Ferrari SF23

[AR3-GP]

What the aerodynamic concept has nothing to do with, however, is tire degradation as someone here speculates. Too little downforce - okay. But the aero concept itself - how is that possible? This possibility does not open up to me and will probably remain a mystery that not even he himself can answer.

If there is instability in the aero map, then it could mean that the tire is prone to sliding after corner entry because the downforce is at first high, then weakens too much beyond critical steer angle, roll angle, yaw angle, ground clearance.

You had a previous discussion about tire contact frequency. Ferrari still seems to exhibit a low-grade porpoising. It may not be visible to the eye, but a cyclical loading at the tire contact patch due to very minor amounts of the porpoising, will also cause excessive tire wear. Mercedes pointed this out last season. No one is bouncing as dramatically as last season of course, but if there is a very small amplitude, it could be damaging the tire due to "slippage" .

[Andi76]

What the aerodynamic concept has nothing to do with, however, is tire degradation as someone here speculates. Too little downforce - okay. But the aero concept itself - how is that possible? This possibility does not open up to me and will probably remain a mystery that not even he himself can answer.

If there is instability in the aero map, then it could mean that the tire is prone to sliding after corner entry because the downforce is at first high, then weakens too much beyond critical steer angle, roll angle, yaw angle, ground clearance.

You had a previous discussion about tire contact frequency. Ferrari still seems to exhibit a low-grade porpoising. It may not be visible to the eye, but a cyclical loading at the tire contact patch due to very minor amounts of the porpoising, will also cause excessive tire wear. Mercedes pointed this out last season. No one is bouncing as dramatically as last season of course, but if there is a very small amplitude, it could be damaging the tire due to "slippage" .

Yes, you are right. I also wrote this last year in my article that porpoising may well be one reason for the high contact frequencies. What you say about the aeromap is clear. But in my opinion this has nothing to do with the concept itself.

[AR3-GP]

What the aerodynamic concept has nothing to do with, however, is tire degradation as someone here speculates. Too little downforce - okay. But the aero concept itself - how is that possible? This possibility does not open up to me and will probably remain a mystery that not even he himself can answer.

If there is instability in the aero map, then it could mean that the tire is prone to sliding after corner entry because the downforce is at first high, then weakens too much beyond critical steer angle, roll angle, yaw angle, ground clearance.

You had a previous discussion about tire contact frequency. Ferrari still seems to exhibit a low-grade porpoising. It may not be visible to the eye, but a cyclical loading at the tire contact patch due to very minor amounts of the porpoising, will also cause excessive tire wear. Mercedes pointed this out last season. No one is bouncing as dramatically as last season of course, but if there is a very small amplitude, it could be damaging the tire due to "slippage" .

Yes, you are right. I also wrote this last year in my article that porpoising may well be one reason for the high contact frequencies. What you say about the aeromap is clear. But in my opinion this has nothing to do with the concept itself.

I agree, perhaps aero map is a tertiary detail. However I would say that Ferrari's "concept" was to run very low ground clearance and now that the car is lifted, the aero map is in a bad place. So the concept is somewhat linked. They are unable to run this low ground clearance anymore due to plank wear, porpoising, and raised floor edge.

So is it fair to say there is no problem with the concept? (this was inside the longer quote of yours but I edited that out, sorry). Forget about sidepods, I mean the floor, and the ground clearance concept. Maybe the sidepod is a symptom.

I'm not sure I see how the car can continue in this direction. It can no longer be run super low since TD039 and the floor edges.

[christian.falavena]

Certainly the SF23 is a car that appeared from the start to suffer from severe understeer, with Red Bull probably having a more advanced CofP (Center of Pressure, a kind of "center of gravity" of the aerodynamic forces), ensuring a good load at the front
This is determined, yes, by the wings and the body, but above all by the bottom, which with ground effect cars acquires first-rate importance
Ferrari has good aerodynamic efficiency on the straight, a factor on which it has nothing to envy Red Bull. Excluding from the discussion the chassis issue for the reason mentioned above (although Ferrari has changed the third element, mechanical first and hydraulic now), it would thus seem to be more a problem of the car's bottom, an area that offers "free" load, that is, one that does not penalize in terms of drag by slowing down the car on the straights.
Partial confirmation of this may be found in the fact that Ferrari tested a new bottom as early as Friday, with substantial changes at the bottom rather than at the edge set aside, however, after the usual data collection.
A new bottom in the second race is a fairly substantial change to be a simple and unimportant "corrective." And it further testifies to how much the Ferrari car concept was designed on rules that with the TD39 first and the new regulations later, were changed quite a bit."

