2022 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Xwang]

A single page of this thread is enough for a facepalm. Posts reaching from the F1-75 being an awful car to Leclerc being Ferrari's biggest issue...

The F1 75 post summer break has become an awful car (to what was before). It has never been competitive for the win. It was even slower than the Mercedes in SPA and Zandvoort. Today it was over 1s slower compared to the RB18.

It's never easy to adapt to a TD in the middle of the season which changes the complete aerodynamic window of the car. What needs to be questioned is not the ability of the F1-75, which has been a wonderful car until the TD came into play, but the idea of closing loopholes in the middle of the season. Engineers are being payed to look for loopholes and interpret the rules in a clever way. And Ferrari engineers did a great job, apparently.

I agree with you, but I would say that RB engineers have done a better job.
Indeed Ferrari concept seems to try to optimize the benefits of running very low (a situation which in any case is limited by the minimum height you can get bring impossible to go under the track ), RB is instead trying to use rake again. So if no TD is issued to limit rake or flexibility of the tea tray (which is very unlikely to happen), the RB concept is better and unlimited (the more they improve in managing the rake the upper downforce they get).

[codetower]

A single page of this thread is enough for a facepalm. Posts reaching from the F1-75 being an awful car to Leclerc being Ferrari's biggest issue...

The F1 75 post summer break has become an awful car (to what was before). It has never been competitive for the win. It was even slower than the Mercedes in SPA and Zandvoort. Today it was over 1s slower compared to the RB18.

The car is what it is. It's the 2nd best car on the grid. And honestly, it has been since about the 5th race of the season. Ferrari isn't the only one developing throughout the year. RB made some decent gains regarding weight, and developed around their existing good design. Ferrari has made progress, despite the TD, and are still competing for wins. Am I disappointed that we didn't win the titles this year, yes. But I'm still excited and optimistic about the future. While everyone else has taken a step back from last year, including McLaren and the "world beaters" Mercedes, we have a very good base to improve on. As bad as it looks right now, we could be behind 8 other teams.

[LM10]

The F1 75 post summer break has become an awful car (to what was before). It has never been competitive for the win. It was even slower than the Mercedes in SPA and Zandvoort. Today it was over 1s slower compared to the RB18.

It's never easy to adapt to a TD in the middle of the season which changes the complete aerodynamic window of the car. What needs to be questioned is not the ability of the F1-75, which has been a wonderful car until the TD came into play, but the idea of closing loopholes in the middle of the season. Engineers are being payed to look for loopholes and interpret the rules in a clever way. And Ferrari engineers did a great job, apparently.

I agree with you, but I would say that RB engineers have done a better job.
Indeed Ferrari concept seems to try to optimize the benefits of running very low (a situation which in any case is limited by the minimum height you can get bring impossible to go under the track ), RB is instead trying to use rake again. So if no TD is issued to limit rake or flexibility of the tea tray (which is very unlikely to happen), the RB concept is better and unlimited (the more they improve in managing the rake the upper downforce they get).

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

[Xwang]

It's never easy to adapt to a TD in the middle of the season which changes the complete aerodynamic window of the car. What needs to be questioned is not the ability of the F1-75, which has been a wonderful car until the TD came into play, but the idea of closing loopholes in the middle of the season. Engineers are being payed to look for loopholes and interpret the rules in a clever way. And Ferrari engineers did a great job, apparently.

I agree with you, but I would say that RB engineers have done a better job.
Indeed Ferrari concept seems to try to optimize the benefits of running very low (a situation which in any case is limited by the minimum height you can get bring impossible to go under the track ), RB is instead trying to use rake again. So if no TD is issued to limit rake or flexibility of the tea tray (which is very unlikely to happen), the RB concept is better and unlimited (the more they improve in managing the rake the upper downforce they get).

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

[organic]

I agree with you, but I would say that RB engineers have done a better job.
Indeed Ferrari concept seems to try to optimize the benefits of running very low (a situation which in any case is limited by the minimum height you can get bring impossible to go under the track ), RB is instead trying to use rake again. So if no TD is issued to limit rake or flexibility of the tea tray (which is very unlikely to happen), the RB concept is better and unlimited (the more they improve in managing the rake the upper downforce they get).

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

Is there a source for RB doing this or is this a conjecture stated as though it is fact ?

[Xwang]

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

Is there a source for RB doing this or is this a conjecture stated as though it is fact ?

The RB is always touching the ground with the tray part as can be seen by the sparks it creates more than other cars. The existence of flexibility for that part is permitted by the rules to limit damages in case of contact with kerbs. A more raked car start touching the ground with the tea tray, then with other parts.

[Shal_Leg16]

The biggest issue Ferrari has is Charles. The guy is just out of this world over single lap that it gives a false sense of overal car's abilities and performance. The amount of overdriving he does over 1 lap could physically not be repeated over race distance, over and over again.

that's not the case, the car is indeed very good but only for 5-7 laps. after that it eats the tyres. without tyres no car can hold its performance.

