, like Mclaren (and Haas....) put it inside the sidepod (and forward, unlike Mclaren), whereas many teams put it inside the floor...
https://i.imgur.com/zLB9z7F.jpg
Motorsport

Indeed, lower SIS needs to be redesigned, meaning chassis must be changed as well, but it's safe to assume all teams will have a new chassis next year. After all, there are floor edge and throat height changes coming and this will have a significant impact.

Our friend Latios continued his excellent work on about the 2022 cars and his CFD Simulations here :

viewtopic.php?t=30734

You probably have seen that already, and that he seems to have made some basic simulations for 2023 already. He says it seems that higher floor edges make less lost for cars with higher rake. Ferrari optimising their floor to add some rake(like an engineer said recently) would make a lot of sense and shows the developement they do is more for 2023 than anything else.

I saw this post, but I did not have time for full analyzation of his work, great effort.