2023 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[FDD]

Another point too - should they choose to go with elongated sidepod inlets like RB (a path they seem to have now taken) and move the SIS tube to the floor, they will reduce the chassis drag a bit.

You think the Ferrari sidepod was draggier? I know this was a subject of lengthy debate last season

He said "elongated sidepod INLETS" not the complete sidepod.

[Vanja #66]

You think the Ferrari sidepod was draggier? I know this was a subject of lengthy debate last season

In 2022 frontal area was bigger and front undercut of Ferrari was surely generating more stagnation than RB18. This year, launch SF-23 had very similar differences compared to RB19, so even if they improved this area in Ferrari the relative drag difference in that specific area remained in favour of RB since they also improved. Now with more undercut, SF23 evo (as Italians call it) seems to be even lower on drag than launch spec car and there is clearly room to further improve.

[jambuka]

New diffuser and beam wing for Ferrari at Silverstone.

[dialtone]

It surely will be interesting to see if they keep the classic Venturi floor. I'm far away from being an expert, but I've the feeling it would be their only realistic way to beat RBR anytime soon. I don't think RBR will be beaten with their own weapons - they've been fine tuning this concept for 1.5 years now and will continue doing it so in the next years.

So if Ferrari manages to make their current concept floor work in a balanced way and improve their race pace this way, we might have a proper title fight in hand for next year or the year after. It might sound optimistic, but we know how quickly things can change when a team finally starts unlocking the potential of the car, which has not been the case for Ferrari until recently.

What would you do - abandon the classic Venturi floor or stick to the concept?

I think they will be better off if they stick to their own floor development path. I believe they have a lot of room for improvement in various areas of the floor, but need to work further on suspension to keep it lower at the start of the race. Another point too - should they choose to go with elongated sidepod inlets like RB (a path they seem to have now taken) and move the SIS tube to the floor, they will reduce the chassis drag a bit. This will allow them to run more wing(s) and end up with about the same drag as they now have, so that could be some amount of extra downforce.

I don't think ride height is a problem any more, Charles car was at the limit for floor thickness at the end of the race as reported here: https://formu1a.uno/retroscena-ferrari- ... del-fondo/

The good news is that from here Ferrari took to the track with lower ground clearance without worrying too much about rebound - so much so that he reached the end of the race, especially in the case of Charles Leclerc, with the wear levels of the board bordering on the regulations. No problems or worries at Ferrari, on the contrary, this is confirmation of how the SF-23 was able to travel with more aggressive heights throughout the race, expressing better potential.

[Vanja #66]

I don't think ride height is a problem any more, Charles car was at the limit for floor thickness at the end of the race as reported here: https://formu1a.uno/retroscena-ferrari- ... del-fondo/

The good news is that from here Ferrari took to the track with lower ground clearance without worrying too much about rebound - so much so that he reached the end of the race, especially in the case of Charles Leclerc, with the wear levels of the board bordering on the regulations. No problems or worries at Ferrari, on the contrary, this is confirmation of how the SF-23 was able to travel with more aggressive heights throughout the race, expressing better potential.

There were two separate ride height issues in the early races - one was excessive bouncing at lower speeds than anticipated (as reported in that article, seems to be fixed now) and the other was having too much ride height at the start of the races.

The other issue is a bit more complex, with 95-100kg of fuel the cars can't go as fast through the corners like they do at qualifying. The floor downforce is mostly related to ride height, which in a corner at 150kmh is more related to compression coming from cornering speed (at those speeds, cars generate 8-900kg of downforce) than extra fuel load. So with more fuel you are slower anyway (centrifugal force is the limiting factor) and for Ferrari it also meant they are losing more floor downforce than RB because they are riding slightly higher than optimal. This means suspension requires better correlation with aero, non-linear travel movement, etc...

RB19 is reported to drop very low at fairly low speeds and then stays put no matter how much the speed increases and seems to be just about the only car capable of doing that - making them insanely fast at the start of the race. They also don't have any plank wear issues, so that's also something other teams are curious about.

[dialtone]

I'm not sure. They scraped the floor thin, the article says they were low the whole race.

[Andres125sx]

What else does he need to do to stop this unnecessary bashing?

It's not bashing, it's pointing out at his mistakes.

Sure...

Any reason you only consider Ferrari mistakes wich were costly for Lecrerc, but not any of those costly for Sainz?

