Ferrari SF23

[deadhead]

My only worry is that this philosophy was developed for a set of rules that are no longer there.. it worked brilliantly until the TD kicked in last year and I’m guessing things are even more extreme with this year’s changes, so sticking to original design but for a different rule set might be the wrong choice, but we shall see.

Think about how far ahead they would’ve been last year with the engine working at full capacity and without the mid season rule changes…

I hope I’m wrong.

Photo from the back

[Venturiation]

My only worry is that this philosophy was developed for a set of rules that are no longer there.. it worked brilliantly until the TD kicked in last year and I’m guessing things are even more extreme with this year’s changes, so sticking to original design but for a different rule set might be the wrong choice, but we shall see.

Think about how far ahead they would’ve been last year with the engine working at full capacity and without the mid season rule changes…

I hope I’m wrong.

Photo from the back

https://ibb.co/3pGQMvW

There were rumours that the 2023 car development got hit hard because of the TD because they relied on that plank
But it might be not true

[JPower]

My only worry is that this philosophy was developed for a set of rules that are no longer there.. it worked brilliantly until the TD kicked in last year and I’m guessing things are even more extreme with this year’s changes, so sticking to original design but for a different rule set might be the wrong choice, but we shall see.

Think about how far ahead they would’ve been last year with the engine working at full capacity and without the mid season rule changes…

I hope I’m wrong.

Photo from the back

https://ibb.co/3pGQMvW

Don’t see what the visible design philosophy has to do with the TD. We have no clue what changes have been made to the floor. Ferrari clearly didn’t touch the F1-75 after the French GP and had to limp through the rest of the season with the TD’s effects. This car shouldn’t have that issue.

[PlatinumZealot]

Thank you Vanja, very nice summery

Could it have something to do with porpoising? Not an aerodynamicist by any stretch of the imagination, could forcing the air from the bottom (near the floor) through a duct to the top of the sidepods create a seal?

F1 fans have very short memories. Holes beneath the side pod inlets were around since the dawn of f1 hybrids(2009) and were always for electronics cooling..

[AR3-GP]

Thank you Vanja, very nice summery

Could it have something to do with porpoising? Not an aerodynamicist by any stretch of the imagination, could forcing the air from the bottom (near the floor) through a duct to the top of the sidepods create a seal?

F1 fans have very short memories. Holes beneath the side pod inlets were around since the dawn of f1 hybrids(2009) and were always for electronics cooling..

Those are far larger than anything electronics cooling would require.

[PlatinumZealot]

Reliability.

[AR3-GP]

Reliability.

What does this answer?

Those ducts are too large to be concerned with cooling electronics. Ferrari did not have electronics reliability issues last season. The turbo, mgu-K, H, etc are fluid cooled, not air cooled.

If this was to be the case, where are the ducts on the Alfa and the Haas?

[Vanja #66]

"Yes Jo, that's all for electronics. Why so big? Well, the heat exchangers are crap... Why not buy better? We are working under budget restrictions, Jo, complying to the rules like good teams do!"

Anyone notice that the front camera pods are much closer to the front suspension? Any aero experts care to comment?

Indeed they are. I took a look at camera pods, but did not notice this. Looks like an attempt to stack the pods and upper suspension arm to reduce overall drag slightly. With stiff suspension and little movement, this should yield even better results.

[Andi76]

My only worry is that this philosophy was developed for a set of rules that are no longer there.. it worked brilliantly until the TD kicked in last year and I’m guessing things are even more extreme with this year’s changes, so sticking to original design but for a different rule set might be the wrong choice, but we shall see.

Think about how far ahead they would’ve been last year with the engine working at full capacity and without the mid season rule changes…

I hope I’m wrong.

Photo from the back

https://ibb.co/3pGQMvW

I remember 2004 well, when the press and Scarbs said the F2004 was disappointing and that a car with so little development would have little chance against the extremely advanced McLaren, Renaults or the "ingenious" Williams with its Walrus nose. When the F2004 then drove everything into the ground it was quite embarrassing.... once again it had been shown that knowledgeable and continous development is the key to success.