To be honest, I don't think the CoP is that much further forward on the Red Bull. The CoG has a very small margin and especially in the corners you mention you need a slightly rear biased CoP so the car doesn't oversteer. Also you have to know that with today's floors and diffusers, these floors and the larger diffuser has to be fed with more air given the entire floor is sealed and there is minimum flow encroachment into the main flow structure of the underflow. If the floor is not sealed properly the suction of the diffuser tries to pull air from the surrounding environment. Thats why teams try to lower the edges of the floor. They want to minimize the flow encroachment as the diffuser may get affected by the vector field of the incoming flow. Flat floors required lesser air volume to work. This is why they worked way better in the low-speed corners but as the airspeed is increased and the diffuser is fed with high air volume, the venturi tunnels work better. So venturi needs more air to work, and the extraction of the diffuser today is way higher than the pre-2022. So the underbody itself doesn't necessarily play the overriding role in these areas you identify. Here, the mechanical grip of the suspension plays a greater role. Certainly there will be differences in these two cars in that regard. But I don't think they are so serious that they explain the loss/gain of Ferrari/Red Bull in these sections, because on the one hand the ground in these slow sections doesn't play the overriding role and the area in which you want/must have the CoP here is rather limited. I think an interaction of several factors is rather the cause here. But I could also be wrong. In any case, it's a well-executed theory that I think is rather unlikely, but still possible.

I agree with all what you said, but the main reason that made me think that, is that in Qs this deficit is not shown, so what basically changes is the load of fuel that contributes to low down the height of the car, so when the height changes the problem start to rise... This cannot be relative to suspension system, as it work approximately like with the lower load because the angles are slightly the same and the preload curve of the stiffness can be made regular with hydraulic heave dampers (also with the coils system)...

[ringo]

***
These different compounds work in different windows and different asphalt heats the tires differently and above all wears the tires differently. A rapidly thinning tread is less able to retain heat and the tire is less able to maintain temperature. This would explain Ferrari's tire problems and why they often have a problem. In Saudi Arabia, they might have had the right temperature with the soft tire to compensate for the hardening caused by the contact frequencies being too high. Due to the smooth asphalt and the low degree of wear, this temperature could be kept stable for a long time, whereas this was not possible in Bahrain due to the rapidly thinning tread. So you would have looked good in both races in qualifying, but suffered from high degradation in the Bahrain race, while the soft tire would have worked well in the Saudi race. With the hard tire, on the other hand, whose harder compound can withstand higher contact frequencies, it would then be possible despite this that it would not be brought to the right temperature.

Indeed, though to me it looks like this was just one part of their issues. The other one is the downforce deficit compared to RB even with bigger rear wing. This suggests floor was raised compared to Bahrain. Even if they still need to learn to extract the most from the car, it's clear they definitely won't be able to jump over RB when they do extract the most from it.

Big operational issues, unsurprising with all the chaos Vigna has introduced...

So why does the Ferrari have the best floor again?
The deficity is not only to redbull, but to Aston and possibly Mercedes in 3 race's time.

I would not read so much into tyres @ Andi. The car just doesn't have enough downforce to generate the grip to keep up with redbull. The drivers push the car harder to keep up and thus slide and wear the tyres more.

[Vanja #66]

So why does the Ferrari have the best floor again?

Because Bahrain Q with floor as low as RB showed they lost almost nothing in high/mid-speed corners to RB, even with smaller RW and Leclerc not running the final lap.

[AR3-GP]

So why does the Ferrari have the best floor again?

Because Bahrain Q with floor as low as RB showed they lost almost nothing in high/mid-speed corners to RB, even with smaller RW and Leclerc not running the final lap.

I think that driving style can have an influence on minimum speed in the corner.

