Ferrari F1-75

[matteosc]

At Maranello they are confident of extracting further potential from their power unit when they have completed the homologation program on the reliability of Spec 1, filling the torque curve with the introduction of Spec 2, now more shifted to low revs.

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

I think it is actually the other way around: current PU has more low revs and less high revs torque, which kind of explains the good acceleration but poor high speed of the car.
Next PU should have more torque at high revs.

[AR3-GP]

At Maranello they are confident of extracting further potential from their power unit when they have completed the homologation program on the reliability of Spec 1, filling the torque curve with the introduction of Spec 2, now more shifted to low revs.

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

I think it is actually the other way around: current PU has more low revs and less high revs torque, which kind of explains the good acceleration but poor high speed of the car.
Next PU should have more torque at high revs.

It takes a big hp difference to gain kph at top speed. The bigger driver is the downforce/drag level. That's what separating RB/Ferrari top speed currently. When RB changed their DF setup for Aus, they had comparable top speed to Ferrari. That didn't come from engine. All aero.

[dialtone]

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

I think it is actually the other way around: current PU has more low revs and less high revs torque, which kind of explains the good acceleration but poor high speed of the car.
Next PU should have more torque at high revs.

It takes a big hp difference to gain kph at top speed. The bigger driver is the downforce/drag level. That's what separating RB/Ferrari top speed currently. When RB changed their DF setup for Aus, they had comparable top speed to Ferrari. That didn't come from engine. All aero.

Indeed, after the second safety car Max should have cleared Leclerc given his understeer in T15, but he couldn't and by the end of the straight Leclerc was still ahead. And we know both cars were setup with higher downforce, and in fact RB still had a little less of it given the graining.

[wowgr8]

At Maranello they are confident of extracting further potential from their power unit when they have completed the homologation program on the reliability of Spec 1, filling the torque curve with the introduction of Spec 2, now more shifted to low revs.

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

Formu1a used the words "bass shifted" referring to the new torque curve, I'm not sure what that means

[matteosc]

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

I think it is actually the other way around: current PU has more low revs and less high revs torque, which kind of explains the good acceleration but poor high speed of the car.
Next PU should have more torque at high revs.

It takes a big hp difference to gain kph at top speed. The bigger driver is the downforce/drag level. That's what separating RB/Ferrari top speed currently. When RB changed their DF setup for Aus, they had comparable top speed to Ferrari. That didn't come from engine. All aero.

I agree, drag is by far the main contributor to the top speed, but surely some more hp will help a little.

[dialtone]

I think it is actually the other way around: current PU has more low revs and less high revs torque, which kind of explains the good acceleration but poor high speed of the car.
Next PU should have more torque at high revs.

It takes a big hp difference to gain kph at top speed. The bigger driver is the downforce/drag level. That's what separating RB/Ferrari top speed currently. When RB changed their DF setup for Aus, they had comparable top speed to Ferrari. That didn't come from engine. All aero.

I agree, drag is by far the main contributor to the top speed, but surely some more hp will help a little.

Need a lot of them, air resistance is proportional to the cube of speed so you will need cube of HP to increase speed further.

[AR3-GP]

At Maranello they are confident of extracting further potential from their power unit when they have completed the homologation program on the reliability of Spec 1, filling the torque curve with the introduction of Spec 2, now more shifted to low revs.

Italian media say spec 2 will have a different torque curve, specifically shifted towards low revs, what does this mean for performance?

Formu1a used the words "bass shifted" referring to the new torque curve, I'm not sure what that means

Imagine it like moving and broadening the torque peak to a different, and more useful part of the RPM band.

I have noticed that currently the Ferrari seems to use higher gears far more frequently than other teams. Leclerc/Sainz will frequently stay 1 gear up relative to others in some of the lower speed corners. Of course you have to take gear ratio into account but seems like Ferrari will boost the low end a bit more. Low notes as it pertains to musicality is the "bass". So Ferrari will perform a Bass boost.

[matteosc]

It takes a big hp difference to gain kph at top speed. The bigger driver is the downforce/drag level. That's what separating RB/Ferrari top speed currently. When RB changed their DF setup for Aus, they had comparable top speed to Ferrari. That didn't come from engine. All aero.

I agree, drag is by far the main contributor to the top speed, but surely some more hp will help a little.

Need a lot of them, air resistance is proportional to the cube of speed so you will need cube of HP to increase speed further.

Yes, but the cubic root of any positive number is still larger than the cubic root of zero...
They will obviously need to work on aero efficiency (and they for sure are) and porpoising control, which would allow them to run lower and using less wing, reducing drag while retaining downforce. That will definitely help more, but obviously increase HP is a good thing too. Also, high revs power does not only affect top speed, as you have more power available in acceleration while you go through all the gears.

