Ferrari SF23

[Andi76]

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.

That's a bit of a generalization. Both depend on the degree. Ultimately, everything is speculation. We know for sure neither one nor the other. Everything is possible. In the end, it could simply be that Red Bull and Aston Martin have found something that allows them to drive 10mm lower. And that all the others have no problem at all, but are simply too slow and therefore have a higher tire degradation.

I would like to note that the suspension of the AOM metric is something that has been reported by the Italian media. I personally have not heard this yet and i am not sure if this is true.

[Vanja #66]

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?

If this is indeed how it is, then the core problem is correlation between simulations (simulator and/or aero development) and on-track performance. However, it is also in contradiction with team statements on correlation - which doesn't make it false, but should be noted. If there's bouncing earlier, than they could also be generating more downforce than they expected, triggering it early. Bouncing could also occur earlier than expected if you overestimate tyre wall stiffness, leading you to believe you have bigger ride height than you do (not really that likely, but should be noted).

If this is how it is, the floor could also have an issue with stiffness, meaning it deforms more than it should regardless of the new rules requiring stiffer floor edges. This wouldn't be surprising, due to the trouble with new rear wing structure, showing the team is pushing lightweight structure just over the limit. Also, the rear end of the floor is more exposed than last year, which could mean the edges near diffuser are indeed more flexible than intended, providing better sealing and generating more downforce than expected. I believe this was one of the biggest issues for W13 and the bouncing that kept happening even after Barcelona floor upgrade.

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?

Clearly the car was legal within the plank wear measurement procedures in place until TD39. I'm not sure what exactly made the team raise the car last year, plank wear or bouncing acceleration/amplitude metric.

I would like to note that the suspension of the AOM metric is something that has been reported by the Italian media. I personally have not heard this yet and i am not sure if this is true.

Indeed, the whole TD seems to have been dropped since the start of the season, although silently and without public information so far.

[Joshuadbn]

Excuse my ignorance, but i read today that the FIA had removed TD39 from the rules, so what stops Ferrari from going back to the floor specification used prior to TD39? Can it not be made to work in some way?

[Andi76]

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?

If this is indeed how it is, then the core problem is correlation between simulations (simulator and/or aero development) and on-track performance. However, it is also in contradiction with team statements on correlation - which doesn't make it false, but should be noted. If there's bouncing earlier, than they could also be generating more downforce than they expected, triggering it early. Bouncing could also occur earlier than expected if you overestimate tyre wall stiffness, leading you to believe you have bigger ride height than you do (not really that likely, but should be noted).

If this is how it is, the floor could also have an issue with stiffness, meaning it deforms more than it should regardless of the new rules requiring stiffer floor edges. This wouldn't be surprising, due to the trouble with new rear wing structure, showing the team is pushing lightweight structure just over the limit. Also, the rear end of the floor is more exposed than last year, which could mean the edges near diffuser are indeed more flexible than intended, providing better sealing and generating more downforce than expected. I believe this was one of the biggest issues for W13 and the bouncing that kept happening even after Barcelona floor upgrade.

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?

Clearly the car was legal within the plank wear measurement procedures in place until TD39. I'm not sure what exactly made the team raise the car last year, plank wear or bouncing acceleration/amplitude metric.

I would like to note that the suspension of the AOM metric is something that has been reported by the Italian media. I personally have not heard this yet and i am not sure if this is true.

Indeed, the whole TD seems to have been dropped since the start of the season, although silently and without public information so far.

With regard to the tires, I would like to remember - Ferrari had the same problems in 2011. The car worked with soft tires, but not at all with the hard ones. In Barcelona, for example, Alonso led the first two stints where he used soft tires and then switched to hard ones. He fell back to 5th place and was even lapped. Ferrari then sacked Costa and De Luca. A new rear suspension with greater recovery of camber and a lower roll center, which had already been planned by Aldo Costa, solved the problems, which were very similar to those of 2022 and 2023 as far as the tires were concerned.

[codetower]

Indeed, the whole TD seems to have been dropped since the start of the season, although silently and without public information so far.

Does this mean that the SF23 has been operating outside the TD so far this year? Might explain some of the porpoising being present again. If they have been working outside the TD, should we be concerned that they haven't found the performance they lost SINCE the directive was put in place last year?

[gordonthegun]

Ferrari front brakes (left: F1-75; right: SF23):

[Andi76]

Indeed, the whole TD seems to have been dropped since the start of the season, although silently and without public information so far.

