Ferrari Project 677 Speculation Thread

[f1316]

Seems like we’re kicking these off!

Some talking points:

- 99% new parts, according to Fred
- Will the suspension be overhauled? Front and back? Or one or the other?
- How will Ferrari find the balance between tyre warmup and longevity? What solutions will be needed to do so?

[f1316]

Crash test supposedly passed with pull rod front: https://scuderiafans.com/ferrari-report ... 25-f1-car/

[f1316]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10684162/

The part that pertains to the new Ferrari:

..a car that is born almost from a blank sheet of paper with a new body, pull rod front suspension and a shorter gearbox that will bring with it a rear suspension always pull rod, but with the aim of improving the car's traction and making the red car more competitive even in the single lap of qualifying.

[Vanja #66]

As it usually goes for Ferrari, the Italian media pundits are full of insider information, speculation and leaks. Most of the expected changed for SF-25 have been repeated for some time already:

front suspension will switch to pull-rod in an effort to maximise aerodynamic outwash by using such a kinematic system; in practice there are no changes to suspension dynamics simply by switching to pull-rod
the cockpit, PU and the gearbox will be moved towards the rear to bring the CoG to the rear as well; this will enable Ferrari to move the CoP to the rear as well. This should allow them to keep the same amount of load at the front axle, while increasing rear load substantially without changing the balance of the car - in short this will bring them some "free" downforce
these changes will also influence rear suspension geometry and this will be a chance to improve the aerodynamics in this area as well
tyre warm up is a critical issue and the team will work on improving this without sacrificing race-pace and excellent tyre degradation performance of SF24

To this I would add some of my expectations

we might see a few all-new solutions on the floor of SF25, as Ferrari have used the updated Wind Tunnel to test the experimental Vegas flood were happy with results - so happy they decided to keep it on Leclerc's car in Qatar and won a valuable 2nd place with it
the front wing flexibility is the great saga of 2024, but in reality it doesn't bring a lot of performance on its own; it does bring better feel between low- and high-speed corners to the driver and this confidence boost translates to better lap times
we might also see innovation in sidepod area too and some all-new solutions there, as Ferrari has a lot of experience with different concepts and what each of them offers and where its missing on others
finally, rear and beam wings will likely be mostly kept in 2025, where the latest setup trend is definitely to unload the rear end aerodynamics to allow a bit softer suspension and better traction performance; we might see a new medium-low loaded rear wing and a bigger range of beam wings used on different tracks

[matteosc]

the cockpit, PU and the gearbox will be moved towards the rear to bring the CoG to the rear as well; this will enable Ferrari to move the CoP to the rear as well. This should allow them to keep the same amount of load at the front axle, while increasing rear load substantially without changing the balance of the car - in short this will bring them some "free" downforce
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gf95ATCWQAA ... name=large

Thank you for the contribution! I am wondering how much they are able to move the CoG: if I remember correctly, there are rules which define its position (longitudinally) in a certain window. Does anyone have a more precise reference?

Definitely moving the CoP will have a big effect. I would also add that what is critical is also how the CoP moves with speed, as it can change the behaviour of the car, from understeering to oversteering or vice versa, from turn to turn.

[hollus]

There is no longitudinal prescription in the rules for CoG, AFAIK. There is only a weight ratio at the wheel axles, which they can measure with those 4 balances.

[matteosc]

There is no longitudinal prescription in the rules for CoG, AFAIK. There is only a weight ratio at the wheel axles, which they can measure with those 4 balances.

Weight ratio between the axis implies a specific longitudinal position of the CoG.

[matteosc]

Seems like we’re kicking these off!

Some talking points:

- 99% new parts, according to Fred

I see a lot of surprise about 99% of the car to be new, considering that this is the final year of the current regulation. However, in my opinion:

• The fact that a component is redesigned does not necessary means that is completely different: it could be a minor modification and it will still count as new.

• It makes more sense to focus the research and development at the beginning of the season and use its later part to focus more on 2026, both time and budget-wise (while respecting the rules about that).

[Xyz22]

The 2025 Ferrari being significantly different from the SF 24 is no surprise to me. The SF 24 still had many limitations, mainly related to quali performance and overall downforce (where McL is still leading by a significant margin).

Moreover, by changing the front suspension layout to pull rod they will have to adjust other parts of the car as well.

[wuzak]

the cockpit, PU and the gearbox will be moved towards the rear to bring the CoG to the rear as well; this will enable Ferrari to move the CoP to the rear as well. This should allow them to keep the same amount of load at the front axle, while increasing rear load substantially without changing the balance of the car - in short this will bring them some "free" downforce

Could shortening the wheelbase have the same effect?