[GrrG]

[Juzh]

https://www.formu1a.uno/ferrari-rispond ... te-novita/

Recalling that in Bahrain, as far as Formu1a.uno understands, the double retirement of the RB18s was caused by a lack of petrol, just to be able to run lighter and therefore limiting the distance from the F1-75.

Interesting...so much for the faulty fuel pump speculation.

This website is a fan made propaganda tool for anything ferrari, which is absolutely fine, but it should under no circumstances be considered a reliable source of information. The fact that on 15.4.2022 they're still claiming red bull ran out of fuel simply as a result of intentional underfueling cements this fact (was already before, but now even more so). This myth is quite easily debunked just by looking at how early verstappen broke down, 3 laps before the end and additionally there was a prolonged safety car period which would help with fuel management. Obviously red bull are not so incompetent to miscalculate fuel requirements to such a large degree.

[deadhead]

Sorry to correct you - there is no team that has "solved" porpoising. In F1 TV Palmer did an analysis about this recently. Porpoising is something that probably will always be there with these kind of cars. Gerhard Berger also just explained that it was constantly there in the early 80's ground effect cars. So having people like Byrne or Newey, who have experience with this phenomenon, gives the advantage of getting porpoising "under control" without loosing performance. And Ferrari obviously has done a great job here.

The Red Bull is dealing with it far better than anyone else, it almost seems like it doesn't exist there.

Seems like its a combination of aero and the rear suspension, which will probably take another 8-10 races for Ferrari to figure out. At least that's the rumor I guess

Sorry, but thats not true. F1TV did an analysis about the amplitude of each team and the Red Bull has the fourth highest amplitude. So - if you talk about porpoising itself, they are not dealing better with it than anyone else. But anyway- and like i said before -porpoising will be always there as it was in the late 70s and early 80s. What matters and who is dealing best with it, is who gets it under control without loosing performance. And from that point of view its Ferrari and RB who are indeed dealing better with it than anyone else. But Ferrari also has advantages in other areas.

I see, I didn't catch the F1TV bit, but everyone is raving how the red bull is not bouncing and it does seem pretty stable on camera from what I can see. LECs helmet was all over the place in Australia, especially on the back straight, but I guess it doesn't mean much. The car is going well already, so if they remedy it even a little bit it shoudl help

[Salvatore]

[/img]I just found out why the F1-75 is so efficient, reliable, fast and handles porpoise very well.
Unfortunately can't upload the pics.

[Andi76]

The Red Bull is dealing with it far better than anyone else, it almost seems like it doesn't exist there.

Seems like its a combination of aero and the rear suspension, which will probably take another 8-10 races for Ferrari to figure out. At least that's the rumor I guess

Sorry, but thats not true. F1TV did an analysis about the amplitude of each team and the Red Bull has the fourth highest amplitude. So - if you talk about porpoising itself, they are not dealing better with it than anyone else. But anyway- and like i said before -porpoising will be always there as it was in the late 70s and early 80s. What matters and who is dealing best with it, is who gets it under control without loosing performance. And from that point of view its Ferrari and RB who are indeed dealing better with it than anyone else. But Ferrari also has advantages in other areas.

I see, I didn't catch the F1TV bit, but everyone is raving how the red bull is not bouncing and it does seem pretty stable on camera from what I can see. LECs helmet was all over the place in Australia, especially on the back straight, but I guess it doesn't mean much. The car is going well already, so if they remedy it even a little bit it shoudl help

Maybe exactly that "seemingly under control" is RBRs real problem. Maybe its is the low amplitude. A lower amplitude can cause vibrations with a much higher frequency, worse in relation to reliability than higher amplitudes. So what Dr. Marko says makes a lot of sense, i think. But anyway - porpoising will always be there. The secret is to get it under control without loosing laptime (and obviously probably reliability). At least thats what i was told by experienced engineers.

[saviour stivala]

Yes. Porpoising will always be there with these cars. The aim of reducing it to a controllable limit is the first step on track. But the all important thing is that the car out of the box by design calculation anticipated by those with experience from the ground effect cars of the past, would have shifted the starting point of porpoising to a point that it effects lap-time to a minimum. This is something that the Wind-tunnel could not help any, because the minimum starting point of porpoising (road speed) falls outside the limit of wind-tunnel speed as regulated by the wind-tunnel use rules. (maximum wind-blow of 50 m/s – aprox 180 km/h)

[CaribouBread]

"Three teams are said to have asked the FIA to check the matches of the Haas VF-22 and the Ferrari F1-75. Officially, of course, no one wants it to have been. One points to the other. The three can probably be found among McLaren, Aston Martin, Alpine and Mercedes. In the past, they had already liked to point out the possible abuse of too close alliances."

Some choice quotes from Wolff, Otmar and Seidl

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 1-technik/