Ferrari F1-75

[Andi76]

Imola:

https://soymotor.com/sites/default/file ... k=Y6GFeWfy


Monaco:

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/C ... 903619.jpg


These visible cuts starting at about middleway of the floor seem to be new definitely. Other than that, my eyes are way too untrained to see differences. Anyone?

The different angles makes it hard to determine the changes, but i would say they heightened the outer vane for sure and it has a different angle. They probably want to generate more outwash in that area. Hard to say if the tunnel entrance was also heightened but it seems so, but i am not sure, its hard to say.

[Stu]

Imola:

https://soymotor.com/sites/default/file ... k=Y6GFeWfy


Monaco:

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/C ... 903619.jpg


These visible cuts starting at about middleway of the floor seem to be new definitely. Other than that, my eyes are way too untrained to see differences. Anyone?

Look at the rear half of the floor, ahead of that they have made the ‘keel’ wider, then as it narrows there is a ramp back into the tunnel. An interesting little detail that should help the centre floor flow next to the plank; at a guess they have found an area in the tunnel where they are getting separation at certain speeds/ride-heights, they have been concentrating on flow in the diffuser section so far this year.

[GrrG]

Carlos Sainz at Fiorano Circuit with Ferrari F1-75

[PlatinumZealot]

Interesting.

So Ferrari got rid of all their floor edge wing doo dads and implemented skates instead.

They are both still there. This viewing angle hides the edge wings a bit.

[GrrG]

https://www.formu1a.uno/ferrari-le-vere ... -al-fondo/

[Stu]

https://www.formu1a.uno/ferrari-le-vere ... -al-fondo/

We got that first, see the posts at the bottom of the previous page

[Andi76]

Don't know if this information was already posted, but i do not remember that i have this already...

There was a lot of talk about the Ferrari Power Unit and now there rumour is that Ferrari went for a smaller turbo. This means higher RPM what gives them better performance in terms of response and acceleration but also a disadvantage in Topspeed. True or not - this clearly shows again why some peoples claims and conclusions about aerodynamic efficiency/drag levels of different designs because of Topspeed only make zero sense.

[Stu]

The turbo has a maximum operating speed (120,000rpm if I recall correctly), it would be interesting to see the detail of the change.

[Andi76]

The turbo has a maximum operating speed (120,000rpm if I recall correctly), it would be interesting to see the detail of the change.

As you say it - i think you remember correctly. But even with the RPMs limited, a smaller turbo would run through RPMs faster, wouldn't it? I have heard the rumour of a smaller turbo from a mechanic of McLaren, but he was not able to give more information than the rumour itself. Mark Hughes also mentioned it in one of his articles :

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hug ... in-monaco/

[hape]

Don't know if this information was already posted, but i do not remember that i have this already...

There was a lot of talk about the Ferrari Power Unit and now there rumour is that Ferrari went for a smaller turbo. This means higher RPM what gives them better performance in terms of response and acceleration but also a disadvantage in Topspeed. True or not - this clearly shows again why some peoples claims and conclusions about aerodynamic efficiency/drag levels of different designs because of Topspeed only make zero sense.

I think a smaller turbocompressor means faster spooling up but less efficient (more power needed for a certain pressure/flow output from the compressor). So smaller turbo should have a better response. A small compressor certainly can make good flow/pressure (so engine power) but is less efficient doing so.

But acceleration of a car is Force vs Weight (F = m x a). As all teams approx know the masses of other cars, it’s the acceleration (after rear wheel grip limitation phase) where the teams compare the power with other engines from GPS data. The achieved top speed on a straight and final acceleration phase to get there are much more depending on drag than anything else.

[chrisc90]

Don't know if this information was already posted, but i do not remember that i have this already...

There was a lot of talk about the Ferrari Power Unit and now there rumour is that Ferrari went for a smaller turbo. This means higher RPM what gives them better performance in terms of response and acceleration but also a disadvantage in Topspeed. True or not - this clearly shows again why some peoples claims and conclusions about aerodynamic efficiency/drag levels of different designs because of Topspeed only make zero sense.

I think a smaller turbocompressor means faster spooling up but less efficient (more power needed for a certain pressure/flow output from the compressor). So smaller turbo should have a better response. A small compressor certainly can make good flow/pressure (so engine power) but is less efficient doing so.

But acceleration of a car is Force vs Weight (F = m x a). As all teams approx know the masses of other cars, it’s the acceleration (after rear wheel grip limitation phase) where the teams compare the power with other engines from GPS data. The achieved top speed on a straight and final acceleration phase to get there are much more depending on drag than anything else.

