Ferrari SF23

[Cassius]

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.

This was just due to lack of front df. Hence the understeer. They kept the low df rear wing to balance the car. This did lead to lower drag and thus they were competitive on straights and high-speeds. This in combination with fact their tyres heat up relatively quickly, meant they were close in qualy.

[christian.falavena]

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.

How the CoP can’t change with height variation?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[ringo]

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.

You use the term "off the mark". Where is your evidence for your detailed claim?
As usual when i see some evidence or data that the team's performance engineer doesn't have but you do then maybe what you say has some credence. But so far if you look on what you wrote, it's speculation. I do not think anything has changed will last year's car to this year's.
Same problem of pushing too hard.

[ringo]

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?

Well it's obvious.
But everyone need to show evidence for it having the best floor and this tyrw frequency thing about the Pirellis. Where is that data coming from?
It's clear ferrari have less downfoce and thus less efficient than RB19 and ecev AMR23.
The evidence is the lap time.
I don't need precise data to say thar because I am not pin pointing anything specific on the car as the reason. It would just be pure speculation.

[Vanja #66]

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

Same way W13 beat Ferrari in Hungary last year...

Clearly there are some issues with the setup and balance.

Somewhat incoherent article, but it leads to some possible explanations. Having raised the floor on purpose, the car lost some downforce on its own. And on harder tyres, that were stiffer than expected (maybe I misunderstood?) they lost more downforce due to higher ride height? Did the lack of temperature in Hard tyres left them stiffer than other cars and amplified this behaviour? Andi, what do you think?

[ing.]

Clearly there are some issues with the setup and balance.

Or just the classic problem of a floor design that is too “peaky” and that doesn’t work well off-design?

[Sevach]

Somewhat incoherent article, but it leads to some possible explanations. Having raised the floor on purpose, the car lost some downforce on its own. And on harder tyres, that were stiffer than expected (maybe I misunderstood?) they lost more downforce due to higher ride height? Did the lack of temperature in Hard tyres left them stiffer than other cars and amplified this behaviour? Andi, what do you think?

Damn that sounds crazy...
In theory carcass is the same no matter the compound right? Just by running a little colder it would stand more upright?Car shedding it's fuel weight would also contribute to this perhaps...

Their pace did seem to get worst in Bahrain as the race went on.

[Venturiation]

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.

that's only thanks to soft tyres

with hard tyres Ferrari has the worst floor downforce when you consider that they were the 4th fastest in jeddah and were slower than the black car that generates no downforce because it has no sidepods

floor problems

[SiLo]

Surely sidewalls being stiffer would be such a miniscule change that claiming its raised the floor height enough to make a notable difference is a bit of a stretch?

The regs changing is understandable, like Mercedes, Ferrari clearly were running the floor hard and caused porpoising, they were just lucky that it came on at higher speeds, and was seemingly of a low enough frequency that it didn't affect them too much (until TD39).

[Andi76]

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.

How the CoP can’t change with height variation?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

You're talking about it moving further back. Why should the CoP move further back when the fuel becomes less?

[Andi76]

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/



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.

You use the term "off the mark". Where is your evidence for your detailed claim?
As usual when i see some evidence or data that the team's performance engineer doesn't have but you do then maybe what you say has some credence. But so far if you look on what you wrote, it's speculation. I do not think anything has changed will last year's car to this year's.
Same problem of pushing too hard.

Are you serious? I told you what my evidence is - what the drivers said on the radio, as well as what virtually every Ferrari engineer except Clear (and he said that BEFORE the race in Bahrain, his opinion after the race was certainly different) said, and also Vasseur. In addition, every channel, whether Sky or F1TV brings evaluations of the lap times in long runs of practice and race. Even here in the forum are tens of such data, which prove without any doubt the tire problems... I have listed my evidence more than clearly and the data and statements are anyway familiar to everyone who follows Formula 1... what I find amusing is honestly still that you say it is obvious that Ferrari lacks downforce simply because you conclude it, but you doubt things that are proven beyond doubt by data in every F1 broadcast, by statements of drivers, team bosses and every technician. And even in this thread you can find enough data. So I would say - let's leave this discussion here, because it is more than obvious that this is a case of - I believe what fits into my worldview and what is clearly proven I don't care. And finally everyone can make up his own mind about what you say here and what I say and what is proven and what is not.

[Andi76]

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

Same way W13 beat Ferrari in Hungary last year...

Clearly there are some issues with the setup and balance.

Somewhat incoherent article, but it leads to some possible explanations. Having raised the floor on purpose, the car lost some downforce on its own. And on harder tyres, that were stiffer than expected (maybe I misunderstood?) they lost more downforce due to higher ride height? Did the lack of temperature in Hard tyres left them stiffer than other cars and amplified this behaviour? Andi, what do you think?