Yes, the reason is - there were none. Adami is spot on this year, like he was with Vettel all the time. Sainz didn't even suffer from any reliability trouble. It's called luck.

None?, I´m not going to go further, just from last GPs in Austria...

Double pitstop, first Lecrerc, then Sainz. Lecrerc pitstop: 4.4 seconds, 2 seconds lost. Sainz pitstop, 4.5 seconds, 2 seconds lost, added to the 2 seconds Lecrerc lost as he was wainting, so with a double pitstop, Ferrari messed it up in both, and Sainz suffered both mistakes and lost 4 seconds, and 3 postitions. What a fortunate driver is Sainz!

Ferrari did put Xavi as Lecrerc engineer to sabotage Lecrerc and favour Sainz, sure

You complained why I call it luck. I explained why it's luck and offered the only explanation on why it wouldn't be a good luck for Sainz - no matter how obviously bizarre.

So you reckon it´s bizarre and absurd. It would be too demanding for you to not post bizarre and absurd things just to defend your point?

I was only pointing he actually passed one Mercedes, one McLaren and one RBR, as your previous statement looked like sarcasm mocking Sainz for not passing Mecerdes and Mclaren, when he actually did it quite easily

I literally wrote "Sainz was able to overtake them easily" Common man, start reading before replying

And finished the sentence with, "didn´t he?", wich shows sarcasm

Are you trying to abuse my english limitations Vanja??

False again. When did he attack Lecrerc? Please tell me one single attack Sainz did on Lecrerc

He attacked in Lap 1 T5 after Max kept Leclerc wide on T4 entry, start at 38s:

What?? Attacking is quite different from the driver in front taking a slow line in an attempt to overtake himself, but being unable and loosing time. Then the car at the back will get closer obviously, but not because he´s attacking, but because Lecrerc lost time trying to pass Max. That is completely different from...

He was attacking Leclerc in spite of team's agreement

Sainz did nothing, he had a chance to put the nose of his car side by side with Lecrerc, and didn´t. But you say he was attacking and ignoring team agreement. That is bashing a driver with no reason

My apologies to other members for dragging this topic on and on, but for me there are no sacred cows here - if the team is criticised when deserved, the drivers will be as well.

Only that some driver get critics for things he never did, like invented attacks, while the other don´t, not even when he reckon the mistakes himself

Where are your critics to Lecrerc for being eliminated in one Q1 and one Q2 despite Sainz went to Q3 effortless?

Do you really think your critics to Sainz impeding and Lecrerc impeding are balanced? I posted your reaction on both cases few posts back, bashing Sainz as appaling and lack of spatial awareness, while negating the mistake with Lecrerc saying he was entering the pitlane and the penalty is not deserved


I agree with you on one thing tough, sorry to other members for this continuous nosense, but reading you´re balanced with your critics to Sainz and Lecrerc is an insult for anyone who can read

[Vanja #66]

Andres, we've inevitably - once again - come to a point where you keep repeating arguments even after they are overturned. Of course, with a touch of personal insults and playing the victim, so we are done here

[tnajner]

Guys, please post something constructive for the debate. This is getting really tiring and boring, not worth the team thred this fanboyism. Grand prix threads are full of this fanboyism crap, please do not make muck of this team thread.

[bluechris]

Guys, please post something constructive for the debate. This is getting really tiring and boring, not worth the team thred this fanboyism. Grand prix threads are full of this fanboyism crap, please do not make muck of this team thread.

The debate is that there are some people that think Sainz is at the same level as Leclerc?

Lol nice

Στάλθηκε από το SM-A528B μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[f1316]

I don't think ride height is a problem any more, Charles car was at the limit for floor thickness at the end of the race as reported here: https://formu1a.uno/retroscena-ferrari- ... del-fondo/

The good news is that from here Ferrari took to the track with lower ground clearance without worrying too much about rebound - so much so that he reached the end of the race, especially in the case of Charles Leclerc, with the wear levels of the board bordering on the regulations. No problems or worries at Ferrari, on the contrary, this is confirmation of how the SF-23 was able to travel with more aggressive heights throughout the race, expressing better potential.

There were two separate ride height issues in the early races - one was excessive bouncing at lower speeds than anticipated (as reported in that article, seems to be fixed now) and the other was having too much ride height at the start of the races.