Ferrari's problem in 2022 was two things - the suspension, which was the same as in previous years and not adapted to the requirements of the ground effect cars. They thought making it extremely stiff was enough. It wasn't! The other thing was that the TD39 practically required higher ride heights. The F1-75, with its low venturi tunnels, was designed to maximize ground effect. The Red Bull, on the other hand, had higher venturi channels and functioned more like a car with a flat floor and therefore worked much better with higher ground clearance. Ferrari couldn't improve much on this during the season because everything on the car was mounted in such a way that the venturi tunnels couldn't be made higher. This would have required a completely new monocoque and practically everything would have had to be rebuilt. That's not possible during a season. It is the suspension, the underbody and the diffuser that determine with which ground clearance a F1 car works best. Here Ferrari had every opportunity to rework exactly this area, which we haven't seen anything about yet. So it is, sorry for the expression, complete nonsense to draw such conclusions without having seen the parts that determine it (and even then it is hard to do so just by looking at them). Ferrari's philosophy is and was based, relatively speaking, on the following things:

to "drive" the underbody and diffuser in the best possible way by supplying the rear wing and beamwing with clean air in the best possible way, which is achieved by an extremely small and narrow airbox and engine cover

to have the lowest possible center of gravity in order to keep the negative influence of lateral load changes on the aero platform and the tires as low as possible

Since the Ground Effect has been reduced in 2023, Ferrari's philosophy to maximize the performance of the rear wing and beamwing assembly is not "from yesterday". Even more so because the rear wing and beamwing assembly have a major influence on the performance of the diffuser and underbody. The new front wing concept, which in turn also strengthens its performance, is certainly not negative when the ground effect is reduced. The suspension was completely renewed. So Ferrari obviously deliberately tried to maximize strengths and eliminate weaknesses. The fact that the F1-75 was the fastest car in terms of pure, raw speed even after the introduction of the TD39 also shows how nonsensical the statement is that the philosophy is outdated.

However, Ferrari's problem in 2022 was that the whole car was built and designed to maximize the ground effect. This was done with a very low "roof" of the floor that was designed so that you could drive permanently with a lower floor level thanks to a "flexible" T-tray and underbody. Everything on the underbody was designed with this in mind. When the TD39 was introduced, this philosophy was thrown out of its working window and nothing could be changed because the tunnels could not be made higher. Red Bull had a philosophy from the beginning based on "higher" tunnels and higher ground clearance. They were able to fix that with the new car without any problems. So it's stupid to say that Ferrari's philosophy was developed for a regulation that no longer exists. For one thing, neither Venturi tunnels nor diffusers have really been seen, and Ferrari has certainly adapted them accordingly, just as they have finally adapted the suspension to the requirements of a ground effect car. The rest of Ferrari's philosophy is very good with the current as with the old regulations, the Rear and Beamwing drives the underfloor the most. And the improvements that have been introduced strongly suggest that these are precisely those knowledgeable continual developments that usually win world championships(even if I do not want to imply here that Ferrari will win the title-but the development and philosophy of the car certainly does not exclude it).

What makes Scarbs' statements even more stupid (sorry Scarbs, but its a fact!) is that neither the Red Bull nor the new Mercedes has been seen yet! Even if you see the new cars it's hardly possible to determine their performance only by their looks ubd development, but to say something like that without having seen them at all - that's nonsense. At best!

[Andi76]

I'm sorry but, actually, a front picture isn't the best to judge and compare the respective height of two elements such the front and rear arms of a wishbone... because one is much closer to your view due to the perspective and the other one is more distant... so, it's more likely that such a picture could deceive you.
The side photo i posted instead clearly shows some bulge in the lower part of the chassis shell.
I might still be wrong of course

You are wrong. You can clearly see on the mounting points of the chassis that the suspension is higher. And by now I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Piola and Hughes have also just reported on it a few minutes ago. The bulge on your pic it is rather unclear and it is not at all recognizable what this actually is.

