Ferrari SF23

[ringo]

Check my post in W14 thread. Please model and test and underfloor with the two different philosophies mentioned. It would answer your questions.

[Vanja #66]

Oh but that would take months and probably wouldn't give any answers. I was hoping you could share sooner...

There are lots of performance driving mechanisms for the floor, but I honestly don't know of anything that helps with better performance in higher ride height.

[dialtone]

Some folks here are funny… ride height has exponential changes in downforce at the height and speed they’re operating at. How can designing a new floor beat physics? They would need to create a floor so superior that it would practically be magic or entirely change car philosophy which you can't really do.

[AR3-GP]

Some folks here are funny… ride height has exponential changes in downforce at the height and speed they’re operating at. How can designing a new floor beat physics? They would need to create a floor so superior that it would practically be magic or entirely change car philosophy which you can't really do.

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

[Vanja #66]

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

Yes, RB and now AMR have the same philosophy of a single kick near the diffuser. Although, we haven't really seen RB floor since Monaco. I believe that particular floor profile (and profile alone) has slightly less potential than typical ground effect floor, however it's impossible to say how other floor features on RB and AMR behave and how much performance they add compared to "basic" floor design.

The problem with Ferrari suspension is most likely down to setup, not the inherit suspension design issue. Setup can cost a lot obviously, as we've seen in Australia, Austria and Brazil to en extent on the RB18 example.

[Andi76]

Some folks here are funny… ride height has exponential changes in downforce at the height and speed they’re operating at. How can designing a new floor beat physics? They would need to create a floor so superior that it would practically be magic or entirely change car philosophy which you can't really do.

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

I don't think that's what he meant. But that there are people who talk about Ferrari needing a new underbody because it produces too little downforce without taking into account that the ride height plays a big role in the downforce of such an underbody. I can have an underbody that produces more downforce than the one of my competitor, but if I have to drive 10mm higher, it will produce less downforce. So you can't judge whether the Ferrari underbody produces less downforce than the Red Bull, for example. It could just as well be that the Ferrari underbody produces even more with the same ride height. Anything else is simply an assertion without any substance, because the vehicle height makes an extremely large difference with these floors. And last year, downforce from the floor was not a problem last year.

[AR3-GP]

Some folks here are funny… ride height has exponential changes in downforce at the height and speed they’re operating at. How can designing a new floor beat physics? They would need to create a floor so superior that it would practically be magic or entirely change car philosophy which you can't really do.

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

I don't think that's what he meant. But that there are people who talk about Ferrari needing a new underbody because it produces too little downforce without taking into account that the ride height plays a big role in the downforce of such an underbody. I can have an underbody that produces more downforce than the one of my competitor, but if I have to drive 10mm higher, it will produce less downforce. So you can't judge whether the Ferrari underbody produces less downforce than the Red Bull, for example. It could just as well be that the Ferrari underbody produces even more with the same ride height. Anything else is simply an assertion without any substance, because the vehicle height makes an extremely large difference with these floors. And last year, downforce from the floor was not a problem last year.

I understand and agree.

[ringo]

Some folks here are funny… ride height has exponential changes in downforce at the height and speed they’re operating at. How can designing a new floor beat physics? They would need to create a floor so superior that it would practically be magic or entirely change car philosophy which you can't really do.

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

I don't think that's what he meant. But that there are people who talk about Ferrari needing a new underbody because it produces too little downforce without taking into account that the ride height plays a big role in the downforce of such an underbody. I can have an underbody that produces more downforce than the one of my competitor, but if I have to drive 10mm higher, it will produce less downforce. So you can't judge whether the Ferrari underbody produces less downforce than the Red Bull, for example. It could just as well be that the Ferrari underbody produces even more with the same ride height. Anything else is simply an assertion without any substance, because the vehicle height makes an extremely large difference with these floors. And last year, downforce from the floor was not a problem last year.

Andi, you cannot separate the two. You cannot say the Ferrari underbody produces more downforce with the same rideheight and then at different heights its worthless, but it's a good floor anyway if not the best.
The floor cannot be okay if it only works at an instant. That was my point, and i think most would agree.
The cars work in a range of heights, that are constantly changing. The car will never ride at the same height not even for 0.5 seconds, it must change once the throtfle is pressed or the brakes are applied, or even off throttle.
You wont design an audio speaker that can only play one frequency equisitly then then say this is the best speaker on the market.
Even if the ferrari had average suspension, the floor should be design for various heights, just as a wing profile is design for a range of angles of attack.
The team will be chasing their tails if they put a lot of resources into a suspension to keep the floor in a narrow band, when they would be better off making a floor with a wide range of operation that can deal with the suspension movements then refine suspension thereafter.
Point noted that maybe RB are riding lower. But why is that? Is it because of floor is more capable or suspension is more capable?

I have a theory that the venturis under the RBR have a more rearward COP and have bigger volume underneath. Posted in w14 thread. And i think this is why they can ride lower.

