Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[Jambier]

Well it was quite obvious that one of the FW concept will be better than the other.

Why was it?

I mean with two different concept, in F1 in general there is always one that is the right pick, and the other one less competitive.

That's why F1 cars evolves and at the end they all look quite similar, using the same concept

[Big Mangalhit]

Except with the split turbo concept. That was the big fad in 2014 and everybody was sure that Merc got it right and others would need to copy it. But Ferrari engine never did it and still got amazing performance out of it.

[Ringleheim]

There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with this year's car and it is not going to get fixed with small incremental modifications here and there.

Abandon the season now and divert resources to next year's car and a much more aggressive design philosophy.

Or how about developing 2 cars for next year, using this year's development budget for one of them!? Go down two different paths and race the car that is faster next year.

And send Binotto back to his technical job only; obviously the experiment with him running the team is not working; the team has seemed lost in terms of race-day tactics this season.

It's not working!

[Jozsusz]

There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with this year's car and it is not going to get fixed with small incremental modifications here and there.

Abandon the season now and divert resources to next year's car and a much more aggressive design philosophy.

Or how about developing 2 cars for next year, using this year's development budget for one of them!? Go down two different paths and race the car that is faster next year.

And send Binotto back to his technical job only; obviously the experiment with him running the team is not working; the team has seemed lost in terms of race-day tactics this season.

It's not working!

And you think in that minute when Ferrari stop developing their 2019 car, Merc will keep developing their car??? You are not so naive aren't you?

[Unc1eM0nty]

I found the secret aerodynamicist second peice more interresting, this is the one on why they all follow the Newey philosophy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/47838557

I'd assumed that all teams would experiment on every conceivable possibility, however, here he explains that even the big teams just don’t have the time or resources to do this.
Teams have to start somewhere so use an established concept, but the fundamentals are then locked in. With more research and development they expand their knowledge year on year, but only down a chosen path, they can only follow one evolutionary branch so to speak.

[digitalrurouni]

I found the secret aerodynamicist second peice more interresting, this is the one on why they all follow the Newey philosophy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/47838557

I'd assumed that all teams would experiment on every conceivable possibility, however, here he explains that even the big teams just don’t have the time or resources to do this.
Teams have to start somewhere so use an established concept, but the fundamentals are then locked in. With more research and development they expand their knowledge year on year, but only down a chosen path, they can only follow one evolutionary branch so to speak.

Thanks for sharing that article. Very very interesting to a layman like me. I also read another article by the same author and it seemed he was quite prophetical in it about Mercedes and Ferrari's aero philosophy for this year.

[cramr]

I found the secret aerodynamicist second peice more interresting, this is the one on why they all follow the Newey philosophy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/47838557

I'd assumed that all teams would experiment on every conceivable possibility, however, here he explains that even the big teams just don’t have the time or resources to do this.
Teams have to start somewhere so use an established concept, but the fundamentals are then locked in. With more research and development they expand their knowledge year on year, but only down a chosen path, they can only follow one evolutionary branch so to speak.

Some big fundamental concepts can be tested at the beginning of the car development but the time and wind tunnel testing limitations make you stick with one "main" concept and try to get as much as possible from it. That's why it's so hard for the team to close the gap within the season (and even 2-3 consecutive season) if the fundamental concept is not the best (I would not call it wrong since that choice was taken for a reason).
It looks like Ferrari may not have found the best or stronger concept so it will take time for them to close the gap. Maybe it's not even possible within the current season

[DRCorsa]

Yes it did but everything in the article is correct. Ferrari have fundemental problems with understeear. Game over for 2019.

Only through low-speed corners.
T9 was great for Vettel, so aero works just fine. There is nothing wrong with the front wing they have.

Don't think i would agree with this statement.
The main downforce producing area in SF90's front wing is really limited, when you look at it from front view.
T9 is a fast corner demanding lots of downforce. Let's say both W10 and SF90 produce 200kg of downforce from the front wing in that specific turn. Downforce producing area on W10 front wing is more evenly spread across its span though. Both wings generate the exact same downforce, but on SF90's case, angle of attack should be greater to reach that figure from a smaller top view area. What happens to a wing at low airspeeds when it has a big angle of attack? Wing stall. This is not such a big issue when the airspeed is high though!

In short, both W10 and SF90 generate 200kg of downforce on T9, whereas in T10 for example, W10 produces 50kg of downforce and SF90 just 10kg or less. That's where the problem lies in my opinion.

(...)However, the more slowly an airplane goes, the greater the angle of attack it needs to produce lift equal to the aircraft's weight. As the speed decreases further, at some point this angle will be equal to the critical (stall) angle of attack. This speed is called the "stall speed"(...)

[Zynerji]

I'd love 4 hours in the Ferrari simulator to play with suspension settings....

[dfegan358]

i would love to know if the slow speed corner deficit is down to front wing concept or suspension dynamics or maybe more likely to be a combination of both.
apparently a new suspension being tested tomorrow during the test.

think i read on here about a link between the rim/wheel issue in testing and the current issues. possibly ran a more advanced suspension that failed and then had to revert to a dated version?

as a ferrari fan its hugely disappointing for season to be almost over. we need to keep working to understand these issues and get back challenging for wins regardless.

[DRCorsa]

i would love to know if the slow speed corner deficit is down to front wing concept or suspension dynamics or maybe more likely to be a combination of both.
apparently a new suspension being tested tomorrow during the test.

think i read on here about a link between the rim/wheel issue in testing and the current issues. possibly ran a more advanced suspension that failed and then had to revert to a dated version?

as a ferrari fan its hugely disappointing for season to be almost over. we need to keep working to understand these issues and get back challenging for wins regardless.