I'm not going to bother trying to get the corner number right, but you can see what I'm highlighting below

[Andi76]

Certainly the SF23 is a car that appeared from the start to suffer from severe understeer, with Red Bull probably having a more advanced CofP (Center of Pressure, a kind of "center of gravity" of the aerodynamic forces), ensuring a good load at the front
This is determined, yes, by the wings and the body, but above all by the bottom, which with ground effect cars acquires first-rate importance
Ferrari has good aerodynamic efficiency on the straight, a factor on which it has nothing to envy Red Bull. Excluding from the discussion the chassis issue for the reason mentioned above (although Ferrari has changed the third element, mechanical first and hydraulic now), it would thus seem to be more a problem of the car's bottom, an area that offers "free" load, that is, one that does not penalize in terms of drag by slowing down the car on the straights.
Partial confirmation of this may be found in the fact that Ferrari tested a new bottom as early as Friday, with substantial changes at the bottom rather than at the edge set aside, however, after the usual data collection.
A new bottom in the second race is a fairly substantial change to be a simple and unimportant "corrective." And it further testifies to how much the Ferrari car concept was designed on rules that with the TD39 first and the new regulations later, were changed quite a bit."

To be honest, I don't think the CoP is that much further forward on the Red Bull. The CoG has a very small margin and especially in the corners you mention you need a slightly rear biased CoP so the car doesn't oversteer. Also you have to know that with today's floors and diffusers, these floors and the larger diffuser has to be fed with more air given the entire floor is sealed and there is minimum flow encroachment into the main flow structure of the underflow. If the floor is not sealed properly the suction of the diffuser tries to pull air from the surrounding environment. Thats why teams try to lower the edges of the floor. They want to minimize the flow encroachment as the diffuser may get affected by the vector field of the incoming flow. Flat floors required lesser air volume to work. This is why they worked way better in the low-speed corners but as the airspeed is increased and the diffuser is fed with high air volume, the venturi tunnels work better. So venturi needs more air to work, and the extraction of the diffuser today is way higher than the pre-2022. So the underbody itself doesn't necessarily play the overriding role in these areas you identify. Here, the mechanical grip of the suspension plays a greater role. Certainly there will be differences in these two cars in that regard. But I don't think they are so serious that they explain the loss/gain of Ferrari/Red Bull in these sections, because on the one hand the ground in these slow sections doesn't play the overriding role and the area in which you want/must have the CoP here is rather limited. I think an interaction of several factors is rather the cause here. But I could also be wrong. In any case, it's a well-executed theory that I think is rather unlikely, but still possible.

I agree with all what you said, but the main reason that made me think that, is that in Qs this deficit is not shown, so what basically changes is the load of fuel that contributes to low down the height of the car, so when the height changes the problem start to rise... This cannot be relative to suspension system, as it work approximately like with the lower load because the angles are slightly the same and the preload curve of the stiffness can be made regular with hydraulic heave dampers (also with the coils system)...

But then it can't have anything to do with the CoP, because it doesn't change with more or less fuel..but the suspension certainly changes with more or less weight because F1 cars use rising spring rates. So I can't follow your thought, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Andi76]

I would not read so much into tyres @ Andi. The car just doesn't have enough downforce to generate the grip to keep up with redbull. The drivers push the car harder to keep up and thus slide and wear the tyres more.

I don't know how you can read too much into the tires of a team that has been known to have tire problems for eight or nine months...especially since what you say isn't right either, because in Bahrain the drivers couldn't even push because the tires immediately overheated, as Sainz reported on the radio. So since Ferrari is known to have severe problems with the tires, whose extreme importance should be known, and they are good in qualifying where these problems do not play any role, I think that the advice I should not read too much into the tires can be calmly filed in the compartment "completely wrong". Sorry.

[LM10]

So why does the Ferrari have the best floor again?
The deficity is not only to redbull, but to Aston and possibly Mercedes in 3 race's time.

I would not read so much into tyres @ Andi. The car just doesn't have enough downforce to generate the grip to keep up with redbull. The drivers push the car harder to keep up and thus slide and wear the tyres more.

Any evidence you can provide as to Ferrari not having enough downforce?

[ringo]

So why does the Ferrari have the best floor again?

Because Bahrain Q with floor as low as RB showed they lost almost nothing in high/mid-speed corners to RB, even with smaller RW and Leclerc not running the final lap.

I think that driving style can have an influence on minimum speed in the corner.

I'm not going to bother trying to get the corner number right, but you can see what I'm highlighting below

https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0M0HVv/image.png

Good work. Could you add the AMR23 to this?