[TimW]

I agree with you, but I would say that RB engineers have done a better job.
Indeed Ferrari concept seems to try to optimize the benefits of running very low (a situation which in any case is limited by the minimum height you can get bring impossible to go under the track ), RB is instead trying to use rake again. So if no TD is issued to limit rake or flexibility of the tea tray (which is very unlikely to happen), the RB concept is better and unlimited (the more they improve in managing the rake the upper downforce they get).

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

The rules specifically allow flexibility of the tea tray, with a clearly defined maximum flex profile, and it is flexible on every car.......

[Xwang]

The paradoxical thing is that the car having done the best job in terms of ground effect got penalised - in an era of ground effect cars.

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

The rules specifically allow flexibility of the tea tray, with a clearly defined maximum flex profile, and it is flexible on every car.......

I know. Also the remaining part was clearly defined before td39 ... Then they decided to change mind. The issue with Ferrari is that by playing around the rules in the gray zone they have seen their project sent in the bin and now they have to try to follo RB in the rake philosophy (with at least one year of delay)

[TimW]

And also paradoxical the fact that td39 stating the willingness to put all teams at the same level in term of floor flexibility forgot to limit also the flexibility of the tea tray (used only by RB with its rake asset)

The rules specifically allow flexibility of the tea tray, with a clearly defined maximum flex profile, and it is flexible on every car.......

I know. Also the remaining part was clearly defined before td39 ... Then they decided to change mind. The issue with Ferrari is that by playing around the rules in the gray zone they have seen their project sent in the bin and now they have to try to follo RB in the rake philosophy (with at least one year of delay)

The remaining part was not defined, except for the generic 'rigid'. That is why it was a loophole.
Only the test locations were defined having a maximum allowed deflection of 2mm. The unconfirmed story was that they were flexing much more than that on the remainder of the plank.

Note I disagree with closing loopholes mid season. Just saying that the tea tray flexing is not a loophole but explicitly allowed (to protect drivers' backs I guess). It was not something abused by RB or a differentiator to other cars.

[Xwang]

Indeed I am not saying that the tea tray flexibility is a loophole, but that the two different approaches (Ferrari no rake soft floor and RB with rake ) after td39 are no more equivalent in term of performances and so now Ferrari has again (as it is happening since 2009) to follow someone else trying to recover from a delay in development.
Then there is the philosophical matter that the flexibility of the tea tray is a provision to avoid damages over kerbs ... But it is and has been used since 2011 to skid over the track with an higher rake than the one that was supposed to be used. But spirit of the rules do not exist.
For this reason I think that RB's design was better than Ferrari's one, because it is based on not exploiting a loophole. Chapeau to the RB design team.

[Alakshendra]

Indeed I am not saying that the tea tray flexibility is a loophole, but that the two different approaches (Ferrari no rake soft floor and RB with rake ) after td39 are no more equivalent in term of performances and so now Ferrari has again (as it is happening since 2009) to follow someone else trying to recover from a delay in development.
Then there is the philosophical matter that the flexibility of the tea tray is a provision to avoid damages over kerbs ... But it is and has been used since 2011 to skid over the track with an higher rake than the one that was supposed to be used. But spirit of the rules do not exist.
For this reason I think that RB's design was better than Ferrari's one, because it is based on not exploiting a loophole. Chapeau to the RB design team.

I am no expert in this but i do agree on this point, we did tried something similar in 2019 and than burning oil consipiracy and this year focus on the floor which a new TD restricted and the car was destroyed.

The idea to find loopholes and focus on them is risky, specially when ferrari i feel is weak in terms of lobby/politics. Binotto sure did a good job to keep things behind closed doors for 2019 car but still a new TD in the middle of season shows the ower of other teams specially RB and Merc.

singapore the FIA taking 2 hours to decide and in Japan taking 5 mins, this shows that ferrari is not politically strong or holds any lobby. Its better not to focus on loopholes when we dont have the people who are good in politics.

[mzso]

I think we all know a driver change is needed in Ferrari. Among other things

I think the combination is ideal. Sainz is Leclerc's Bottas. Fast enough to be near most of the time, but not fast enough to challenge Leclerc much.

The biggest issue Ferrari has is Charles. The guy is just out of this world over single lap that it gives a false sense of overal car's abilities and performance. The amount of overdriving he does over 1 lap could physically not be repeated over race distance, over and over again.

Nonsense. What Leclerc does in qualifying is an extra value. Ferrari needs a better car for the race. And even more so strategists and race engineers who didn't went through a brainectomy.

[mendis]

The biggest issue Ferrari has is Charles. The guy is just out of this world over single lap that it gives a false sense of overal car's abilities and performance. The amount of overdriving he does over 1 lap could physically not be repeated over race distance, over and over again.

The car simply doesn't have the stuff to keep the pace over a race distance. It's not a driver fatigue problem. Tyres go off relatively faster than RB18 and that could be for various reasons. Max is also a hustler like Charles, but his car does well in race mode.

[tpe]

On another subject, Leclerc will be able to break Lauda' record of pole positions with Ferrari. He has to wait until next year...