Ferrari F1-75

[AR3-GP]

I was thinking a lot about this post and the latest information i got about Ferraris sudden performance loss. Should i share it or better do not say anything at all, as its a very delicate piece of information but also one that lacks deeper technical details. But as i really think it is very important and comes from reliable sources, i decided to share it.

Thank you for sharing this Andi, it makes a lot of sense.

I would only like to point out one thing. Having Newey, who had the time to play with Aston Martin Valkyrie and unsealed (i.e. open, without skirts) ground effect floor, who perfected this, was a distinct advantage for Red Bull. They have perfected a floor design that relies on diffuser performance, rather than floor. This is obviously lower peak-downforce level, but a stable one, less prone to bouncing, able to utilize rake and with high rear-ride-height it can ensure excellent low-speed-corner-exit traction.

The diffuser itself isn't generating that much downforce, but mainly accelerating the airflow in the tunnels (atleast that's what I understood from the last generation of cars. Nevertheless, it's an interesting point that you mention here. Since the beginning of the season we have seen the F1-75 to have a very forward aero balance. Would it be correct that since Ferrari have had to raise the F1-75 likely to ensure they don't have excessive plank wear, that the floor was weakened?

The floor being weakened doesn't make too much sense to me because the F1-75 is porpoising much more vigorously than pre-France. If they were running higher ride heights, this should be less.

I'm more inclined to think the French GP update is the culprit. Binotto said in the latest AMUS that they may have boxed themselves into a corner with the French GP package. Also, Ferrari is no stranger to bad floor upgrades....Singapore 2018 we never forget...

[tpe]

From my memory, Ferarri was bouncing since the start of the season. I hadn't see any improvement to be honest!
As for the technical issues have no clue (as I have no clue why RB doesn't porpoise).
However, bear in mind that one of the best ever cars, F2004, based it's success on the diffuser.

As another comment, the drop in pace after some laps in the race bonds well with the stiffer suspension theory. Maybe the issue is not the floor but the acceleration sensors.
Too bad we will not find out, unless Binotto tells the truth and the problem is indeed the floor. We will find out after Friday, I suppose.

[AR3-GP]

From my memory, Ferarri was bouncing since the start of the season. I hadn't see any improvement to be honest!
As for the technical issues have no clue (as I have no clue why RB doesn't porpoise).
However, bear in mind that one of the best ever cars, F2004, based it's success on the diffuser.

As another comment, the drop in pace after some laps in the race bonds well with the stiffer suspension theory. Maybe the issue is not the floor but the acceleration sensors.
Too bad we will not find out, unless Binotto tells the truth and the problem is indeed the floor. We will find out after Friday, I suppose.

Monza is not really the circuit for one to evaluate aerodynamic qualities. Monza is a one-off extreme low downforce setup.

[tpe]

Of course!
But drivability, setup windows etc can be evaluated, right?

[AR3-GP]

Of course!
But drivability, setup windows etc can be evaluated, right?

Certain cars excel in Monza, and nowhere else.

[Andi76]

I was told that TD39 did not only hurt Ferrari, but completely destroyed its aero-philosopy. I was told that the technical change has turned Ferraris brilliant sidepod design into a completely obsolete one.

I don't have the technical knowledge of some of the people around here, but a car that probably had the best one-lap pace in Zandvoort doesn't seem obsolete to me.

What helps performance over one lap if your race pace is lacking? And the Ferrari obviously lacks race pace since a few races. TD39 seems to be reason. If thats the case, and i explained how this could work(and Ferraris problems and performance suggest these reasons), the design can be obsolete. And it wouldn't be the first time a rule change makes a brilliant design philosophy obsolete. I do not say that this has to be the case - but Ferraris performance and problems and the rumours(from sources that knows it best) suggest it.

But to be honest - i even hope i am wrong with that. Because if i am not, we won't have an exciting 2022 season any more, and probably a Red Bull domination untill the next rule change.

[Vanja #66]

Good points, Vanja. But don't you think Ferrari can still make the concept work? Engine is frozen, but they've made some good progress there; It has good power and reliability will still be improved. And as the teams have said it's easier to find reliability, than performance. I'm still hopeful that they will continue to improve. They can work on the floor, tweak the aero, work on the suspension to help with tyre deg, and continue to make progress. They are close.

As Andi explained - Ferrari indeed had a desire to clean up the rear as much as possible. This was done to energize the beam wing, which in turn energizes the floor the most. This was clear from the very beginning, since Ferrari also cleaned up the engine cover to help drive the rear wing as well. Ferrari also designed the sidepods to add downforce and their rear-oriented ambient-pressure tubs in turn also reduce drag, since their massive frontal area inevitably increases it.

