Ferrari SF-24

[Vanja #66]

A very nice angle by Motorsport for side-by-side comparison between Barcelona (top) and Imola (bottom, Canada photo I think) car specs. The changes they highlighted with arrows and sidepod silhouette line (blue) have all been noted here before, but like every other analyst and outlet they failed to note changes to outboard floor fence and leading edge reduced height, next to VGW logo on Barcelona photo



As far as I can tell, Ferrari's design is now basically right between McLaren and Red Bull in terms of size and the ratio between vertical wall "direct" outwash and horizontal bottom surface "pressurisation" outwash. In my view, they won't have a lot of room to improve this design by the end of the year without massive internal redesign which would increase the cost a lot. They might just focus on further floor evolution, especially concerning edge wing treatment, and potentially an update on front wing if it can yield a cost-efficient improvement.

Here's also formu1a.uno comparison of the floor inlet, outboard leading edge height decrease is quite clear. We can also see that the whole tunnel roof surface is starting to compress much more now and it's visible from the junction between fences and the roof, explaining the raw performance increase that caused the bouncing. Proper setup will alleviate this issue

[KimiRai]

[Vanja #66]

Sidepod and undercut comparison from rear side view

[Sevach]

[Luscion]

[Xyz22]

https://x.com/f1motospogp/status/180735 ... 2n8am2mMAg

[f1316]

https://x.com/f1motospogp/status/180735 ... 2n8am2mMAg

Is this essentially a way of saying that the floor is “too powerful” for the suspension - ie did it deliver more downforce than expected and they hadn’t designed and/or modified the suspension to accommodate quite such a large increase in load?

This is probably a massive over simplification but something to that effect might explain Fred’s reluctance to revert to the prior spec, as they can see the gains and would prefer to find a way to keep them than give up on them.

[SiLo]

https://x.com/f1motospogp/status/180735 ... 2n8am2mMAg

Is this essentially a way of saying that the floor is “too powerful” for the suspension - ie did it deliver more downforce than expected and they hadn’t designed and/or modified the suspension to accommodate quite such a large increase in load?

This is probably a massive over simplification but something to that effect might explain Fred’s reluctance to revert to the prior spec, as they can see the gains and would prefer to find a way to keep them than give up on them.

Maybe a symptom of their much higher floor ceiling? One of the big reasons for porpoising back in 2022 if I'm not mistaken as well.

[Vanja #66]

New low-temperature cooling setup for engine cover gills

[Tzk]

Here's also formu1a.uno comparison of the floor inlet, outboard leading edge height decrease is quite clear. We can also see that the whole tunnel roof surface is starting to compress much more now and it's visible from the junction between fences and the roof, explaining the raw performance increase that caused the bouncing. Proper setup will alleviate this issue

Couldn't agree more. Especially in high-speed corners when one side of the car is in compression at minimal ride height, they'll have an issue with the flow in the floor tunnel. It probably stalls, causing the car to decompress a bit. It then repeats, which results in bouncing. The aerodynamicists basically managed to generate too much peak downforce while the suspension engineers can't control ride height right now.

hopefully then can tune the setup to cope with the load, so we can see a further improved car.

[sucof]

Here's also formu1a.uno comparison of the floor inlet, outboard leading edge height decrease is quite clear. We can also see that the whole tunnel roof surface is starting to compress much more now and it's visible from the junction between fences and the roof, explaining the raw performance increase that caused the bouncing. Proper setup will alleviate this issue

Couldn't agree more. Especially in high-speed corners when one side of the car is in compression at minimal ride height, they'll have an issue with the flow in the floor tunnel. It probably stalls, causing the car to decompress a bit. It then repeats, which results in bouncing. The aerodynamicists basically managed to generate too much peak downforce while the suspension engineers can't control ride height right now.

hopefully then can tune the setup to cope with the load, so we can see a further improved car.

I am pretty sure this idea would not be legal, but connecting the two sides of the floor would be very helpful. When one side has too much suction and the other to few. Kinda like what they try to do with the suspension anyways.
Perhaps this could be a hint how to negate such floor anti symmetries, with the suspension.

[venkyhere]

Couldn't agree more. Especially in high-speed corners when one side of the car is in compression at minimal ride height, they'll have an issue with the flow in the floor tunnel. It probably stalls, causing the car to decompress a bit. It then repeats, which results in bouncing. The aerodynamicists basically managed to generate too much peak downforce while the suspension engineers can't control ride height right now.

hopefully then can tune the setup to cope with the load, so we can see a further improved car.

I am pretty sure this idea would not be legal, but connecting the two sides of the floor would be very helpful. When one side has too much suction and the other to few. Kinda like what they try to do with the suspension anyways.
Perhaps this could be a hint how to negate such floor anti symmetries, with the suspension.

You guys are talking about 'yaw' condition air flow under the car.

That has to be one of the primary basics an engineer will think before even drawing an aero surface of the car. The car doesn't require much downforce in a straight line, downforce requirement comes during cornering - when there is yaw angle to the car and the induction of air on aero surfaces is 'at an angle' and not straight on.

Wondering whether Ferrari engineers have not considered this, is like asking a chef whether he has seen a knife. Come on, guys...

[sucof]

Couldn't agree more. Especially in high-speed corners when one side of the car is in compression at minimal ride height, they'll have an issue with the flow in the floor tunnel. It probably stalls, causing the car to decompress a bit. It then repeats, which results in bouncing. The aerodynamicists basically managed to generate too much peak downforce while the suspension engineers can't control ride height right now.

hopefully then can tune the setup to cope with the load, so we can see a further improved car.

I am pretty sure this idea would not be legal, but connecting the two sides of the floor would be very helpful. When one side has too much suction and the other to few. Kinda like what they try to do with the suspension anyways.
Perhaps this could be a hint how to negate such floor anti symmetries, with the suspension.

You guys are talking about 'yaw' condition air flow under the car.

That has to be one of the primary basics an engineer will think before even drawing an aero surface of the car. The car doesn't require much downforce in a straight line, downforce requirement comes during cornering - when there is yaw angle to the car and the induction of air on aero surfaces is 'at an angle' and not straight on.

Wondering whether Ferrari engineers have not considered this, is like asking a chef whether he has seen a knife. Come on, guys...

Sorry but where is in our comments that we did not consider they thought about this???
Your comment is not constructive, just bashing people for things they did not do.
Did you read my comment? Here is a quote from that "very long" text... "Kinda like what they try to do with the suspension anyways."
And someone even upvoted your comment...

[KimiRai]

Silverstone photos, Imola floor spec if I'm not mistaken

[Sevach]

The car was full Imola Spec, sidepods, floor... everything for the GP.