Ferrari SF-25

[Andi76]

Paolo Filisetti reports:

Ferrari goes extreme with Australian GP experiment ahead of FIA clampdown
Technical analyst Paolo Filisetti takes a look at a Ferrari experiment being used at the Australian GP ahead of the FIA's flexi-wing clampdown.

An interesting development from the leading F1 teams has been the countermeasures deployed in response to the FIA's clampdown on flexi-wings.

The pressing issue concerns the front wings, with the rear ones subject to tightened rules from the Melbourne season-opener, with teams having until June's Spanish GP to adapt their front-wing designs to meet the stricter tests from the FIA.

The reasoning behind such a gradual introduction of the firmer rules was to allow teams time to adjust as opposed to a sudden introduction, which was feared could create unnecessary critical problems, given the intrinsic importance of the front-wing.

Observing the cars in the Albert Park pit-lane, RacingNews365 noted that teams had arrived with front-wings that are able to pass the technical checks set for introduction for June, but which function in the same manner as the current flexi-designs, with a particular focus being placed on the end-plates.

It was Ferrari who pushed this to the extreme with its experiments on flexibility, but those which allow the SF-25 to remain within the rules set for introduction in Barcelona.

To achieve this, the Maranello engineers have equipped the inner end plates with visual target stickers to monitor the flexing of individual elements with respect to the end-plate itself and its lateral flexing.

In total, nine visual targets were placed on the end-plate, indicating the precise analysis Ferrari is trying to do, with end-plate flexibility a useful trick to increase out-wash from the front-wing around the tyres and away from the critical floor and diffuser areas.




You never know if what Filisetti says is true (or correct ), but it would make sense...

[Vanja #66]

Ferrari had 5 different cooling configurations with the top outlet and louvers

[sucof]

What are your opinions guys about the rumoured Ferrari root cause of their problematic Melbourne weekend?
Namely the had to raise the car in order to protect the gearbox, as it was too sensitive to being hit. This caused their setup going wrong and their speed went off.
My memory is that they made an entirely new gearbox for this year, a shorter one, which is kinda confirmed by the change in their diffuser. So this kinda makes that gearbox and setup problem more valid....

[ltitus8900]

What are your opinions guys about the rumoured Ferrari root cause of their problematic Melbourne weekend?
Namely the had to raise the car in order to protect the gearbox, as it was too sensitive to being hit. This caused their setup going wrong and their speed went off.
My memory is that they made an entirely new gearbox for this year, a shorter one, which is kinda confirmed by the change in their diffuser. So this kinda makes that gearbox and setup problem more valid....

It tracks to my eyes. You can see in their Fiorano track that they started with a setup that smacks the floor on the front straight and rises nicely to handle the corners well. As the shakedown continued, they seemed to gradually move to a stiffer setup with what looked like more damping. I was thinking to myself that if they are able to manage their plank where and if the surface of Fiorano is bumpier than most tracks, then Ferrari have the potential to be mighty indeed, being able to enjoy a softly sprung car but able to maximize floor performance as well.

I have not taken a deep dive into the car's dynamics today yet but it looks to be back to the characteristics I observed in Fiorano. I have noticed also noticed that their rear wing no longer flexes.

[Venturiation]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

[Downforce777]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

bar wear is inevitable for this generation of cars, it is extremely important for them to ride low, I am sure almost all cars wear the bar more than is permissible, FIA just checks randomly, what is wrong

[SB15]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

Must be one of the main reasons why Adrian Newey went Push-Rod in the rear.

[Farnborough]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

Must be one of the main reasons why Adrian Newey went Push-Rod in the rear.

No, push or pull is literally JUST the way that wheel travel enters the chassis and onward INTO the suspension hardware contained there.

Any characteristics can be built into those control mechanisms to enact whatever the designers want. It's never the controlling factor in this equation.

It's literally just packaging of the components to contain them within the overall design and space limitations.

[Swed3121]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

bar wear is inevitable for this generation of cars, it is extremely important for them to ride low, I am sure almost all cars wear the bar more than is permissible, FIA just checks randomly, what is wrong

Interesting then that both McLarens and Russel’s Merc have no issues with plank wear although they’ve been checked

[bananapeel23]

in the paddock they are saying the plank wear is a flaw of the car, to be fixed, does it need a new suspension?