All of this was done to drive the classic ground-effect floor design and it worked brilliantly since they found a way to intelligently reduce plank-wear and lower the car. As Spa has shown - higher ride height has immediate effect on floor downforce performance. To compensate, you compromise the suspension setup, which can and does hurt the tires etc.... Why would 2-piece plank be outlawed? Political reasons and nothing else. There was no illegal play, only intelligent interpretation and using loopholes. When was Red Bull hurt massively for their flex-wings etc?

Woah. I thought the tyre changes hurt everyone, except Merc that had a secret tyre test?

To close this OT thread - just look at results before and after 2013 tyre change and its clear who benefited the most.

The diffuser itself isn't generating that much downforce, but mainly accelerating the airflow in the tunnels (atleast that's what I understood from the last generation of cars. Nevertheless, it's an interesting point that you mention here. Since the beginning of the season we have seen the F1-75 to have a very forward aero balance. Would it be correct that since Ferrari have had to raise the F1-75 likely to ensure they don't have excessive plank wear, that the floor was weakened?

I admit, this is OT and more RB related, but I can explain the conceptual difference between F1-75 and what RB did to make a very different concept work. Ferrari basically perfected classical ground-effect approach - go low, pump the floor with rear and beam wings, seal the floor sides to keep the pressure reduced and try finding a way to reduce bouncing without raising the car. Whichever floor design we take (and there are plenty of pictures of all 3 available), it has a classical curvature which lowers the pressure on the bottom.





What RB did is very different, they emphasized the curvature around diffuser kink (mandated by rules) and they opened up the diffuser side wall to let the air from the top of the floor enter there to feed and energize the vortex. This makes the floor work more like classical flat-floor with diffuser, as it doesn't rely on ground proximity for optimal performance. Energizing the vortex reduces the pressure in diffuser, which in turn also drives the front of the floor and reduces overall pressure under the floor.



This is just a general outline of their floor philosophy. This is why RB never had any problems with bouncing, but why they also lacked overall downforce compared to Ferrari. In a way, RB floor is not aligned with the spirit of the regulations and Ferrari was - and Ferrari got punished for their ingenuity.

[RZS10]

Why would 2-piece plank be outlawed? Political reasons and nothing else.

Just to clarify this even if it's not directly related to the F1-75 ... this isn't true, is it?

They have not outlawed multi piece planks for 2023 - it's still up to three pieces as outlined in 3.5.9 i) of the tech. regulations - Or did i miss something?

[henry]

@Vanya#66. Thanks for a really full and understandable description of the philosophy differences between Ferrari (and others) and Red Bull. Does this influence the size of the “boat” area which, along with the plank, is flat floor.

On TD49, as @RZS10 says don’t think it bans split, two piece planks. It tries to control the manipulation of the floor stiffness around the measurement holes which was being used to reduce wear of the titanium wear blocks when the cars were run at low ride heights. Some of the titanium blocks were split to facilitate the flexing, perhaps leading to confusion with split planks.

[101FlyingDutchman]

Good points, Vanja. But don't you think Ferrari can still make the concept work? Engine is frozen, but they've made some good progress there; It has good power and reliability will still be improved. And as the teams have said it's easier to find reliability, than performance. I'm still hopeful that they will continue to improve. They can work on the floor, tweak the aero, work on the suspension to help with tyre deg, and continue to make progress. They are close.

As Andi explained - Ferrari indeed had a desire to clean up the rear as much as possible. This was done to energize the beam wing, which in turn energizes the floor the most. This was clear from the very beginning, since Ferrari also cleaned up the engine cover to help drive the rear wing as well. Ferrari also designed the sidepods to add downforce and their rear-oriented ambient-pressure tubs in turn also reduce drag, since their massive frontal area inevitably increases it.

All of this was done to drive the classic ground-effect floor design and it worked brilliantly since they found a way to intelligently reduce plank-wear and lower the car. As Spa has shown - higher ride height has immediate effect on floor downforce performance. To compensate, you compromise the suspension setup, which can and does hurt the tires etc.... Why would 2-piece plank be outlawed? Political reasons and nothing else. There was no illegal play, only intelligent interpretation and using loopholes. When was Red Bull hurt massively for their flex-wings etc?

Woah. I thought the tyre changes hurt everyone, except Merc that had a secret tyre test?