The other issue is a bit more complex, with 95-100kg of fuel the cars can't go as fast through the corners like they do at qualifying. The floor downforce is mostly related to ride height, which in a corner at 150kmh is more related to compression coming from cornering speed (at those speeds, cars generate 8-900kg of downforce) than extra fuel load. So with more fuel you are slower anyway (centrifugal force is the limiting factor) and for Ferrari it also meant they are losing more floor downforce than RB because they are riding slightly higher than optimal. This means suspension requires better correlation with aero, non-linear travel movement, etc...

RB19 is reported to drop very low at fairly low speeds and then stays put no matter how much the speed increases and seems to be just about the only car capable of doing that - making them insanely fast at the start of the race. They also don't have any plank wear issues, so that's also something other teams are curious about.

This is probably, like, way overly simplistic, but I wonder if the fuel tank placement on the RB is part of how they manage their ride height better throughout the race?

My logic is: (1) as you say, lower speed in fast corners with full tanks means losing floor downforce, hence ride height (2) more weight (from fuel) at the start of the race ought to, at least to some extent, push the car somewhat lower. Therefore if you can find a way to balance these two things, such that the weight of the fuel creates the downward force at the start of the race and, as they burns off, so cornering speed increases, counteracting the loss of weight with increased downforce.

The forces in question are probably not equal (100 kg of fuel weight vs whatever proportion of the 8-900 kgs of downforce you mention) but it got me thinking about how placement of the fuel could potentially play a part in increasing the fuel weight effect relatively and so help in counterbalancing the competing issues? Perhaps the softness of the suspension also plays a part in helping magnify the effect of fuel weight on ride height?

[Vinlarr89]

I believe as previously mentioned, the increase in downforce of carrying the extra speed through the corners far outweighs the additional fuel load. The issue is the additional fuel load means the same speed can’t be carried and as the speed decreases the ride height suffers which further decreases downforce and so on. I think suspension geometry is potentially the final piece in the jigsaw, but I’d say there’s still plenty of scope left in that floor too.

[scuderiabrandon]

I don't think ride height is a problem any more, Charles car was at the limit for floor thickness at the end of the race as reported here: https://formu1a.uno/retroscena-ferrari- ... del-fondo/

There were two separate ride height issues in the early races - one was excessive bouncing at lower speeds than anticipated (as reported in that article, seems to be fixed now) and the other was having too much ride height at the start of the races.

The other issue is a bit more complex, with 95-100kg of fuel the cars can't go as fast through the corners like they do at qualifying. The floor downforce is mostly related to ride height, which in a corner at 150kmh is more related to compression coming from cornering speed (at those speeds, cars generate 8-900kg of downforce) than extra fuel load. So with more fuel you are slower anyway (centrifugal force is the limiting factor) and for Ferrari it also meant they are losing more floor downforce than RB because they are riding slightly higher than optimal. This means suspension requires better correlation with aero, non-linear travel movement, etc...

RB19 is reported to drop very low at fairly low speeds and then stays put no matter how much the speed increases and seems to be just about the only car capable of doing that - making them insanely fast at the start of the race. They also don't have any plank wear issues, so that's also something other teams are curious about.

This is probably, like, way overly simplistic, but I wonder if the fuel tank placement on the RB is part of how they manage their ride height better throughout the race?

My logic is: (1) as you say, lower speed in fast corners with full tanks means losing floor downforce, hence ride height (2) more weight (from fuel) at the start of the race ought to, at least to some extent, push the car somewhat lower. Therefore if you can find a way to balance these two things, such that the weight of the fuel creates the downward force at the start of the race and, as they burns off, so cornering speed increases, counteracting the loss of weight with increased downforce.

The forces in question are probably not equal (100 kg of fuel weight vs whatever proportion of the 8-900 kgs of downforce you mention) but it got me thinking about how placement of the fuel could potentially play a part in increasing the fuel weight effect relatively and so help in counterbalancing the competing issues? Perhaps the softness of the suspension also plays a part in helping magnify the effect of fuel weight on ride height?

You talk of the change in ride height in a static manner. The change in static ride height with 100kg of fuel is almost negligble compared to the effects of carrying less speed in the dynamic phase. The cars run way too stiff for the 100kg of fuel to have a major effect on static RH. The positioning of the fuel tank has its effects in its own respect regarding vehicle performance on any fuel load for that matter as it affects the CoG.

