Ferrari SF23

[AR3-GP]

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.

Why would lowering the car without instability cause higher degradation? More ground effect means less tire slip.

Imo, they are avoiding lowering the car because it caused bouncing in Bahrain.

[Vanja #66]

I'm saying that was the biggest problem the team complained about after Bahrain. Later explanation from italian media was the car was running too low and was heating the tyres too much. The car running low was also evident from the footage during the race, so Italian media weren't wrong about that point.

There's a lot of reasons the tyres could have been heating up too much, some of which could be suspension geometry related, some of which could be setup related. Some could be downforce related (lack of it clearly), but we've seen the car in both Q sessions and Vasseur since stated a simple thing - I don't believe the second best car in qualifying is not a good car. Good cars don't lack downforce, do they?

[Andi76]

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.

This is less about what stopping Ferrari than what allows Red Bull to go 10mm lower than everyone else....

[Andi76]

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.

Why would lowering the car without instability cause higher degradation? More ground effect means less tire slip.

Imo, they are avoiding lowering the car because it caused bouncing in Bahrain.

If you put too much energy into the tire or are at the limit, more downforce leads to even more energy going into the tire and it heats up even more. That would then be a clear case of a suspension problem.

[AR3-GP]

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




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

Why would lowering the car without instability cause higher degradation? More ground effect means less tire slip.

Imo, they are avoiding lowering the car because it caused bouncing in Bahrain.

If you put too much energy into the tire or are at the limit, more downforce leads to even more energy going into the tire and it heats up even more. That would then be a clear case of a suspension problem.

This problem did not exist on the launch spec SF-75. I'm not convinced that Ferrari screwed up the suspension design. As I said before, Ferrari have decades of suspension design experience.

[Andi76]

Why would lowering the car without instability cause higher degradation? More ground effect means less tire slip.

Imo, they are avoiding lowering the car because it caused bouncing in Bahrain.

If you put too much energy into the tire or are at the limit, more downforce leads to even more energy going into the tire and it heats up even more. That would then be a clear case of a suspension problem.

This problem did not exist on the launch spec SF-75. I'm not convinced that Ferrari screwed up the suspension design. As I said before, Ferrari have decades of suspension design experience.

I am not saying that it is so. But it is a possibility. Especially because the requirements have changed with the Ground Effect cars. The tires are also new. And Ferrari has used virtually the same suspension geometry in recent years, something the Italian media criticized last year as well. And experience doesn't protect you from all the complexity - Benetton/Toleman had 20 years of experience in suspension design and yet in 1997 they had the problem of not getting the tires up to temperature because of problems with the suspension design...like I said - it's a possibility, I'm not saying it's so. But it is a possibility.

And on the F1-75 - I watched the first races in the last few days. And with the F1-75, you could actually see that after 8 laps, the times dropped by a second. But also with the Red Bull. Which then made a giant leap in Imola. So I wouldn't be so sure that this wasn't already there at the launch of the Spec F1-75. But that would have to be analyzed in more detail (which I'm doing right now, but unfortunately I have little time left).

[Vanja #66]

If you are forced to raise the car beyond its intended operating window, there's no telling how it will react overall, as seen with W13 and post-td39 F1-75. Ferrari lacking downforce was an easy explanation for deg trouble, without even going into suspension analysis.

[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.

This is less about what stopping Ferrari than what allows Red Bull to go 10mm lower than everyone else....

I think you should be able to answer this about ferrari, if you are dismissing other opinions.

[AR3-GP]

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.

This is less about what stopping Ferrari than what allows Red Bull to go 10mm lower than everyone else....

Ferrari just took 2 RB Aeros. Italian autosport said that it is not a "magical suspension system".

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... /10448237/

The Formula 1 technical regulations prohibit the electronic control of the movement of kinematics and, since the FIA did not find any suitable device to control the suspensions during the checks, it is reasonable to think that there is no "cunning".