Don't get fooled. You cannot lose 8 tenths just from suspension mechanical grip. There is nearly no downforce generated by this high AoA wing on slow corners.

[McMika98]

https://youtu.be/ysbPxjFaMug

[timbo]

Yes it did but everything in the article is correct. Ferrari have fundemental problems with understeear. Game over for 2019.

Only through low-speed corners.
T9 was great for Vettel, so aero works just fine. There is nothing wrong with the front wing they have.

Don't think i would agree with this statement.
The main downforce producing area in SF90's front wing is really limited, when you look at it from front view.
T9 is a fast corner demanding lots of downforce. Let's say both W10 and SF90 produce 200kg of downforce from the front wing in that specific turn. Downforce producing area on W10 front wing is more evenly spread across its span though. Both wings generate the exact same downforce, but on SF90's case, angle of attack should be greater to reach that figure from a smaller top view area. What happens to a wing at low airspeeds when it has a big angle of attack? Wing stall. This is not such a big issue when the airspeed is high though!

In short, both W10 and SF90 generate 200kg of downforce on T9, whereas in T10 for example, W10 produces 50kg of downforce and SF90 just 10kg or less. That's where the problem lies in my opinion.

(...)However, the more slowly an airplane goes, the greater the angle of attack it needs to produce lift equal to the aircraft's weight. As the speed decreases further, at some point this angle will be equal to the critical (stall) angle of attack. This speed is called the "stall speed"(...)

Take notice that in the bold part of your text it is implied that AoA changes with speed (which is the case with an aircraft). On F1 cars front wing AoA is constant in a first approximation.

[timbo]

Yes it did but everything in the article is correct. Ferrari have fundemental problems with understeear. Game over for 2019.

Only through low-speed corners.
T9 was great for Vettel, so aero works just fine. There is nothing wrong with the front wing they have.

The following is not meant to be a sarcastic/snarky question, just throwing that disclaimer out there in case it comes across that way, but I'm asking sincerely:

If the aero works in certain high-speed corners, is that necessarily unequivocal proof that the entire aero platform/concept is sound across all corners, and any deficiencies in medium and slow-speed corners are solely down to mechanical grip?

Is it possible that certain design elements work fine in some conditions (high speed corners), but are weaker than others when the variables start to change up (ride height, steering angle, etc.)

I realize that the importance of certain aerodynamic surfaces and component decrease at lower speeds, but they do not suddenly become irrelevant to the balance and performance of the car.

Thanks in advance.

This is an interesting idea to ponder.

First of all, in F1 car typically what people try (and struggle) to achieve is a limit on the DF, i.e. at a certain speed, DF tapers off. Usually, at 300 kph all the DF produced is more than enough and not needed. If you remember flexing wings, stalling wings, fluidic switches etc, it was all done to reduce DF at high speeds.

So typically the opposite situation is desired.

If the aero balance is indeed correct in the high-speed corners and not so great in low/mid speed ones, the result will indeed be similar to what we with Ferrari now.

But the question is what can be the reason for such a drastic change of the balance? Typically it is the pitch sensitivity of the car. Does anybody have footage of the car through t9 and t10? Preferably slo-mo.

From what we have seen, the wing has to be closer to the ground in the low-speed corners, and thus it should work more efficiently. Had the problem been the diffuser stall in the high-rake (low speed) attitude, that should probably result in oversteer'y characteristics.

I will state my belief once again — the way the attitude of the car changes does not seem to be consistent to what can be expected from the aero platform (with a huge grain of salt, as I am in no way aerodynamicist).

[DRCorsa]

Only through low-speed corners.
T9 was great for Vettel, so aero works just fine. There is nothing wrong with the front wing they have.

Don't think i would agree with this statement.
The main downforce producing area in SF90's front wing is really limited, when you look at it from front view.
T9 is a fast corner demanding lots of downforce. Let's say both W10 and SF90 produce 200kg of downforce from the front wing in that specific turn. Downforce producing area on W10 front wing is more evenly spread across its span though. Both wings generate the exact same downforce, but on SF90's case, angle of attack should be greater to reach that figure from a smaller top view area. What happens to a wing at low airspeeds when it has a big angle of attack? Wing stall. This is not such a big issue when the airspeed is high though!

In short, both W10 and SF90 generate 200kg of downforce on T9, whereas in T10 for example, W10 produces 50kg of downforce and SF90 just 10kg or less. That's where the problem lies in my opinion.

(...)However, the more slowly an airplane goes, the greater the angle of attack it needs to produce lift equal to the aircraft's weight. As the speed decreases further, at some point this angle will be equal to the critical (stall) angle of attack. This speed is called the "stall speed"(...)

Take notice that in the bold part of your text it is implied that AoA changes with speed (which is the case with an aircraft). On F1 cars front wing AoA is constant in a first approximation.

Let's forget the fact that the AoA changes in an aircraft as this is not relevant here.
What's relevant is the fact that the lower the airspeed, the higher the AoA you need to achieve a specific downforce figure. In W10's case you don't need such a high AoA simply because your downforce producing wing area is larger. In SF90's case you need higher AoA to achieve the same downforce, which is causing wing stall. This in turn causes imbalance, which is translating in understeer and massive time loss in the tight corners.
Here there is a question that arise. Why Ferrari didn't think about that in the first place? They never thought that other teams would ever achieve the W10's front wing downforce levels they have right now after more than 2 months of development.