I wonder how many RPMs the shaft speed drops between a smaller framed turbo and a larger one. Once the turbo is up to speed, I dare bet there is very little reduction in speed compared to the two. Especially given the turbo is already fully spooled up before braking and changing down gears.

Of course, this is probably a whole new realm of discussion, but I honestly cant see it being that much difference once you have the turbo working. Initial spool yes, or acceleration at low RPMs in a high gear where you have to wait for boost to build.

A large framed turbo road car is similar. Accelerate hard in 4th gear from say 30mph, you have to wait for the turbo to spool up, but if your doing the same speed in say 2nd gear, you get a lot faster spool.

I seriously cant see F1 teams dropping out of optimum turbo efficiency whilst slowing down for cornering and accelerating out of them. It would be plain stupid to go from 8th gear down to 4th or 5th gear, turbo drop out of its optimum efficiency and boost level and ahve to wait .5-1second for the turbo to get spooled back up and deliver max boost.

Of course, if you had access to gearing, rpm, turbo shaft speed and boost pressure data (which I dont think the public can get) then it is VERY easy to see how the turbo is performing given the size.

Do F1 cars have a motor on the shaft to keep the turbo fully spooled? Sure ive seen something similar before

[hape]

Don't know if this information was already posted, but i do not remember that i have this already...

There was a lot of talk about the Ferrari Power Unit and now there rumour is that Ferrari went for a smaller turbo. This means higher RPM what gives them better performance in terms of response and acceleration but also a disadvantage in Topspeed. True or not - this clearly shows again why some peoples claims and conclusions about aerodynamic efficiency/drag levels of different designs because of Topspeed only make zero sense.

I think a smaller turbocompressor means faster spooling up but less efficient (more power needed for a certain pressure/flow output from the compressor). So smaller turbo should have a better response. A small compressor certainly can make good flow/pressure (so engine power) but is less efficient doing so.

But acceleration of a car is Force vs Weight (F = m x a). As all teams approx know the masses of other cars, it’s the acceleration (after rear wheel grip limitation phase) where the teams compare the power with other engines from GPS data. The achieved top speed on a straight and final acceleration phase to get there are much more depending on drag than anything else.

I wonder how many RPMs the shaft speed drops between a smaller framed turbo and a larger one. Once the turbo is up to speed, I dare bet there is very little reduction in speed compared to the two. Especially given the turbo is already fully spooled up before braking and changing down gears.

Of course, this is probably a whole new realm of discussion, but I honestly cant see it being that much difference once you have the turbo working. Initial spool yes, or acceleration at low RPMs in a high gear where you have to wait for boost to build.

A large framed turbo road car is similar. Accelerate hard in 4th gear from say 30mph, you have to wait for the turbo to spool up, but if your doing the same speed in say 2nd gear, you get a lot faster spool.

I seriously cant see F1 teams dropping out of optimum turbo efficiency whilst slowing down for cornering and accelerating out of them. It would be plain stupid to go from 8th gear down to 4th or 5th gear, turbo drop out of its optimum efficiency and boost level and ahve to wait .5-1second for the turbo to get spooled back up and deliver max boost.

Of course, if you had access to gearing, rpm, turbo shaft speed and boost pressure data (which I dont think the public can get) then it is VERY easy to see how the turbo is performing given the size.

Do F1 cars have a motor on the shaft to keep the turbo fully spooled? Sure ive seen something similar before

Yes the turbocompressor on F1 cars do have a electric motor to assist in certain conditions like low engine rpm. So that makes the layout for a turbocompressor even more interesting and mass inertia plays a less distinctive role.
I think that was why the shift to bigger turbocompressors was all about. They have the benefit of being more efficient compared to smaller ones
Nowadays with shifting gears the turbine won’t drop anything close compared with the old days of manual shifting. It’s insignificant if any.

[cplchanb]

Ferrari spent millions on developing this modular nose concept yet they haven't made any changes to the nose yet. The only changes are the wing profiles which can be done freely on any nose. Is this one of the waste of money features that they shouldn't have delved into??

[F1NAC]

Ferrari spent millions on developing this modular nose concept yet they haven't made any changes to the nose yet. The only changes are the wing profiles which can be done freely on any nose. Is this one of the waste of money features that they shouldn't have delved into??

What do you know about their nose concept? RB has similar style, yet nothing changed..

[mclaren111]

Ferrari spent millions on developing this modular nose concept yet they haven't made any changes to the nose yet. The only changes are the wing profiles which can be done freely on any nose. Is this one of the waste of money features that they shouldn't have delved into??

Why should they change it ?