Ferrari SF-24

[Sevach]

Has anyone seen if it flexes?

An ok amount from an onboard with Carlos.

Hard to judge on this track where we don't have many 330 to 100 breaking zones.

[KimiRai]

[Vanja #66]

The best, most relevant photo comparison of Imola (used in Monaco and Hungary) and Singapore spec flaps. Note the new downward tapering of the fixed top flap element on the nose, previously completely flat



Full article https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-ana ... -molto-piu

[FlYiNgIcEmAn]

Has anyone seen if it flexes?

Here you can see it a bit
https://x.com/AnaFerrariHeart/status/18 ... ImOPA&s=19

[Sevach]

The best, most relevant photo comparison of Imola (used in Monaco and Hungary) and Singapore spec flaps. Note the new downward tapering of the fixed top flap element on the nose, previously completely flat

https://storage.googleapis.com/fp-media ... gapore.jpg

Full article https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-ana ... -molto-piu

A lot more aggressive in the middle.
I don't think there's less surface at any point, this wing drops more aggressively from it's highest point, but once it "catches up" to the old one it switches to gentle linear drop, similar to the old one.

[sucof]

The best, most relevant photo comparison of Imola (used in Monaco and Hungary) and Singapore spec flaps. Note the new downward tapering of the fixed top flap element on the nose, previously completely flat

https://storage.googleapis.com/fp-media ... gapore.jpg

Full article https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-ana ... -molto-piu

To me it seems even the nose has a new shape, kind of flatter and more pointy. I am not sure if it is because of the different lighting though.

[Vanja #66]

To me it seems even the nose has a new shape, kind of flatter and more pointy. I am not sure if it is because of the different lighting though.

I see what you mean, but it really is just different light reflections. I don't think they have too much room to change the nose cover shape, crash structure underneath is very close to it

[bluechris]

Now with the onboards, if you see MCLaren front wing flexing and you compare it with the new Ferrari one you will see that Ferrari compresses a lot less. They have to much left on the table on this for sure but at least they started to use it.

[Emag]

Now with the onboards, if you see MCLaren front wing flexing and you compare it with the new Ferrari one you will see that Ferrari compresses a lot less. They have to much left on the table on this for sure but at least they started to use it.

I don't think that's the case, but the outboard (the part which is most visible on onboards), is a lot less loaded on the Ferrari wing compared to McLaren's wing so you see less movement.

It could be that they can't run a wing that is similar to McLaren's because it might be messing up the flow downstream. They have had a less-loaded outboard section all-season so I wouldn't be surprised if the platform works at best with the wing like that.

[Andi76]

The transition tip of the 4th flap (mid span) is seriously cranked up, leaves an impression of a section that might get substantial local separation but it's highly unlikely. There might be some cross flow there, inwash on the bottom and outwash on top

https://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detai.webp

https://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detai.webp

For some reason, there was a lot of flow vis on the rear, it doesn't look like there's anything new, but there may be some subtle beam wing changes. Looks to me like the tips of the second element are smaller now, very subtle change.

https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... sf-24.webp

Interesting pictures here
In the first picture (supposedly new on the stand) - the top flap has the carbon fibres arranged horizontally and the second one vertically
In the second picture (old) - both top flaps have the carbon fibres arranged horizontally
In the last picture (supposedly new but on track) - both top flaps have the carbon fibres arranged vertically.

I guess they are really trying things out to achieve the flexibility they need.

That's not fibre direction, what you see as grey and black is twill reflection. Fibres are actually under slightly different angles on 4th flaps, while 3rd flap is almost the same

The "curl" at the end of the front wing is somewhat reminiscent of the end plate extensions used in the early 1990s and certainly has a similar purpose with regard to the front wheel wake, albeit in a different form as its in a different position.