Not necessarily. They probably can't make this floor spec work perfectly without a lot of plank wear, but another floor could work better with the suspension.

We will have to see if they can bring an improved floor that works better with it.

[venkyhere]

My takeaway is that Ferrari 'risked it' with running low and running not-so-stiff ; because they couldn't fight the tradeoff between absolute downforce and tyre contact patch size, given the extremely high minimum pressure prescribed by Pirelli for the chinese GP. That tells me that the floor tunnels are not so 'big' like other teams, the tunnel heights must be smaller than other teams, making the ride height sensitivity w.r.t downforce, really big.
They had the car after the sprint and I am sure they got the alarm on Saturday itself ; so there is no excuse of 'new tarmac with high grain, so unexpected high wear' on the skid plate. But yet they chose to run the race without doing anything to address this, hoping that their car would escape 'checks'.

[flmkane]

My takeaway is that Ferrari 'risked it' with running low and running not-so-stiff ; because they couldn't fight the tradeoff between absolute downforce and tyre contact patch size, given the extremely high minimum pressure prescribed by Pirelli for the chinese GP. That tells me that the floor tunnels are not so 'big' like other teams, the tunnel heights must be smaller than other teams, making the ride height sensitivity w.r.t downforce, really big.
They had the car after the sprint and I am sure they got the alarm on Saturday itself ; so there is no excuse of 'new tarmac with high grain, so unexpected high wear' on the skid plate. But yet they chose to run the race without doing anything to address this, hoping that their car would escape 'checks'.

It's a known fact that the Ferrari tunnels are less tall than some of the other ones, partially because they stuck with a pull rod rear set up.

Personally i don't understand why they chose pull rods for the rear suspension. Between 2009 and 2021, pull rod rears became standard only because the diffuser height was reduced by rules. The moment that restriction went away, push rods became a more sensible option. Bigger tunnels, easier tuning and possibly better mechanics, at the expense of a slight rise in CG height.

[Hoffman900]

My takeaway is that Ferrari 'risked it' with running low and running not-so-stiff ; because they couldn't fight the tradeoff between absolute downforce and tyre contact patch size, given the extremely high minimum pressure prescribed by Pirelli for the chinese GP. That tells me that the floor tunnels are not so 'big' like other teams, the tunnel heights must be smaller than other teams, making the ride height sensitivity w.r.t downforce, really big.
They had the car after the sprint and I am sure they got the alarm on Saturday itself ; so there is no excuse of 'new tarmac with high grain, so unexpected high wear' on the skid plate. But yet they chose to run the race without doing anything to address this, hoping that their car would escape 'checks'.

It's a known fact that the Ferrari tunnels are less tall than some of the other ones, partially because they stuck with a pull rod rear set up.

Personally i don't understand why they chose pull rods for the rear suspension. Between 2009 and 2021, pull rod rears became standard only because the diffuser height was reduced by rules. The moment that restriction went away, push rods became a more sensible option. Bigger tunnels, easier tuning and possibly better mechanics, at the expense of a slight rise in CG height.

If you look at the rules, the tunnel heights have to be all really close to each other. Their dimmensions are mostly specified out.

[ltitus8900]

My takeaway is that Ferrari 'risked it' with running low and running not-so-stiff ; because they couldn't fight the tradeoff between absolute downforce and tyre contact patch size, given the extremely high minimum pressure prescribed by Pirelli for the chinese GP. That tells me that the floor tunnels are not so 'big' like other teams, the tunnel heights must be smaller than other teams, making the ride height sensitivity w.r.t downforce, really big.
They had the car after the sprint and I am sure they got the alarm on Saturday itself ; so there is no excuse of 'new tarmac with high grain, so unexpected high wear' on the skid plate. But yet they chose to run the race without doing anything to address this, hoping that their car would escape 'checks'.

It's a known fact that the Ferrari tunnels are less tall than some of the other ones, partially because they stuck with a pull rod rear set up.

Personally i don't understand why they chose pull rods for the rear suspension. Between 2009 and 2021, pull rod rears became standard only because the diffuser height was reduced by rules. The moment that restriction went away, push rods became a more sensible option. Bigger tunnels, easier tuning and possibly better mechanics, at the expense of a slight rise in CG height.

