Ferrari SF-24 speculation

[FDD]

Proofs, sustained explanations that pull-push is overall better than push-pull?
Anyone?

[Cs98]

Proofs, sustained explanations that pull-push is overall better than push-pull?
Anyone?

Rear push moves the mounting point to the top of the gearbox freeing up space to shrink the bottom of the gearbox, which opens up more space for the diffuser --> more downforce. On the front I think in general it's just preference of how you want to shape the airflow.

[chrstphrln]

Proofs, sustained explanations that pull-push is overall better than push-pull?
Anyone?

Far too many different mechanical and aerodynamic characteristics of the respective designs.
Simply copying and adapting to your own technical layout, the specific weight distribution or your own aerodynamic concept probably makes a simple black and white viewing impossible.

[Vanja #66]

There is plenty of room to improve even without messing with rear suspension damping kinematics choice. If they really managed to gain cca 20mm of floor ramp width on each side by reducing gearbox width, it's worth considerably more than going into complete redesign of suspension elements and gearbox casing. No one will beat Red Bull just by choosing pull rod rear, everything is a compromise. The team has improved steadily with tyre life last year, so it's a lot better to determine where you are guaranteed to improve (floor aero, of course) and focus everything on maximising that potential than to take unknown alleys and potentially ruin the good areas of your car.

They chose to abandon their original 2022 concept, which was rendered inefficient with TD39 and 2023 floor edge changes. They now have massive new concept to master and learn everything they can about, which is hard enough without massive suspension changes.

[FDD]

Proofs, sustained explanations that pull-push is overall better than push-pull?
Anyone?

Far too many different mechanical and aerodynamic characteristics of the respective designs.
Simply copying and adapting to your own technical layout, the specific weight distribution or your own aerodynamic concept probably makes a simple black and white viewing impossible.

Well, that's the point, instead of claims that Ferrari goes conservative and bla, bla, bla.

[ing.]

It’s very obvious from the pic of the ‘24 AMR what could be one reason Ferrari avoided going the push-rod: due to the rules imposing all upper and lower wishbone joints above the wheel centreline, the push-rod is almost horizontal. I expect this will result in very small motion ratio at the inboard end from a vertical bump displacement so requiring a larger rocker ratio to get decent damper displacement and reduce loads on the pushrod itself and at the cost of some springing and damper precision.

Compare this to the much more vertical pull-rod orientation being more aligned with the vertical loads and motion of the rear suspension that need to be controlled.

[bagajohny]

I view them sticking to pull-rod at the rear as a good thing, tbh. No one is getting close to RB, let alone beating them by doing the same thing as them due to a 2-year head start that they have on everybody.

I might end up eating these words in 10 days, though.

I don't want to you to eat these words but then again history is not on our side with Ferrari.

[AR3-GP]

In moving from point A to point B in a vehicle's development, you try to do it with an eye towards cost vs performance. Maybe Ferrari found more performance spending their resources as they did, rather than to switch suspension configurations.

[jambuka]

[Vanja #66]

It’s very obvious from the pic of the ‘24 AMR what could be one reason Ferrari avoided going the push-rod: due to the rules imposing all upper and lower wishbone joints above the wheel centreline, the push-rod is almost horizontal. I expect this will result in very small motion ratio at the inboard end from a vertical bump displacement so requiring a larger rocker ratio to get decent damper displacement and reduce loads on the pushrod itself and at the cost of some springing and damper precision.

Compare this to the much more vertical pull-rod orientation being more aligned with the vertical loads and motion of the rear suspension that need to be controlled.

Indeed, nice catch and thanks for sharing!

[LM10]

Bring it on! Can’t wait anymore…

[Farnborough]

It’s very obvious from the pic of the ‘24 AMR what could be one reason Ferrari avoided going the push-rod: due to the rules imposing all upper and lower wishbone joints above the wheel centreline, the push-rod is almost horizontal. I expect this will result in very small motion ratio at the inboard end from a vertical bump displacement so requiring a larger rocker ratio to get decent damper displacement and reduce loads on the pushrod itself and at the cost of some springing and damper precision.

Compare this to the much more vertical pull-rod orientation being more aligned with the vertical loads and motion of the rear suspension that need to be controlled.

The RB carries way more angle/leverage advantage in pushrod form than that example given. It doesn't appear to be any more limited than the typical pull rod orientation from that aspect.

[Blackout]

Inverted bottom wishbones with almost horizontal pushrod and small span triangles... it's extreme.

[FDD]

Zander Arcari:
"Ferrari SF-24, front push-rod: 1st arm raised to modify the roll center"
Probably also greater anti-dive effect.

[ing.]

Zander Arcari:
"Ferrari SF-24, front push-rod: 1st arm raised to modify the roll center"
Probably also greater anti-dive effect.

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/wp-c ... 1.jpg.webp
https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/wp-c ... 4.jpg.webp

Roll Center change will be minimized if the rear pick-up point of the upper wishbone is lowered, which it probably will, for aero reasons and to maintain good camber gain.

Also the change in anti-dive effect will similarly be minimized by inclining the lower wishbones too. All to benefit flow conditioning.