Lack of foresight to not bury the lower SIS in the floor to allow for a greater range of development, especially considering the current SIS location requires a blister in the body work to accommodate this.
I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.F1NAC wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 15:42So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )
Lack of SIS tube in the floor allows for far greater floor design freedom, as we've established numerous times already.
Ferrari ran an updated floor in Australia and had much better race pace.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 17:59I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.F1NAC wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 15:42So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )
Yes, floor updated concerned the rear edges and also the floor stay, which was extended from diffuser kick fully to the bottom of the edges.
Vanja #66 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2023, 09:05If this is how it is, the floor could also have an issue with stiffness, meaning it deforms more than it should regardless of the new rules requiring stiffer floor edges. This wouldn't be surprising, due to the trouble with new rear wing structure, showing the team is pushing lightweight structure just over the limit. Also, the rear end of the floor is more exposed than last year, which could mean the edges near diffuser are indeed more flexible than intended, providing better sealing and generating more downforce than expected. I believe this was one of the biggest issues for W13 and the bouncing that kept happening even after Barcelona floor upgrade.
Too much downforce, yes the problem all teams want to haveVanja #66 wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 20:29Yes, floor updated concerned the rear edges and also the floor stay, which was extended from diffuser kick fully to the bottom of the edges.
OLD: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp03I7rWYAECSj8?format=jpg
NEW: https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ail-1.webp
I pointed out earlier that they may have had too much downforce in Bahrain due to low ride height, but also due to flexing of the edges, causing too much sealing and unexpected downforce increase. Extended stay suggests this was indeed the case.
Vanja #66 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2023, 09:05If this is how it is, the floor could also have an issue with stiffness, meaning it deforms more than it should regardless of the new rules requiring stiffer floor edges. This wouldn't be surprising, due to the trouble with new rear wing structure, showing the team is pushing lightweight structure just over the limit. Also, the rear end of the floor is more exposed than last year, which could mean the edges near diffuser are indeed more flexible than intended, providing better sealing and generating more downforce than expected. I believe this was one of the biggest issues for W13 and the bouncing that kept happening even after Barcelona floor upgrade.
Just ask Mercedes about their early 2022
Can you please show me in which way Ferrari has used this greater floor design freedom? IMHO it seems that they have not used it at all (in term of performance), so they have only the negatives of this solution without any positive.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 17:59I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.F1NAC wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 15:42So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )
Lack of SIS tube in the floor allows for far greater floor design freedom, as we've established numerous times already.
Hopefully they will be able to fix the issues. These first 3 races have been way worse than my already pessimistic prediction.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑12 Apr 2023, 15:25Probably the first sensible analysis of SF-23 outside of this forum since the Bahrain race:
F1 Ferrari, SF-23 development plan: changing balance, not concept
Scuderia Ferrari believes that at the moment the main problem of the SF-23 is not aerodynamic efficiency, i.e. the ratio between load and drag. In Maranello, in fact, it is thought that the maximum performance of the Red Bull, seen above all in qualifying, is not too far from Red Bull, with the internal impression of always having the potential to fight for pole position. Qualifying in Australia is seen as an anomaly due to human errors on the pit wall and the drivers, which deprived Ferrari of what could have been another front row after Charles Leclerc’s second place on Saturday in Jeddah, later canceled out by the penalty on the grid, and third in qualifying for the Bahrain Grand Prix.
***
Ferrari is currently working on the mechanical set-up of the suspension to act on aerodynamics, as explained by F1 expert Carlo Platella for formulapassion.it. This means adjusting the static ground clearance and the stiffness of the springs and shock absorbers differently, so as to check how the distance from the ground and the inclination of the car body change when cornering, braking and at various speeds. In other words, in Maranello they try to keep the floor in such a position as to shift the aerodynamic balance of the SF-23 towards the rear, in search of greater stability.
***
For the moment, therefore, Ferrari continues on its path, until it is thought that the SF-23 can continue to grow. Overturning the concept without the certainty of a clear improvement compared to the current philosophy, of which Mercedes is convinced, would be counterproductive for a threefold reason. In fact, it would force the Maranello team to start from scratch, with little expertise on a concept developed for over a year by its rivals; with the lower cone protecting the passenger compartment not integrated into the bottom, it would be impossible to replicate the sidepods of Red Bull. It would mean Ferrari has to redo the chassis for 2024, with no option to choose whether to reuse the 2023 one instead to save money from the budget cap.
What exactly are the negatives?
I don't think it's exactly and only about shifting balance to the rear, they need to find the right mechanical setup for the working window they are aiming for. Working window in this case is for both the tyres and floor performance primarily.
The first negative that I see is that they cannot move to use the redbull sidepods concept even if it gives better results because they would have the sis fully exposed to the air (so a big aero blockage where the redbull expect to have nothing).
There are a couple of question that need be asked and answered and I can't get an answer on the most important one - what exactly is the benefit and advantage of downwash sidepods of RB, ATR and Alpine since early 2022 vs the inwash concept of Ferrari and Haas? Can you tell me this? Or is it really just about other teams adopting this solution? If it's that, I'll repeat myselfXwang wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 11:57The first negative that I see is that they cannot move to use the redbull sidepods concept even if it gives better results because they would have the sis fully exposed to the air (so a big aero blockage where the redbull expect to have nothing).
It is strange to me that every F1 team is moving to that approach except ferrari (and sister car haas).
Did McLaren, Sauber or Williams make a huge performance jump after they adopted RB sides? Not really, AMR did between seasons but not because of sides (since they have their own design there and their outwash undercut is actually like Ferrari, not like RB) - it's because of the floor performance and systematic suspension-floor integration. Sauber went backwards this year in fact...Vanja #66 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2023, 11:00The reason 7 teams went towards downwash style is not the same for all of them. RB, ATR and Alpine started with it in 2022, while AMR had the B spec in WT in November or December 2021 from what I recall (that's also a reference to your other comment about AMR, original idea was scrapped for good even in 2021). McLaren and Sauber have a lot of centerline cooling and they wouldn't be able to make Ferrari concept work without big drag penalty, Williams too plus they already went to RB-Ferrari hybrid last year.