Ferrari SF23

[F1NAC]

So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )

[ringo]

The lower cone is the lower side impact structure I suppose?
And this is blocking them from copying red bull.
Well let's hope that suspension tweaks is the solution, but it does not explain the deficit in race compared to qualifying.
Unless there is something to do with fuel weight, and tyre pressures impacting the aero. But that would be very extreme for the car to be on redbull pace in qualy, then wind up fighting with mercedes in race. Let's see!

[ing.]

The lower cone is the lower side impact structure I suppose?
And this is blocking them from copying red bull.

Lack of foresight to not bury the lower SIS in the floor to allow for a greater range of development, especially considering the current SIS location requires a blister in the body work to accommodate this.

[Vanja #66]

So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )

I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.

Lack of foresight to not bury the lower SIS in the floor to allow for a greater range of development, especially considering the current SIS location requires a blister in the body work to accommodate this.

Lack of SIS tube in the floor allows for far greater floor design freedom, as we've established numerous times already.

[AR3-GP]

So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )

I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.

Ferrari ran an updated floor in Australia and had much better race pace.

Ferrari even said recently that they were correcting an aero problem which caused the problems in Bahrain.

I also don't see any evidence of structure issues after Bahrain.


This is also not really answering a question about which sidepods are better. It's just a matter of executing your own concept properly, which Ferrari didn't really do so far. We were told the windtunnel model was 1 second faster so they are not translating to the track.

[Vanja #66]

Ferrari ran an updated floor in Australia and had much better race pace.

Ferrari even said recently that they were correcting an aero problem which caused the problems in Bahrain.

I also don't see any evidence of structure issues after Bahrain.

Yes, floor updated concerned the rear edges and also the floor stay, which was extended from diffuser kick fully to the bottom of the edges.

OLD: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp03I7rWYAECSj8?format=jpg

NEW: https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ail-1.webp

I pointed out earlier that they may have had too much downforce in Bahrain due to low ride height, but also due to flexing of the edges, causing too much sealing and unexpected downforce increase. Extended stay suggests this was indeed the case.

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.

[AR3-GP]

Ferrari ran an updated floor in Australia and had much better race pace.

Ferrari even said recently that they were correcting an aero problem which caused the problems in Bahrain.

I also don't see any evidence of structure issues after Bahrain.

Yes, floor updated concerned the rear edges and also the floor stay, which was extended from diffuser kick fully to the bottom of the edges.

OLD: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp03I7rWYAECSj8?format=jpg

NEW: https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ail-1.webp

I pointed out earlier that they may have had too much downforce in Bahrain due to low ride height, but also due to flexing of the edges, causing too much sealing and unexpected downforce increase. Extended stay suggests this was indeed the case.

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.

Too much downforce, yes the problem all teams want to have

[Vanja #66]

Too much downforce, yes the problem all teams want to have

Just ask Mercedes about their early 2022

[Xwang]

So basically this concept need to work otherwise they are way behind others regarding experience in RBlike concept. So basically if this doesn't work out.. 2024 is compromised, so only real chance is in 2025, and after that there will be a new set of regulations (engines only or aero as well? )

I am still waiting for any evidence or explanation of how RB (and Alpine too, from 2022 launch) side concept is superior to any other, including Ferrari. SF-23 race pace troubles aren't coming from aero concept, but from re-learning about race setup and some structural issues with too light parts - floor (edges) included.

Lack of foresight to not bury the lower SIS in the floor to allow for a greater range of development, especially considering the current SIS location requires a blister in the body work to accommodate this.

Lack of SIS tube in the floor allows for far greater floor design freedom, as we've established numerous times already.

Can you please show me in which way Ferrari has used this greater floor design freedom? IMHO it seems that they have not used it at all (in term of performance), so they have only the negatives of this solution without any positive.

[Farnborough]

Relative to Ferrari historical lineage going toward SF23, that 70/71H architecture was blisteringly fast in the same manor as this RB iteration.

I know there was engine "mystery" power there, but nevertheless a very high performance aero as part of that. They seem to have convinced themselves this SF23 is better direction, but looks like they possessed a better concept then in that era of sidepods.

[Xyz22]

Probably the first sensible analysis of SF-23 outside of this forum since the Bahrain race:

F1 Ferrari, SF-23 development plan: changing balance, not concept

Scuderia Ferrari believes that at the moment the main problem of the SF-23 is not aerodynamic efficiency, i.e. the ratio between load and drag. In Maranello, in fact, it is thought that the maximum performance of the Red Bull, seen above all in qualifying, is not too far from Red Bull, with the internal impression of always having the potential to fight for pole position. Qualifying in Australia is seen as an anomaly due to human errors on the pit wall and the drivers, which deprived Ferrari of what could have been another front row after Charles Leclerc’s second place on Saturday in Jeddah, later canceled out by the penalty on the grid, and third in qualifying for the Bahrain Grand Prix.

***
Ferrari is currently working on the mechanical set-up of the suspension to act on aerodynamics, as explained by F1 expert Carlo Platella for formulapassion.it. This means adjusting the static ground clearance and the stiffness of the springs and shock absorbers differently, so as to check how the distance from the ground and the inclination of the car body change when cornering, braking and at various speeds. In other words, in Maranello they try to keep the floor in such a position as to shift the aerodynamic balance of the SF-23 towards the rear, in search of greater stability.

