Ferrari SF-24 speculation

[FDD]

I don't think that, over the course of the season, the advantages of pullrod are so clear that sticking with the mechanically better solution is a really relevant disadvantage.

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Many experts from racing industry confirmed that there is no "advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations", as you said.
The only difference is the impact on the aero and if some team insist on push or pull rod they have their reasons/solutions for the aero in that part.

[DoctorRadio]

Isn’t push at the rear one of the reasons for RBR having a smaller gearbox in its transversal section and thus better diffuser efficiency?

[scuderiabrandon]

Isn’t push at the rear one of the reasons for RBR having a smaller gearbox in its transversal section and thus better diffuser efficiency?

That sounds plausible to me.

That's been the general consensus but Cardile and the multiple reports have said they are working on reducing the cross sectional area of the transmission. So pull at the rear might not be so sub optimal given they can do it to the same extent as having push rod. That we will find out soon.

We also have to remember that historically speaking teams have copied just for the sake of copying the best team, even if they aren't seeing the same results.

[Farnborough]

For reference of the task in placing the components, there's a good picture with labelled critical parts of RB 18 front view detached gearbox posted over in Alpine thread.

Just a good illustration of how much space the various parts take in being grouped around that part of transmission.

They'll all be, the teams, familiar with how they prefer to fit in those elements but may come to an better distribution of their own layout if they feel the importance of volume is particularly advantageous.

I felt Cardile description of changes focused upon in the development of 23 car to this iteration was quite lucid in it's appreciation of where they thought they were lacking last year.

I still think the 23 was effectively the aggregate second fastest chassis over the year in absolute pace terms, intelligent evolution would appear valid a path into this year.

[scuderiabrandon]

For reference of the task in placing the components, there's a good picture with labelled critical parts of RB 18 front view detached gearbox posted over in Alpine thread.

Just a good illustration of how much space the various parts take in being grouped around that part of transmission.

They'll all be, the teams, familiar with how they prefer to fit in those elements but may come to an better distribution of their own layout if they feel the importance of volume is particularly advantageous.

I felt Cardile description of changes focused upon in the development of 23 car to this iteration was quite lucid in it's appreciation of where they thought they were lacking last year.

I still think the 23 was effectively the aggregate second fastest chassis over the year in absolute pace terms, intelligent evolution would appear valid a path into this year.

Sure 2nd fastest on aggregate, but is that good enough? I don't think an evolution will be enough.

This topic is very nuanced for Ferrari. Whether it will be a evolution or a revolution. They had a mid season aero overall which saw them switch to a hybrid concept. Somewhere between a downwash and inwash concept. If I recall correctly Fred mentioned after introducing the big upgrades in Spain that they thought there was more room to develop the car, which turned out not to be the case. That to me suggest the choice of having a hybrid concept was not totally deliberate. The structural and changes being made over the winter, which is almost as good as confirmed, means those restrictions imposed by them are not there anymore, therefore I believe the SF24 will certainly not resemble the SF-23 at all. Even the radiator layout was a limiting factor, hence why they never really moved down the big engine cover we saw on most teams.

So for me if there will be a concept shift, that is a revolution. Just because certain parts of the car don't undergo complete redesign does not make an evolution. To me the philosophy is what decides that.

[Farnborough]

I was specifically referencing the suspension systems there, and likely not changing pull to push etc, not aero.

Agree in aero though, Cardile words about "front blocking" sidepod, with his reference to placement of lower sip and how they'd in 22 chosen highest location, to now implying going to lowest possible for that sip....would indicate that it's moving into the floor top surface with attendant undercut of sidepod to go with that.

Sounds like a shift toward RB in the overall aero direction to me.

[scuderiabrandon]

I was specifically referencing the suspension systems there, and likely not changing pull to push etc, not aero.

Agree in aero though, Cardile words about "front blocking" sidepod, with his reference to placement of lower sip and how they'd in 22 chosen highest location, to now implying going to lowest possible for that sip....would indicate that it's moving into the floor top surface with attendant undercut of sidepod to go with that.

Sounds like a shift toward RB in the overall aero direction to me.

My bad.

Many people like to talk like they haven't even considered the idea or looked at the potential of push rods at the rear. I am convinced anyone intellegent enough to work in F1 knows the importance of evaluating ideas before blindly persuing them and also not to be to stubborn.

They then need to consider whether investing recourse into such a changes is worth the potential gains.

[chrstphrln]

I don't think that, over the course of the season, the advantages of pullrod are so clear that sticking with the mechanically better solution is a really relevant disadvantage.

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

[K1Plus]

I don't think that, over the course of the season, the advantages of pullrod are so clear that sticking with the mechanically better solution is a really relevant disadvantage.

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

Could a team run double push-rod? Or will Ferrari stick to push-pull...

[ScrewCaptain27]

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

Could a team run double push-rod? Or will Ferrari stick to push-pull...

Sauber and Alpha Tauri did for the past two seasons.

[LM10]

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

Could a team run double push-rod? Or will Ferrari stick to push-pull...

Sauber and Alpha Tauri did for the past two seasons.

And Alpine last season.

[DinkLv]

In yesterday's latest episode of documentary "DiscoveRED - Scuderia Ferrari" from Sky Sport (Italy) a lot of design details of the Project 676 (SF-24) have been revealed. All images are captured from the documentary and thus should be considered public information granted by Ferrari for release.

From the images it seems like the 676 bears a very similar concept to the MCL60/AMR23, while the undercut shape of its sidepod inlet resembles somewhat of the RB19 but still inheriting the s-duct from the SF-23. It can also be confirmed that the push-rod front / pull-rod rear suspensions are retained.

The portion inside Ferrari's wind tunnel was taken on Saturday, 14th Oct, 2023, meaning that they provide only a general overview of car's fundamental concept but should by no means represent the finalized design we will see on Feb 13th.

[Vanja #66]

Having been shown in public before the car is revealed can only mean none of those bodywork parts ended up on the car itself, no team does that. Maybe only the new rear wing tips.

[Xyz22]

Having been shown in public before the car is revealed can only mean none of those bodywork parts ended up on the car itself, no team does that. Maybe only the new rear wing tips.

Vanja you think these are early versions of the bodywork or something ad hoc made for the documentary?

[organic]

To me it is plausible it's early '24 stuff. Higher df rear wing with disconnected RW tips is not something we've seen from them before. The oblique view also shows sidepods with a fairly deep undercut (near side) and at least a slight waterslide (far side)

Surprising to see something like this though