If you look at the rules, the tunnel heights have to be all really close to each other. Their dimmensions are mostly specified out.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Their is a lot of room for deviation between one team's tunnel design vs another. For example, the RB cars prefer a more rearward floor transition that other teams (the point where the front of the tunnel meets and transitions to the rear diffusor). And though the absolute height of the tunnels are heavily regulated, Newey preferred a more curved diffusor geometry in an attempt (at least what it looks like to me) to maximize the efficiency of the floor fields as it meets the regulated "choke point" and into the rear diffusor.

This is to allow for a more front loaded balance but also allows for good rear diffusor performance. All of the other areas of the floor is carefully designed to fight porposing, the strong vortex that is used to help seal the floor and maintain stability of the downforce loads under dynamic conditions throughout the lap. Unless Ferrari comes out and confirms what the issue is, we would not know for sure if the issue is suspension or the floor.

With that said, I think that the issue is simply that if they past a certain ride height, they down experience porposing but sudden severe load spikes the car can live with but it is ever so slightly out of scope and is causing plank wear. I think the suspension is fine because the drivers are not reporting ride issues at all. They are able to extract good performance under the desired load. I think the aggressive peaks is causing to much plank wear. The report from the FIA states that it is the rearward most part of the plank that is worn down past regulation. To be a little more specific, I think their floor philosophy, which is one that seems to prioritize equal front and rear diffusor load and uses the suspension to balance it out but the floor is not doing a well enough job control the down force loads at the choke of the rear diffusor.

[Hoffman900]

It's a known fact that the Ferrari tunnels are less tall than some of the other ones, partially because they stuck with a pull rod rear set up.

Personally i don't understand why they chose pull rods for the rear suspension. Between 2009 and 2021, pull rod rears became standard only because the diffuser height was reduced by rules. The moment that restriction went away, push rods became a more sensible option. Bigger tunnels, easier tuning and possibly better mechanics, at the expense of a slight rise in CG height.

If you look at the rules, the tunnel heights have to be all really close to each other. Their dimmensions are mostly specified out.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Their is a lot of room for deviation between one team's tunnel design vs another. For example, the RB cars prefer a more rearward floor transition that other teams (the point where the front of the tunnel meets and transitions to the rear diffusor). And though the absolute height of the tunnels are heavily regulated, Newey preferred a more curved diffusor geometry in an attempt (at least what it looks like to me) to maximize the efficiency of the floor fields as it meets the regulated "choke point" and into the rear diffusor.

This is to allow for a more front loaded balance but also allows for good rear diffusor performance. All of the other areas of the floor is carefully designed to fight porposing, the strong vortex that is used to help seal the floor and maintain stability of the downforce loads under dynamic conditions throughout the lap. Unless Ferrari comes out and confirms what the issue is, we would not know for sure if the issue is suspension or the floor.

With that said, I think that the issue is simply that if they past a certain ride height, they down experience porposing but sudden severe load spikes the car can live with but it is ever so slightly out of scope and is causing plank wear. I think the suspension is fine because the drivers are not reporting ride issues at all. They are able to extract good performance under the desired load. I think the aggressive peaks is causing to much plank wear. The report from the FIA states that it is the rearward most part of the plank that is worn down past regulation. To be a little more specific, I think their floor philosophy, which is one that seems to prioritize equal front and rear diffusor load and uses the suspension to balance it out but the floor is not doing a well enough job control the down force loads at the choke of the rear diffusor.

The location of the venturi is mandated (among other things like CoG of the actual car):

https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... gulations/

There is some freedom, but the rules are a pretty narrow box.

They also don’t “seal” the floor and induce some leakage to maintain or increase the vortex energy induced by the vortex generators / strakes at the front of the floor, thus reducing the boundary layer and helping with the expansion phase from the diffuser.

The whole “sealing the floor” thing was pundits trying to imagine / clouded by the skirts of underfloors past. Indy / Cart allowed tunnels the whole time, and they first started using these vortex generators / strakes and induced leakage to help underbody downforce in the 1990s, most notably with the then very successful Reynards.

Ferrari has one of two issues or a combination:

1) they just set the car up too soft
2) the new transmission and rear design cannot handle the loads and is legitimately flexing. This is a big problem as the parts are homologated.
3) a combination of 1 & 2.

Haas may not have the issue because they’re just not generating enough load to make it happen, which is also why they’re slow, relatively speaking.