***

For the moment, therefore, Ferrari continues on its path, until it is thought that the SF-23 can continue to grow. Overturning the concept without the certainty of a clear improvement compared to the current philosophy, of which Mercedes is convinced, would be counterproductive for a threefold reason. In fact, it would force the Maranello team to start from scratch, with little expertise on a concept developed for over a year by its rivals; with the lower cone protecting the passenger compartment not integrated into the bottom, it would be impossible to replicate the sidepods of Red Bull. It would mean Ferrari has to redo the chassis for 2024, with no option to choose whether to reuse the 2023 one instead to save money from the budget cap.

Hopefully they will be able to fix the issues. These first 3 races have been way worse than my already pessimistic prediction.

One thing that i didn't understand. If they are trying to shift the balance to the rear, wouldn't that cause even more understeer? Thanks.

[Vanja #66]

Can you please show me in which way Ferrari has used this greater floor design freedom? IMHO it seems that they have not used it at all (in term of performance), so they have only the negatives of this solution without any positive.

What exactly are the negatives?

One thing that i didn't understand. If they are trying to shift the balance to the rear, wouldn't that cause even more understeer? Thanks.

I don't think it's exactly and only about shifting balance to the rear, they need to find the right mechanical setup for the working window they are aiming for. Working window in this case is for both the tyres and floor performance primarily.

[Xwang]

Can you please show me in which way Ferrari has used this greater floor design freedom? IMHO it seems that they have not used it at all (in term of performance), so they have only the negatives of this solution without any positive.

What exactly are the negatives?

The first negative that I see is that they cannot move to use the redbull sidepods concept even if it gives better results because they would have the sis fully exposed to the air (so a big aero blockage where the redbull expect to have nothing).

It is strange to me that every F1 team is moving to that approach except ferrari (and sister car haas).

[Vanja #66]

The first negative that I see is that they cannot move to use the redbull sidepods concept even if it gives better results because they would have the sis fully exposed to the air (so a big aero blockage where the redbull expect to have nothing).

It is strange to me that every F1 team is moving to that approach except ferrari (and sister car haas).

There are a couple of question that need be asked and answered and I can't get an answer on the most important one - what exactly is the benefit and advantage of downwash sidepods of RB, ATR and Alpine since early 2022 vs the inwash concept of Ferrari and Haas? Can you tell me this? Or is it really just about other teams adopting this solution? If it's that, I'll repeat myself

The reason 7 teams went towards downwash style is not the same for all of them. RB, ATR and Alpine started with it in 2022, while AMR had the B spec in WT in November or December 2021 from what I recall (that's also a reference to your other comment about AMR, original idea was scrapped for good even in 2021). McLaren and Sauber have a lot of centerline cooling and they wouldn't be able to make Ferrari concept work without big drag penalty, Williams too plus they already went to RB-Ferrari hybrid last year.

Did McLaren, Sauber or Williams make a huge performance jump after they adopted RB sides? Not really, AMR did between seasons but not because of sides (since they have their own design there and their outwash undercut is actually like Ferrari, not like RB) - it's because of the floor performance and systematic suspension-floor integration. Sauber went backwards this year in fact...

If any team right now tried to copy Ferrari sides, they would suffer from a drag penalty because they have bigger airboxes and centreline cooling. AMR does infact suffer from this, even if most of their drag comes from bigger rear wing, their sides are also very wide and not as streamlined as Ferrari or RB - hence the small drag penalty AMR accepted.

It's understandable that people still believe sidepods are the magic bullet since they are the only design-free area visible to us viewers. However, the other design-free area is the actual performance differentiator - the floor (and it's integration with suspension).

Sidepods, like suspension (not sure if this is an appropriate comparison, but I like to make it) are an area where you can loose a lot of performance with poor design, but you can't gain much if your basic design is already good. Mercees made a huge mistake with sidepod design last year - evident by reoccurrence of bouncing even when they redesigned the floor for Barcelona and gave up on some of the raw floor downforce. Neither RB nor Ferrari gained a lot with 2022-2023 sidepod refinement, they simply shed a bit more drag each by tightening the bodywork in the manner applicable to their designs.

As a lot of reports and a few of us suggested since the end of Bahrain testing - the core problem of SF-23 as a chassis is suspension setup (maybe even design, but improvements in Australia do not support this) and getting the right operating window for optimal floor performance. Reliability and team performance are responsible the most for poor overall results, but on the chassis side the aero (sidepods included) isn't the problem.

[SiLo]

I think more teams are finally cottoning onto the fact that the suspension setup is of far greater importance now for keeping the floor stable. The Red Bull just looks supremely well setup, it rides bumps well, never bounces, looks just soft enough for everything but stiff enough to run nice and low and keep it there.

I'm guessing that's where Ferrari see the biggest benefit, and that their concept isn't bad, maybe in the same way that Mercedes concept isn't bad, but not having a suspension setup to run it optimally really hurts them in the race.