One reason why the 2005 Ferrari was so bad was that they didn't consider that the tread of the tire wears much more than before, so they always had to go 5mm higher than the competition, which had a really strong effect. It wasn't that only Bridgestone was to blame here. This has also contributed quite a bit and shows how easily you can get it wrong.

If you don't get temperature into the tire itself, that already makes a lot of difference in terms of stiffness. The tire would deform much less and the car would actually be slightly higher than others as well. It wouldn't be much, but as the F2005 example shows, even 5mm can make a lot of difference. So I think it's entirely possible, to be honest.

What surprises me, though, is why Ferrari went to the hard tires in the first place. We knew from 2022 that they wouldn't work at all. And if I develop such a tactic, then I at least make a long run with it after such experiences.

[Vanja #66]

Damn that sounds crazy...
In theory carcass is the same no matter the compound right? Just by running a little colder it would stand more upright?Car shedding it's fuel weight would also contribute to this perhaps...

Their pace did seem to get worst in Bahrain as the race went on.

Not really crazy, it sounds to me like a good start on a path to understanding the major and governing performance differentiators between these ground-effect cars Bahrain race for Sainz is not really representative, he was all over the place and we'll never know what Leclerc could have done. I suspect he started covering Sainz and almost cruising as soon as Perez overtook him, since he got a lot slower afterwards, while Xavi actually told him he's good on tyre treatment and degradation overall.

One reason why the 2005 Ferrari was so bad was that they didn't consider that the tread of the tire wears much more than before, so they always had to go 5mm higher than the competition, which had a really strong effect. It wasn't that only Bridgestone was to blame here. This has also contributed quite a bit and shows how easily you can get it wrong.

If you don't get temperature into the tire itself, that already makes a lot of difference in terms of stiffness. The tire would deform much less and the car would actually be slightly higher than others as well. It wouldn't be much, but as the F2005 example shows, even 5mm can make a lot of difference. So I think it's entirely possible, to be honest.

Yup, thanks for confirming!

What surprises me, though, is why Ferrari went to the hard tires in the first place. We knew from 2022 that they wouldn't work at all. And if I develop such a tactic, then I at least make a long run with it after such experiences.

Too many strategy blunders to discuss and not the right thread

[jambuka]

So they tested new floor at practice in Jeddah, confirm everything works and correlation is right and then just shelved it ? Why ?

[ringo]

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.

You use the term "off the mark". Where is your evidence for your detailed claim?
As usual when i see some evidence or data that the team's performance engineer doesn't have but you do then maybe what you say has some credence. But so far if you look on what you wrote, it's speculation. I do not think anything has changed will last year's car to this year's.
Same problem of pushing too hard.

Are you serious? I told you what my evidence is - what the drivers said on the radio, as well as what virtually every Ferrari engineer except Clear (and he said that BEFORE the race in Bahrain, his opinion after the race was certainly different) said, and also Vasseur. In addition, every channel, whether Sky or F1TV brings evaluations of the lap times in long runs of practice and race. Even here in the forum are tens of such data, which prove without any doubt the tire problems... I have listed my evidence more than clearly and the data and statements are anyway familiar to everyone who follows Formula 1... what I find amusing is honestly still that you say it is obvious that Ferrari lacks downforce simply because you conclude it, but you doubt things that are proven beyond doubt by data in every F1 broadcast, by statements of drivers, team bosses and every technician. And even in this thread you can find enough data. So I would say - let's leave this discussion here, because it is more than obvious that this is a case of - I believe what fits into my worldview and what is clearly proven I don't care. And finally everyone can make up his own mind about what you say here and what I say and what is proven and what is not.

every other Ferrari engineer --- who exactly?
Jock Clear after Bahrain.... did not see him say anything after the race.
Vasseur .. not the race engineer, and seems clueless about the team at this stage and mostly speculates.
Sky F1.. speculates just as we do here on f1 tech. They are not on the team.
Tens of data on tyres on F1T? I never see anyone here with tyre data, worse comparing tyre data across teams.

Ferrari lacks downforce, not because I conclude it, but because Jock Clear does, and team, it has no front end. Also the lap time data shows where redbull gains on Ferrari. So I can say the car has less downforce. I just do not have the evidence to describe the mechanisms of anything on the car.

And agree, anyone can make up his mind. But that means you have no grounds to determine if someone elses suggestions is "off the mark".
As far as I am aware, Ferrari have not released any data on their tyre usage, neither is any engineer quoted on such.
They have commented on the front end and simply lack of load and balance on the car compared to redbull.
We see on the lap traces as well where the grip falls away and the gap widens to redbull.