Does this mean that the SF23 has been operating outside the TD so far this year? Might explain some of the porpoising being present again. If they have been working outside the TD, should we be concerned that they haven't found the performance they lost SINCE the directive was put in place last year?

What hurt Ferrari most about the TD39 was that the FIA changed the rules regarding flexibility. Ferrari made the best use of this and integrated it. Unfortunately this was not revised but only the AOM metric.

I still think the problem is mainly in the suspension area, which unlike Red Bull doesn't allow the aerodynamic platform to stay stable. Red Bull doesn't use a lot of anti-dive and rear anti-squad for nothing, and an upper suspension triangle that is made from one piece (actually a Ferrari/Rory Byrne innovation!). This makes the suspension itself inherently stiffer, which is very important if you want to go as low as possible. However, it then allows softer springs and dampers to be used, whereas Ferrari has to run an extremely stiff set-up here. This would actually completely explain Ferrari's problems and their performance, which lack of downforce alone would not do.

[AR3-GP]

Indeed, the whole TD seems to have been dropped since the start of the season, although silently and without public information so far.

Does this mean that the SF23 has been operating outside the TD so far this year? Might explain some of the porpoising being present again. If they have been working outside the TD, should we be concerned that they haven't found the performance they lost SINCE the directive was put in place last year?

What hurt Ferrari most about the TD39 was that the FIA changed the rules regarding flexibility. Ferrari made the best use of this and integrated it. Unfortunately this was not revised but only the AOM metric.

I still think the problem is mainly in the suspension area, which unlike Red Bull doesn't allow the aerodynamic platform to stay stable. Red Bull doesn't use a lot of anti-dive and rear anti-squad for nothing, and an upper suspension triangle that is made from one piece (actually a Ferrari/Rory Byrne innovation!). This makes the suspension itself inherently stiffer, which is very important if you want to go as low as possible. However, it then allows softer springs and dampers to be used, whereas Ferrari has to run an extremely stiff set-up here. This would actually completely explain Ferrari's problems and their performance, which lack of downforce alone would not do.

It's very rare to see a new suspension in-season. The kinds of changes you are proposing regarding the geometry require a new monocoque and new gearbox carrier. That is 100% not going to happen in 2023.

It would be much easier for Ferrari if they could tune out this behavior with the floor because floor changes are easy. Suspension won't change until '24.

[continuum16]

I would be surprised if this were true, specifically the new suspension for reasons already discussed. I could see a tweaked floor and sidepods for sure but I don’t think that’s beyond the scope of normal development.

[FDD]

From Funo Analisi Tecnica, I hope that gays with knowledge here will comment/give their opinion.
"In Jeddah , in addition to overheating, there was even a difficulty in activating the compounds added to the impossibility of better managing the operating window of the compounds.
From the on board analysis , through the Ferrari steering wheel dashboard , we have repeatedly observed how the tires did not reach the ideal temperature with a clear asynchrony between the axles.
The diffuser-beam wing-rear wing group, in ground effect, creates the maximum load in a specific configuration, which can undergo only minimal variations. Since the problems encountered mainly concern the race, the focal point of the story could be another. That is, that the root of the problem during the race is generated by the tires which consequently poison the aerodynamics. To explain this better, if the compounds are colder on Sunday, their structure will be stiffer as there is less thermal deformation.
This difference in stiffness automatically leads to a discrepancy in ground clearance. Gap that could also be around 3/5mm. This scenario would explain the poor performance shown with the white band Pirellis , a compound that the red was unable to bring up to temperature in Arab soil. Furthermore, a lower temperature also means higher pressure and, consequently, a non-optimal footprint. "Real" problem already suffered by Ferrari in other seasons.
Furthermore, lately there have been rumors according to which a new rear suspension should arrive which the Maranello technicians are optimizing to have a greater camber recovery and better treat the tyres. We cannot be absolutely certain about this fact. However, according to the information collected by our editorial staff, it seems that the rear suspension system will not undergo changes in the short term.
There is a lot of talk about anti-squats , but often things don't add up. While it is true that the upper triangles (front and rear) are steeply inclined, what really matters is the height difference between the center of pitch and the center of mass. From this context derives the greater "spacing" between these two points seen on Red Bull which produces a minor "anti-dive".
Undoubtedly better load stability at different heights is one of the strengths of the Austrian car which, however, does not depend on the "anti-dive" and "anti-squat" suspension layout . The blue racing bolide is less sensitive to depressions, managing to reduce the " plank-wear ", i.e. the degradation of the wooden platform under the car. Factor that allows for a further lowering of the car."