From what i see from your curves. Ferrari is better under braking and initial traction out of the corner. I suspect the ERS mapping is more refined and engine more drivable than the honda, But as soon as that initial phase is past, the redbull takes over.
It also looks like the ferrari has more wing, and is more draggy. By half the lap it falls away. possibly using too much of the tyre in the traction out of the corners and overheating them? As you say probably driving style at the apex compared to Perez.

[ringo]

I would not read so much into tyres @ Andi. The car just doesn't have enough downforce to generate the grip to keep up with redbull. The drivers push the car harder to keep up and thus slide and wear the tyres more.

I don't know how you can read too much into the tires of a team that has been known to have tire problems for eight or nine months...especially since what you say isn't right either, because in Bahrain the drivers couldn't even push because the tires immediately overheated, as Sainz reported on the radio. So since Ferrari is known to have severe problems with the tires, whose extreme importance should be known, and they are good in qualifying where these problems do not play any role, I think that the advice I should not read too much into the tires can be calmly filed in the compartment "completely wrong". Sorry.

Jock Clear has said there is no tyre problem. The drivers just have to push the car harder. It's all relative to redbull.
The tyres would last if they don't push as hard like everyone else that is not a redbull.

Read these, he is also quoted from other sources.

https://scuderiafans.com/jock-clear-exp ... 23-season/

https://www.planetf1.com/news/jock-clea ... onception/

“But now [at the end of the season] we’re suffering from Charles going out there and just trying to keep up with Red Bull,” Clear added. “And unfortunately, it’s a slightly quicker car.

“You just thrash your tyres a little bit too much, trying to hang on to it.

“And of course, it’s very difficult for Charles to say: ‘Okay, I can’t keep up, I’m just gonna let him go.’ He’s a racing driver. That’s not going to happen.

“So you’re just using a bit too much juice and you pay for that in the long stints.”

I did not say there is not tyre factor, but the level of detail that you went into, is not really describing the deficit.
The car just lacks downforce.

[Andi76]

I would not read so much into tyres @ Andi. The car just doesn't have enough downforce to generate the grip to keep up with redbull. The drivers push the car harder to keep up and thus slide and wear the tyres more.

I don't know how you can read too much into the tires of a team that has been known to have tire problems for eight or nine months...especially since what you say isn't right either, because in Bahrain the drivers couldn't even push because the tires immediately overheated, as Sainz reported on the radio. So since Ferrari is known to have severe problems with the tires, whose extreme importance should be known, and they are good in qualifying where these problems do not play any role, I think that the advice I should not read too much into the tires can be calmly filed in the compartment "completely wrong". Sorry.

Jock Clear has said there is no tyre problem. The drivers just have to push the car harder. It's all relative to redbull.
The tyres would last if they don't push as hard like everyone else that is not a redbull.

Read these, he is also quoted from other sources.

https://scuderiafans.com/jock-clear-exp ... 23-season/

https://www.planetf1.com/news/jock-clea ... onception/

“But now [at the end of the season] we’re suffering from Charles going out there and just trying to keep up with Red Bull,” Clear added. “And unfortunately, it’s a slightly quicker car.

“You just thrash your tyres a little bit too much, trying to hang on to it.

“And of course, it’s very difficult for Charles to say: ‘Okay, I can’t keep up, I’m just gonna let him go.’ He’s a racing driver. That’s not going to happen.

“So you’re just using a bit too much juice and you pay for that in the long stints.”

I did not say there is not tyre factor, but the level of detail that you went into, is not really describing the deficit.
The car just lacks downforce.

You might want to pay attention to what you're quoting or bringing up here. That's what Clear said before the Bahrain GP. The race then showed that he was completely wrong, with drivers complaining that they couldn't push because the tires immediately started to overheat... so what you're saying here was an engineer's statement that turned out to be completely off the mark in the race and totally contrary to what the data and all the other engineers and drivers were saying from the start.

As has already been asked - what evidence do you have that the car lacks downforce? Or are you just making an assertion here without any proof? In the end, you're relatively close to Red Bull in qualifying. Even if it's certainly easier to cope with less downforce on one lap, it would be very unusual if the car generally lacked as much downforce as you claim here.

[Vanja #66]

The car just lacks downforce.

This is SF-23 thread, not W14

[SiLo]

The car just lacks downforce.

This is SF-23 thread, not W14

And it got beaten by the W14. Have the floor change rules really messed Ferrari up here or what?