Maybe make the car more agile?

And lighter, so ballast can be used.

[Vanja #66]

Thank you for the contribution! I am wondering how much they are able to move the CoG: if I remember correctly, there are rules which define its position (longitudinally) in a certain window. Does anyone have a more precise reference?

Definitely moving the CoP will have a big effect. I would also add that what is critical is also how the CoP moves with speed, as it can change the behaviour of the car, from understeering to oversteering or vice versa, from turn to turn.

Rules require 0.539-0.554 on the rear axle, which isn't a lot of variation. 54mm in total for WB of 3600mm. However, even this small CoG variation isn't that small if you have a fore-placed CoP and you have a front-end downforce limit. For the two extreme CoP positions, you can gain 25-30 points if you keep the same load at the front axle but move the CoP to the rear (thus increasing rear axle load) and that's just basic math. In reality, you'll include larger part of the floor load on front axle simply by moving CoP to the rear, so thegsin is bigger than 30 points for sure, might even be bigger than 50 points

Could shortening the wheelbase have the same effect?

Maybe make the car more agile?

And lighter, so ballast can be used.

You also lose a lot of downforce by doing it, because you also shorten the floor. It would be a very risky thing because:

- there can be unexpected changes to flow structures under the floor, leading to a loss of balance or "just" even more downforce
- you might lose so much downforce you can't get the tyres into their window, making the car prone to graining
- you could have some issues with heating because you have shorter sidepods, closer to front tyre wake and also too short bodywork for proper air cooling

[matteosc]

Thank you for the contribution! I am wondering how much they are able to move the CoG: if I remember correctly, there are rules which define its position (longitudinally) in a certain window. Does anyone have a more precise reference?

Definitely moving the CoP will have a big effect. I would also add that what is critical is also how the CoP moves with speed, as it can change the behaviour of the car, from understeering to oversteering or vice versa, from turn to turn.

Rules require 0.539-0.554 on the rear axle, which isn't a lot of variation. 54mm in total for WB of 3600mm. However, even this small CoG variation isn't that small if you have a fore-placed CoP and you have a front-end downforce limit. For the two extreme CoP positions, you can gain 25-30 points if you keep the same load at the front axle but move the CoP to the rear (thus increasing rear axle load) and that's just basic math. In reality, you'll include larger part of the floor load on front axle simply by moving CoP to the rear, so thegsin is bigger than 30 points for sure, might even be bigger than 50 points

54 mm is actually more than I thought and it is definitely significant. The main effect of moving the cockpit seems to be still aerodynamic, which makes sense. Also from a packaging prospective things could get significanlty different.

[Vappy]

Thank you for the contribution! I am wondering how much they are able to move the CoG: if I remember correctly, there are rules which define its position (longitudinally) in a certain window. Does anyone have a more precise reference?

Definitely moving the CoP will have a big effect. I would also add that what is critical is also how the CoP moves with speed, as it can change the behaviour of the car, from understeering to oversteering or vice versa, from turn to turn.

Rules require 0.539-0.554 on the rear axle, which isn't a lot of variation. 54mm in total for WB of 3600mm. However, even this small CoG variation isn't that small if you have a fore-placed CoP and you have a front-end downforce limit. For the two extreme CoP positions, you can gain 25-30 points if you keep the same load at the front axle but move the CoP to the rear (thus increasing rear axle load) and that's just basic math. In reality, you'll include larger part of the floor load on front axle simply by moving CoP to the rear, so thegsin is bigger than 30 points for sure, might even be bigger than 50 points

Could shortening the wheelbase have the same effect?

Maybe make the car more agile?

And lighter, so ballast can be used.

You also lose a lot of downforce by doing it, because you also shorten the floor. It would be a very risky thing because:

- there can be unexpected changes to flow structures under the floor, leading to a loss of balance or "just" even more downforce
- you might lose so much downforce you can't get the tyres into their window, making the car prone to graining
- you could have some issues with heating because you have shorter sidepods, closer to front tyre wake and also too short bodywork for proper air cooling

To try and stay in the relativity of this thread, are there examples of previous, shorter wheel base generations of cars that did well with managing / coping with the above risks that ferrari can learn from?

[Vanja #66]

To try and stay in the relativity of this thread, are there examples of previous, shorter wheel base generations of cars that did well with managing / coping with the above risks that ferrari can learn from?

None without bargeboards and complex front wings...

[aleks_ader]

Any deviation from current evolution will not happen.