[SoulPancake13]

I would be surprised if this were true, specifically the new suspension for reasons already discussed. I could see a tweaked floor and sidepods for sure but I don’t think that’s beyond the scope of normal development.

Revised rear suspension ≠ new rear suspension per se, could be some adjustments instead. Still, it is Nugnes...

[continuum16]

From Funo Analisi Tecnica, I hope that gays with knowledge here will comment/give their opinion.
"In Jeddah..."

From a high level view; everything seems plausible at least, and I agree that changing the suspension does not seem viable. The axle imbalance seems quite likely, given that the car seems to be very hard to set up across compounds, not particularly comfortable to drive, and has a big difference between race and qualifying trim.

My theory (which is not by any means correct) is that (based on driver and team comments) the lack of front downforce (or at least aero balance front to rear) means they have to work the front tires harder mechanically (i.e. susp. setup rather than geometry) than anticipated to give peak grip. This more or less alleviates the difference in qualifying, but over a stint this will overwork the fronts as the lack of front DF will result in sliding as the tires lose grip, causing overheating and a compounding issue. And they cannot simply take rear wing off to balance it because that will just cause the same problem at the rear.

This makes me think that perhaps they over-estimated how different the 2023 Pirelli front compounds would be. The F1-75 did not seem to be an particularly understeer-y car; if anything it was quite tail-happy (this is why Sainz struggled a lot at the start). So with the assumption that the 2023 Pirellis would be more prone to an oversteer balance, it would make sense to shift the balance more towards understeer/weaker front end for the SF23 compared to F1-75. When it emerges that the 2023 Pirellis are not really that different to 2022 (I know Verstappen has said it has not been that different, and nobody else has really said one way or the other), you end up with an evolution of the F1-75 with an inherently weak front end, which is what the SF23 appears to be.

All you can do in the meantime is try to run the car in as little compromised state as possible until you can get a better front end on this car or wait until 2024. On a high level, not dissimilar to the W13; the car was designed to be run a certain way and when that's not possible, then you have to compromise the whole thing. This would also explain why Ferrari is so sure this car has "untapped potential" despite its current performance. Without wishing to get off topic, I don't think by any means that Ferrari missed the mark as badly as Merc did in 2022.

If the final spec of 2023 front Pirelli was only given to teams in Abu Dhabi last year, then the SF-23 may have been too developed to change this fundamental balance before the start of this year. Not unlike McLaren to some extent (although we know McLaren's issues are different and specifically floor-related). But I do not know the specific timelines from Pirelli or the team and this is nothing more than a theory.

[hollus]

Time for a reminder:

A reminder to everyone but specially to the new people (welcome!).
We know the season has just started and the passions are high, but...

The car threads are specially strictly moderated in this forum. Stick to this car and to hardware in the car threads.
Team politics and other team things, please in the team threads.
Lap times, happy faces, sensations and will they be faster/slower than XYZ, either in the team threads or in the race threads.

If your post is in this thread and is not centering on this car, the physical car, it might have been or might be deleted or moved.
Let's keep the awesome car threads on this forum
a) focused on the hardware and
b) awesome.

Anyone counting how many posts land, daily, on the car threads, should see why this needed.

Thanks.

Much of the last pages was borderline, there is, really, truly, a car comparison thread. It exists, I have seen it. Chest bumping and cars from years ago... not in this thread.

[jambuka]

Just watched Charles Q3 qualifying lap at Jeddah. Even on soft's the car was bouncing. To me this indicates one of two things
1) They run the ride height lower in qualifying to get the single lap performance w/ compromise on bouncing. (Are they even allowed to change the ride height in between qualy and race ?). If they can't change the ride height, then clearly the ride height getting influenced by not able to heat the compound and make it softer on hards does not make sense as the car still bounces on the softs. So does that mean they have a problem heatings softs too ? But performance on softs in qualy and race indicates otherwise.
2) The actual heat generation problem gets masked in qualification because of softs being more grippy.

Also why would they not scrubs the hards in practice itself like what AMR did at Jeddah ?

[AR3-GP]

Just watched Charles Q3 qualifying lap at Jeddah. Even on soft's the car was bouncing. To me this indicates one of two things

I don't think that was bouncing. You will notice a similar amount of movement from other cars onboards in Jeddah.