[Emag]

I believe the prime benefit of flexi front wings is not 'reduced drag'. Reduced drag in a straight line at high speed, is a secondary benefit that. The prime benefit, according to me is in high speed corners. The FW flexes, reduce the front downforce, shifts the center of pressure rearwards in the car "automatically" and introduces understeer. That's what the driver wants in a long radius high speed corner. In slower corners, no FW flex, high downforce in the nose => helps rotate the car faster. This 'dynamic balance change to suit different types of corners' is the real benefit of a flexi FW.

There is no scenario where any driver would want to induce understeer mid corner, except to counteract snap oversteer. Understeer is especially hurtful on a long radius corner that you take as an example here.

The benefit of flexing wings comes from the fact that you can run with a lot more load at the front, without a drag penalty which would otherwise nullify the advantages in (certain) corners with losses on the straights.

What you say is not quite true. Of course a driver doesn't like extreme understeer. But in fast corners, an understeering balance is definitely preferred, as is a slightly oversteering balance in slow corners. It is therefore quite correct that the main aim of the flexible wings is to "adjust" the aerodynamic balance accordingly. In slow corners you want more "front bite" and a little more downforce at the front, while in fast corners the aerodynamic balance should move slightly towards the rear. No driver wants a car that constantly threatens to break out at the rear at 300 km/h.

I highly doubt that a flexing wing could have that big of an effect on altering the entire car balance. If the flaps have been flexed backwards at the maximum of their capacity, the car is either on a straight, or going through a corner which is probably easily flatout on these cars for everyone. A while back I went to see exactly how much the wing was flexing on McLaren and Mercedes on the 100-250 kmh range where most corners would fall to, and the flex wasn’t nearly as dramatic as it appears when going from 320kmh+ on a straight down to <100kmh after a heavy braking zone.

Anyway, there was a missunderstanding with the comment I replied to, because if I recall the word “induce understeer” was used and that’s a terrible thing to have on a long radius high speed corner (china t12-13 and sochi t3). Ideally you want neither, but at those speeds you will get some understeer no matter what you do.

However, the fastest cars are almost always oversteery and the best drivers deal with it. It becomes more manageable as the downforce piles up for F1, a luxury which GT cars for example don’t have. Yet drivers still prefer that because it’s easier to induce rotation on low-medium speed corners under braking. In racing, that’s where most of the time is made/lost. If you take a high speed corner perfectly, you can maybe gain half a tenth, but if you take a medium speed corner perfectly you can easily gain 1-2 tenths.

It’s true that there have been successful drivers that have made understeery cars work too, but frankly I have no clue how they have done it.

[Andi76]

There is no scenario where any driver would want to induce understeer mid corner, except to counteract snap oversteer. Understeer is especially hurtful on a long radius corner that you take as an example here.

The benefit of flexing wings comes from the fact that you can run with a lot more load at the front, without a drag penalty which would otherwise nullify the advantages in (certain) corners with losses on the straights.

What you say is not quite true. Of course a driver doesn't like extreme understeer. But in fast corners, an understeering balance is definitely preferred, as is a slightly oversteering balance in slow corners. It is therefore quite correct that the main aim of the flexible wings is to "adjust" the aerodynamic balance accordingly. In slow corners you want more "front bite" and a little more downforce at the front, while in fast corners the aerodynamic balance should move slightly towards the rear. No driver wants a car that constantly threatens to break out at the rear at 300 km/h.

I highly doubt that a flexing wing could have that big of an effect on altering the entire car balance. If the flaps have been flexed backwards at the maximum of their capacity, the car is either on a straight, or going through a corner which is probably easily flatout on these cars for everyone. A while back I went to see exactly how much the wing was flexing on McLaren and Mercedes on the 100-250 kmh range where most corners would fall to, and the flex wasn’t nearly as dramatic as it appears when going from 320kmh+ on a straight down to <100kmh after a heavy braking zone.

Anyway, there was a missunderstanding with the comment I replied to, because if I recall the word “induce understeer” was used and that’s a terrible thing to have on a long radius high speed corner (china t12-13 and sochi t3). Ideally you want neither, but at those speeds you will get some understeer no matter what you do.