[AR3-GP]

I agree with the first point that currently it's not understood why Ferrari cant run "lower". They were porpoising in Bahrain (Sainz in the race), and people noted it during free practice. This may also be the explanation because as we know, porpoising causes excessive tire and plank wear. If that is the case then it points to a weakness in the floor design.

I also don't buy the usage of any magical suspension design by RB, and the latest italian motorsport article pretty much said as much. There it is said that the 2 RB aeros who went to Ferrari this year debunked the idea of a magical suspension system. We have seen the handling characteristics of the RB19 in the AMR23, which is using a completely different suspension system. So suspension is likely not Ferrari's weakness. Teams have decades of experience designing suspension. This is not a Ferrari weakness.

[Vanja #66]

We're going way off topic, so a little heads up to prevent Mods from deleting further posts. Car comparison thread is the proper place for discussions about different cars

[Andi76]

I don’t know which post you read and haven’t, but Vanja did an explanation almost a year ago where he showed that philosophically the Ferrari underfloor is quite different to the RB underfloor.

Did you see that one? This could be responsible for the differences in behavior.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Ferrari’s suspension. Merc and AMR behave very differently with the same rear suspension. AMR are low like RB. Mercedes can’t run low. Why is that? They have the same suspension.

I’m not saying Ferrari can’t change the suspension and in theory create a magical suspension that holds perfect ground clearance while be compliant over bumps, but I suspect that might be harder than changing the floor at this point. In season, it’s easier to change a floor than a rear suspension.

I don't think that's what he meant. But that there are people who talk about Ferrari needing a new underbody because it produces too little downforce without taking into account that the ride height plays a big role in the downforce of such an underbody. I can have an underbody that produces more downforce than the one of my competitor, but if I have to drive 10mm higher, it will produce less downforce. So you can't judge whether the Ferrari underbody produces less downforce than the Red Bull, for example. It could just as well be that the Ferrari underbody produces even more with the same ride height. Anything else is simply an assertion without any substance, because the vehicle height makes an extremely large difference with these floors. And last year, downforce from the floor was not a problem last year.

Andi, you cannot separate the two. You cannot say the Ferrari underbody produces more downforce with the same rideheight and then at different heights its worthless, but it's a good floor anyway if not the best.
The floor cannot be okay if it only works at an instant. That was my point, and i think most would agree.
The cars work in a range of heights, that are constantly changing. The car will never ride at the same height not even for 0.5 seconds, it must change once the throtfle is pressed or the brakes are applied, or even off throttle.
You wont design an audio speaker that can only play one frequency equisitly then then say this is the best speaker on the market.
Even if the ferrari had average suspension, the floor should be design for various heights, just as a wing profile is design for a range of angles of attack.
The team will be chasing their tails if they put a lot of resources into a suspension to keep the floor in a narrow band, when they would be better off making a floor with a wide range of operation that can deal with the suspension movements then refine suspension thereafter.
Point noted that maybe RB are riding lower. But why is that? Is it because of floor is more capable or suspension is more capable?

I have a theory that the venturis under the RBR have a more rearward COP and have bigger volume underneath. Posted in w14 thread. And i think this is why they can ride lower.

I'm sorry, but I think you really don't understand, so I'll say it again clearly based on what you say - you claim that the Ferrari's underbody produces less downforce than the Red Bull. That may be true, however Red Bull can generally go 10mm lower. If Ferrari could do this, it could just as easily be that Ferrari's underbody produces as much downforce, or even more. 10mm makes a big difference here. If you want to deny this now, and there are even examples for this, one of them I already mentioned in one of my previous posts. If you want to deny this again, I recommend you to talk to aerodynamicists from Formula 1, or also to vehicle dynamics experts. Both will confirm that the downforce of the underbody is significantly higher if I can lower the car by 10mm. And there are things you are talking about, that a good underbody has to work in a wider range of ride heights, that don't play a role. If I can drive 10mm lower permanently, the underbody is always 10mm lower and therefore always develops comparatively more downforce.

[ringo]

I know the theory behind ground effect. Yes the lower you go the more suction. We get that.

But let me ask. What is stopping the Ferrari from riding 10mm lower?

What happens to it when it rides in that region?
Is there instability?

You answers will help everyone get a better understanding.

[ringo]

We're going way off topic, so a little heads up to prevent Mods from deleting further posts. Car comparison thread is the proper place for discussions about different cars

No we are talking about SF23 floor specifically.
Will try my best sticking to this car in the discussion. It would not be fair to swipe away the most interesting and uknown topic for these regs. We have a lot of sidepod talk.
The floor is the next frontier.

[Vanja #66]

But let me ask. What is stopping the Ferrari from riding 10mm lower?

What happens to it when it rides in that region?
Is there instability?

You answers will help everyone get a better understanding.

There was clearly no instability, but more degradation than it should be. From a limited, but the only available sample in Bahrain GP.

No we are talking about SF23 floor specifically.

There were a few non-SF23 related posts after yours, that were promptly moved to appropriate threads.

[ringo]

Vanja are you saying that the SF23 rideheight is tyre degradation limited? Just looking for clarification.