It is more likely to be suspension related or the floor that has an extremely narrow operating window.

[Vanja #66]

This is probably, like, way overly simplistic, but I wonder if the fuel tank placement on the RB is part of how they manage their ride height better throughout the race?

My logic is: (1) as you say, lower speed in fast corners with full tanks means losing floor downforce, hence ride height (2) more weight (from fuel) at the start of the race ought to, at least to some extent, push the car somewhat lower. Therefore if you can find a way to balance these two things, such that the weight of the fuel creates the downward force at the start of the race and, as they burns off, so cornering speed increases, counteracting the loss of weight with increased downforce.

The forces in question are probably not equal (100 kg of fuel weight vs whatever proportion of the 8-900 kgs of downforce you mention) but it got me thinking about how placement of the fuel could potentially play a part in increasing the fuel weight effect relatively and so help in counterbalancing the competing issues? Perhaps the softness of the suspension also plays a part in helping magnify the effect of fuel weight on ride height?

Fuel tanks have a few general requirements regarding any race car's dynamic performance - the X-coordinate (longitudinal) fuel CoG needs to be very close to car's CoG X value, the Z needs to be as low as possible (but not at the expense of raising other heavier elements), you want to reduce the fuel's moment of inertia by designing a tank that's "close" to a cube and you need to design the internal compartments to prevent excessive sloshing (ideally, you remove sloshing completely). Otherwise, fuel tank shape in F1 is not high in the list of priorities, today they are designed around other systems and are behind the driver of course, some parameters are dictated by rules and they have very weird shapes as a result (compared to what you'd expect from a non-racing fuel tank).

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/f1-car ... qkB1_g_2P-

The fuel itself is a mass and in F1 fuel tanks (or fuel bladders, if you will) make sure this mass doesn't move around too much under longitudinal or lateral acceleration (sloshing). As a mass, it contributes to overall forces a moving car generates under any acceleration. The fuel itself will generate a force whose line of action goes through its CoG - like any other mass. Since fuel tank's overall position is basically prescribed, so is the line of action of the force of the fuel acting on the car very similar on all cars - to the best of my knowledge.

Aerodynamic forces depend on speed squared, so a 10% increase in speed results in 21% increase in aerodynamic force. On the other hand, you start the race with a total of 908kg and drop to 800kg in the end (since you need some fuel for sample testing) which is a 12% decrease. So if you assume the same centrifugal force in any corner at the start and end of the race (not taking tyres into account) you have

m_start*v_start^2 = m_end*v_end^2
m_end=0.89*m_start
v_end=sqrt(v_start^2/0.89)=1.058*v_start --> 5.8% increase in speed --> 12% increase in aerodynamic force

However, in any corner the vertical load = weight (m*g) + aerodynamic force and this vertical load multiplied by tyre friction coefficient is the friction force that is in theoretical equilibrium with centrifugal force while cornering. So with more speed, you can afford more centrifugal force. This is a very basic explanation of a very complex problem.

All of this means that you have an additional benefit of any cornering speed increase, since you also increase vertical load and you can therefore increase centrifugal force further and so on - until it's just on the limit. So as the fuel weight drops you can always have a bit more speed increase because the centrifugal force limit is always going up since the aerodynamic force is always going up with said speed increase.

This is where we come back to ride height - as you increase the speed, you increase the vertical load and the suspension compresses as a result. This reduces ride height and this increases the downforce coefficient of the floor - up to a point. So you have a certain speed value where your car is compressed the lowest for a maximum downforce coefficient. It is believed that RB19 has the lowest speed value when this happens, making them run with maximum downforce across the widest speed range of any car.

From a purely aerodynamics point of view, to get so low so quickly you need very soft suspension in the first part of the travel. When you get so low, you'd ideally want to have an infinitely stiff suspension to prevent bottoming out and scraping the plank. Since you can't have infinitely stiff suspension (and tyres wouldn't like it anyway of course) Red Bull did the next best thing with RB19's suspension - and all the teams would very much like to know what that is.

[JPower]

Any thoughts on the new tires possibly helping the SF-23's balance?

Obviously I don't expect the car to beat RB over the course of the race, but, seems like one of the drivers could be an outside bet for pole, no?

Leclerc is usually extremely quick at this track.