To close this OT thread - just look at results before and after 2013 tyre change and its clear who benefited the most.

The diffuser itself isn't generating that much downforce, but mainly accelerating the airflow in the tunnels (atleast that's what I understood from the last generation of cars. Nevertheless, it's an interesting point that you mention here. Since the beginning of the season we have seen the F1-75 to have a very forward aero balance. Would it be correct that since Ferrari have had to raise the F1-75 likely to ensure they don't have excessive plank wear, that the floor was weakened?

I admit, this is OT and more RB related, but I can explain the conceptual difference between F1-75 and what RB did to make a very different concept work. Ferrari basically perfected classical ground-effect approach - go low, pump the floor with rear and beam wings, seal the floor sides to keep the pressure reduced and try finding a way to reduce bouncing without raising the car. Whichever floor design we take (and there are plenty of pictures of all 3 available), it has a classical curvature which lowers the pressure on the bottom.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/F ... 926663.jpg

https://www.presticebdt.com/wp-content/ ... 30x547.jpg

What RB did is very different, they emphasized the curvature around diffuser kink (mandated by rules) and they opened up the diffuser side wall to let the air from the top of the floor enter there to feed and energize the vortex. This makes the floor work more like classical flat-floor with diffuser, as it doesn't rely on ground proximity for optimal performance. Energizing the vortex reduces the pressure in diffuser, which in turn also drives the front of the floor and reduces overall pressure under the floor.

https://i.ibb.co/2dWCbvp/iBwWx4U.jpg

This is just a general outline of their floor philosophy. This is why RB never had any problems with bouncing, but why they also lacked overall downforce compared to Ferrari. In a way, RB floor is not aligned with the spirit of the regulations and Ferrari was - and Ferrari got punished for their ingenuity.

Excellent analysis Vanja. Thank you. Can I ask what exactly about the RB18 floor is against the spirit of the regulations? I’m struggling to see “intent” in the ruleset. As in there is plenty of scope of interpretation

[Vanja #66]

Just to clarify this even if it's not directly related to the F1-75 ... this isn't true, is it?

They have not outlawed multi piece planks for 2023 - it's still up to three pieces as outlined in 3.5.9 i) of the tech. regulations - Or did i miss something?

I'm not able to follow all developments 100%, so I may be wrong about it. In any case, changes to plank wear measurements and aspects of floor design were made for sure, mid-season and without actual sporting or safety related reasons.

Excellent analysis Vanja. Thank you. Can I ask what exactly about the RB18 floor is against the spirit of the regulations? I’m struggling to see “intent” in the ruleset. As in there is plenty of scope of interpretation

I just used this platitude to emphasize that RB design was not intended by regulations, FIA and FOM. You could argue this design increases vorticity and turbulence behind the car, making the car harder to follow. This is not the reason for this design of course, RB obviously wanted to design a floor that can use a rake and softer rear end. Mind you, Sauber also designed their floor this way, from the start of the season I'd say.

[VacuousFlamboyant]

@Vanya#66. I agree with you for the most part, except for your representation of Redbull's floor concept. Newey has put a lot of effort into distributing the downforce generated by the floor of the RB18. Peak downforce is evenly spaced between the floor kick at the back and tunnel expansion, levelled. That's why they're less affected by air flow disturbances that can lead to porpoising. They don't lack downforce. Sure, peak downforce may be lower, but they're able to sustain higher downforce levels.

Redbull was bluffing with the TD as they're only concerned by the ice skates removal next year. Ferrari went for it because flexing the plank would only benefit a classical design and now they're way behind in R&D. They should have seen it coming.

On the other hand, Mercedes has shown they could make Redbull's approach, equitably distributing the lateral expansion of air with traditional vertical expansion, work on their car to some extent. Mercedes is slowly transitioning their design. It will probably take Ferrari the rest of the year to figure it out, but work into next year's car floor philosophy has to begin with the F1-75.

[RicerDude]

Did anyone notice the strange buzzing noise on the Ferrari onboards?
Seems to be on throttle.
Anyone know what it might be?

[kediown]

Did anyone notice the strange buzzing noise on the Ferrari onboards?
Seems to be on throttle.
Anyone know what it might be?

I have the same question. That noise doesn't seem to appear on qualifying videos that Formula 1 post but I hear them only on Ferrari's on TV coverage

[falonso81]

Did anyone notice the strange buzzing noise on the Ferrari onboards?
Seems to be on throttle.
Anyone know what it might be?

It's the superfast engine turned to 110% for Monza.