However, the fastest cars are almost always oversteery and the best drivers deal with it. It becomes more manageable as the downforce piles up for F1, a luxury which GT cars for example don’t have. Yet drivers still prefer that because it’s easier to induce rotation on low-medium speed corners under braking. In racing, that’s where most of the time is made/lost. If you take a high speed corner perfectly, you can maybe gain half a tenth, but if you take a medium speed corner perfectly you can easily gain 1-2 tenths.

It’s true that there have been successful drivers that have made understeery cars work too, but frankly I have no clue how they have done it.

You can doubt it, but it is a fact it does. Front and rear wings are always an element to "trim" the aerodynamic balance. This is done by changing the angle of attack and thus the downforce generated. And nothing different happens when the wing bends backwards. The angle of attack becomes smaller, the downforce lower and, in the case of a front wing, you have less downforce at the front, which shifts the aerodynamic balance to the rear. It's actually a simple and logical thing. I don't have exact data on what today's wings bend, but in 2002 the front wing of the F2002 bent by seven centimeters. I must even have the exact data regarding x, y and z axis somewhere, unfortunately I couldn't find it quickly, but I'll try to post it later. Of course Ferrari in this era was the masters in this area (my greatest respect to this day Richard!), but even the worst teams reached 2cm and I think I heard that the McLaren wing today is supposed to bend in an area in between. So we are talking about several centimeters that the wing bends. This fact alone should make it clear that this has a significant effect on the aerodynamic balance of the car.

With regard to understeer and oversteer, there are some misunderstandings thanks to the press, because in fact there is hardly a driver who really wants an oversteering car in fast corners. Unfortunately, thanks to the media, a lot of things are often misunderstood here and everyone thinks Verstappen or Schumacher like or want a car that oversteers everywhere, even in the 130R at Suzuka. But that is not correct. Those top drivers who prefer oversteering cars want oversteering in tight, slow corners (which others can't handle at all, Berger was a prominent example) to steer the car in the right direction so that they can step on the throttle early. You can modulate the throttle to control the amount of oversteer on corner exit. But in corners like the 130R, the last thing a driver wants is to try to catch the rear of the car - oversteer - at over 300 mph. He'd rather have a bit of understeer, which is most easily accomplished with subtle steering and throttle adjustments.

Of course, we are talking about the most extreme differences in the speed spectrum here, but the same principles apply when the speed differences are not so extreme.

Of course, you can also look at the whole thing from the point of view of the radii of the curves, regardless of the speed, whereby the principle remains the same. In curves with a tight radius, it is particularly important that the car changes direction sufficiently. Slight oversteer helps here. In bends with a larger radius, the main thing is to keep the speed high. A drastic change of direction is NO longer necessary here. So an easier-to-handle driving behavior - understeer - is very helpful and even the top "oversteerers" don't want a car that oversteers in such corners.

So if you can tune the handling of the car so that it oversteers in slow corners and understeers in fast corners, that's actually always an advantage and it's easier when a car has aerodynamic downforce than when the car has no aerodynamics.

Drivers who made a so-called understeering car a success (Prost, Alonso) did it with their driving style, just like drivers at the other end (oversteer) did it. But this was mostly about Drivers who made a so-called understeering car a success (Prost, Alonso) did it with their driving style, just like drivers at the other end (oversteer) did it. It was mostly about the traction their cars offered. While Alonso's Renault had a weight distribution and drivetrain that offered an advantage in this respect, Prost actually tuned his car to have lots downforce in the rear. They used a lot of initial turn-in, which leads to understeer at corner entry, deliberately caused. They used an extreme slip angle to bring the car into the apex by shifting the front end. As a result, it brakes and turns in a little earlier. Another point was the tires, which "bit" faster as a result. Alonso then immediately reduced the steering angle and stepped on the gas. This meant he was on the gas much earlier than other car/driver combinations and had a hot tire for the apex and exit of the corner, where he could take full advantage of the Renault's superior traction. Prost achieved something similar through a special set-up.