Yes, obviously i am going to be wrong and you are going to be absolutely right.
Because it's very unlikely that only i could have spotted such a peculiar solution.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see more pictures because in that area the shape of the chassis is really different compared to the F1-75. There's a radius in the edge of the carbon shell which i don't understand...

Oh, by the way, i'd like to add another photo to the discussion, which is very interesting.
Let me know. Thank you.

https://postimages.org/

Maybe we're both right. That the suspension is generally higher does not necessarily exclude what you think you have seen. But hopefully that will soon become clear!

[Andi76]

Your comments are valid 76.

Re Peter and Scarbs....my only criticism is their unabashed bias towards Merc and Lewis, and their often poor pre-season predictions. I mean, Windsor was almost in tears over what happened at the end of 2021. And your comments here epitomize well their poor pre season predictions. I also remember Scarbs being unimpressed with Ferrari last year pre-season. Anyway, if you can see past their biases and predictions, they often have a lot of insightful things to say — especially Scarbs. That’s been my experience watching them for years now.

I totally agree with you! Scarbs is excellent! But that what he has said here simply lacks any basis and moreover completely contradicts what history proves concerning knowledgeable, continous evolution.

[JordanMugen]

I think its on pupose and quite clever. It could actually be used reduce loses in this area and improve airflow.

An itty-bitty vortex generator to improve flow attachment?

[F1NAC]

I'm sorry but, actually, a front picture isn't the best to judge and compare the respective height of two elements such the front and rear arms of a wishbone... because one is much closer to your view due to the perspective and the other one is more distant... so, it's more likely that such a picture could deceive you.
The side photo i posted instead clearly shows some bulge in the lower part of the chassis shell.
I might still be wrong of course

You are wrong. You can clearly see on the mounting points of the chassis that the suspension is higher. And by now I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Piola and Hughes have also just reported on it a few minutes ago. The bulge on your pic it is rather unclear and it is not at all recognizable what this actually is.

Yes, obviously i am going to be wrong and you are going to be absolutely right.
Because it's very unlikely that only i could have spotted such a peculiar solution.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see more pictures because in that area the shape of the chassis is really different compared to the F1-75. There's a radius in the edge of the carbon shell which i don't understand...

Oh, by the way, i'd like to add another photo to the discussion, which is very interesting.
Let me know. Thank you.

https://postimages.org/

IT seems they as RB went with sloped upper wishbone. Compared to last year

[gordonthegun]

Behind the airscope, the engine cover goes down much faster than on the F1-75 and the last part is completely straight, the fin is much higher.

Only at the end, when the exhaust pipe becomes visible, we can find the same bulge seen on the Haas and on the Ferrari it is clear that just below that bulge (created by the exhaust pipe) there is the attachment of one of the upper arms of the rear suspension.

So it is likely that the rear suspension has been raised too, in order to get a better air flow on the diffuser.

[Giando]

You are wrong. You can clearly see on the mounting points of the chassis that the suspension is higher. And by now I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Piola and Hughes have also just reported on it a few minutes ago. The bulge on your pic it is rather unclear and it is not at all recognizable what this actually is.

Yes, obviously i am going to be wrong and you are going to be absolutely right.
Because it's very unlikely that only i could have spotted such a peculiar solution.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see more pictures because in that area the shape of the chassis is really different compared to the F1-75. There's a radius in the edge of the carbon shell which i don't understand...

Oh, by the way, i'd like to add another photo to the discussion, which is very interesting.
Let me know. Thank you.

https://postimages.org/

Maybe we're both right. That the suspension is generally higher does not necessarily exclude what you think you have seen. But hopefully that will soon become clear!

I agree Andi, in fact my previous comments weren't aimed at demonstrating that the suspensions arms - in general - are mounted in a higher or lower position than last year on the SF23, thus pointing out that something has changed in the area where the lower wishbone's rear-arm connects to the chassis.

Waiting for more pictures, i guess it could be either ways (pardon my poor drawings)

This, with a 'bulge' to connect the rear arm of the wishbone in a lower position compared to the front arm


or this, where the chassis has been somehow reshaped with a curve just upon the t-tray/splitter area compared to the F1-75 that was flat/straight