This was confirmed by the two Red Bull engineers who arrived in Maranello this winter to reinforce the aerodynamic staff directed by Diego Tondi.

Also, you will note that Aston Martin have also been driving lower than the others according to Mercedes.

What do these two teams have in common?

[ringo]

If you are forced to raise the car beyond its intended operating window, there's no telling how it will react overall, as seen with W13 and post-td39 F1-75. Ferrari lacking downforce was an easy explanation for deg trouble, without even going into suspension analysis.

Why would you be forced to raise the car?
Andi beautify skirted around the question. So can you answer. What is happening that forces the team to raise the car?

[DoctorRadio]

No engineer here, it is possible that they tried to go lower in Bahrain to gain the downforce they were lacking from the wings and had to stiffen the suspensions set up to have a stable aero and avoid porpoising (that according to Duchessa it is coming before than they expected).

In fact Duchessa (or better, his Ferrari sources) claims that the set up that Ferrari used in the simulator (soft settings and low ride height) are not usable because porpoising occurs earlier than they thought, so, as in Bahrain, they would be forced to use stiffer settings (that exacerbate the overheating of the tyres) with lower ride heights (optimum floor downforce) or they can use soft settings (helping with tyre deg) but with higher ride heights (at Jeddah, good downforce from the new rear wing, but lacking overall for the higher ride heights and thus failing to put heat into the hard tyres); so would the floor be the root cause of their problems?

[Vanja #66]

Why would you be forced to raise the car?
Andi beautify skirted around the question. So can you answer. What is happening that forces the team to raise the car?

I was replying to AR3's f1-75 remark and lack of tyre issues before td-39. I've already responded to your question about raising SF-23 between Bahrain and Jeddah.

I'm saying that was the biggest problem the team complained about after Bahrain. Later explanation from italian media was the car was running too low and was heating the tyres too much. The car running low was also evident from the footage during the race, so Italian media weren't wrong about that point.

There's a lot of reasons the tyres could have been heating up too much, some of which could be suspension geometry related, some of which could be setup related. Some could be downforce related (lack of it clearly), but we've seen the car in both Q sessions and Vasseur since stated a simple thing - I don't believe the second best car in qualifying is not a good car. Good cars don't lack downforce, do they?

Sorry for not always quoting the question, sometimes I forget it when on phone...

[deadhead]

If you are forced to raise the car beyond its intended operating window, there's no telling how it will react overall, as seen with W13 and post-td39 F1-75. Ferrari lacking downforce was an easy explanation for deg trouble, without even going into suspension analysis.

Can we touch on that flexible floor on the F1-75 launch spec then? Maybe it was an essential component to their whole formula, and as soon as they had to worry about plank wear, it all fell apart?

[Andi76]

If you are forced to raise the car beyond its intended operating window, there's no telling how it will react overall, as seen with W13 and post-td39 F1-75. Ferrari lacking downforce was an easy explanation for deg trouble, without even going into suspension analysis.

Why would you be forced to raise the car?
Andi beautify skirted around the question. So can you answer. What is happening that forces the team to raise the car?

In most cases team are forced to raise the car because of plank wear. If you are referring to porpoising, it is worth mentioning that, according to media reports, the FIA has abolished the AOM metric for 2023 and you no longer have to raise the car because of porpoising.

[AR3-GP]

If you are forced to raise the car beyond its intended operating window, there's no telling how it will react overall, as seen with W13 and post-td39 F1-75. Ferrari lacking downforce was an easy explanation for deg trouble, without even going into suspension analysis.

Why would you be forced to raise the car?
Andi beautify skirted around the question. So can you answer. What is happening that forces the team to raise the car?

In most cases team are forced to raise the car because of plank wear. If you are referring to porpoising, it is worth mentioning that the FIA has abolished the AOM metric for 2023. You no longer have to raise the car because of porpoising.

Porpoising causes plank wear and tire degradation.