Ferrari SF23

[Xwang]

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.

Indeed I'm referring to the inability to copy the front lower part of the RB concept permitting more air to pass bettween the upper surface of th floor and the scaloped area of the sidepods and then over the diffuser.

[Vanja #66]

Indeed I'm referring to the inability to copy the front lower part of the RB concept permitting more air to pass bettween the upper surface of th floor and the scaloped area of the sidepods and then over the diffuser.

If big undercuts solve all the problems, launch spec AMR22 would have been a beast. It was a dud.

Look at how clean and unobstructive the bodywork and the whole rear end is when the car is in yaw



Closing off the front wheel wake in yaw with outwash undercut and letting clean air to the rear, even cleaner than AMR23:

[Vanja #66]

I honestly thought Ferrari would benefit from more downforce coming from the upper surfaces because they get more clean airflow to the rear wing with their cooling layout.

For previous gen cars usually the distribution of downforce was attributed to roughly 25-50-25% of FW-floor-RW. Now, with beam wing essentially being floor extension, some say the distribution is closer to 15-70-15%. That's a massive step and a massive devaluation of wings in overall downforce levels. FW lost due to being raised from the ground and floor rules making rake obsolete, while RW lost mostly due to the loss of top part of endplates.

Still, you don't want to have excess RW drag, especially since RB can afford higher drag DRS flap when closed, so in my view it always makes sense to have RW performing as close as possible to optimal isolated conditions. And, in the end, it's a very marginal gain for RW performance. So just to put some tangible numbers out there, imagine having two cars with exact same RW design, one "works" at 98% and the other at 99.9% so 1.9% difference in RW performance. Multiply 1.9% to 15% and you get 0.285% better overall car downforce. That's the order of magnitude and it's not big...

Since Newey is reported to be working on suspension of RB18 and 19 and, we can assume, RB20 as well, I am confident he knew very, very well how important it is to have a perfectly stable car, moving around the track like an iron over laundry

[AR3-GP]

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

You're asking the easy question

What is the benefit of the Ferrari sidepod over the rival sidepods? That's the question to ask

I don't have an answer either way fwiw.

[Sevach]

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

You're asking the easy question

What is the benefit of the Ferrari sidepod over the rival sidepods? That's the question to ask

I don't have an answer either way fwiw.

The way i see it the easy part would be for Ferrari to extend it's sidepod creating an outer wall.
Making it ramp down Aston Martin style is also doable, they'd probably need to move cooling louvers around to optimize attachment to the sidepod upper surface but it's doable.

Creating an undercut below the sidepod inlet on the other hand is impossible because of the SIS.

Ultimately trying to adapt this on the SF23 will always be a bit of a Frankenstein.

[AR3-GP]

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

You're asking the easy question

What is the benefit of the Ferrari sidepod over the rival sidepods? That's the question to ask

I don't have an answer either way fwiw.

The way i see it the easy part would be for Ferrari to extend it's sidepod creating an outer wall.
Making it ramp down Aston Martin style is also doable, they'd probably need to move cooling louvers around to optimize attachment to the sidepod upper surface but it's doable.

Creating an undercut below the sidepod inlet on the other hand is impossible because of the SIS.

Ultimately trying to adapt this on the SF23 will always be a bit of a Frankenstein.

Ferrari don't have a cannon outlet (where some centerline cooling is exhausted) and all of their cooling is inside the sidepod "belly". They wouldn't be able to have a ramp like AMR. It would clash with the radiators.

Also, this doesn't really answer why Ferrari should do what AMR are doing. I never said they should. I only asked if someone could attempt to explain the merits of their current sidepod design. I have neither a positive or negative intuition. I simply don't know.

[FDD]

Indeed I'm referring to the inability to copy the front lower part of the RB concept permitting more air to pass bettween the upper surface of th floor and the scaloped area of the sidepods and then over the diffuser.

If big undercuts solve all the problems, launch spec AMR22 would have been a beast. It was a dud.

Look at how clean and unobstructive the bodywork and the whole rear end is when the car is in yaw

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... dge-1.webp

Closing off the front wheel wake in yaw with outwash undercut and letting clean air to the rear, even cleaner than AMR23:

https://i.ibb.co/0Y6Tb4G/amr23-yaw-5-z300-cpt.jpg

Vanja if this is some new analysis by you where I can find this thread?
Thank you

[ringo]

Those cfd can be misleading. What yaw angle? and this is not Yaw really. It's just wind direction simulation.
The head on simulation is what must be shown.
A true yaw condition is a transient study. Yes the AMR can be sensitive to wind direction, but not necessarily yaw compared to the ferrari.

[SiLo]

I honestly thought Ferrari would benefit from more downforce coming from the upper surfaces because they get more clean airflow to the rear wing with their cooling layout.

For previous gen cars usually the distribution of downforce was attributed to roughly 25-50-25% of FW-floor-RW. Now, with beam wing essentially being floor extension, some say the distribution is closer to 15-70-15%. That's a massive step and a massive devaluation of wings in overall downforce levels. FW lost due to being raised from the ground and floor rules making rake obsolete, while RW lost mostly due to the loss of top part of endplates.

Still, you don't want to have excess RW drag, especially since RB can afford higher drag DRS flap when closed, so in my view it always makes sense to have RW performing as close as possible to optimal isolated conditions. And, in the end, it's a very marginal gain for RW performance. So just to put some tangible numbers out there, imagine having two cars with exact same RW design, one "works" at 98% and the other at 99.9% so 1.9% difference in RW performance. Multiply 1.9% to 15% and you get 0.285% better overall car downforce. That's the order of magnitude and it's not big...

Since Newey is reported to be working on suspension of RB18 and 19 and, we can assume, RB20 as well, I am confident he knew very, very well how important it is to have a perfectly stable car, moving around the track like an iron over laundry

A good way to represent that value of the underbody right there in the current regs. If this figures are even vaguely correct (15-70-15), then the quite clear extra development that Red Bull have done in that area is obviously going to net them so much more performance.

[Vinlarr89]

I think we’re getting a bit hung up on the “visible” element of the RB concept being the side pods and I don’t believe this to be the “be-all and end-all” to the success of the car. Sure it’s obviously very aero efficient, however both concepts are a means of delivering the airflow to the rear, and from the data SF23 doesn’t seem to have a big aero issue.

I think the bigger issue is what we can’t see, the floor and suspension and how they interact. IF Ferrari can somehow achieve better stability and open up a bigger window then that gal will reduce significantly as data proves the car can run at a good pace, but not consistently over a big operating window.

Like many have said, what’s clear is that RB have the mechanical and aero concepts working in harmony together, I don’t think the Ferrari is harmonious at all based on feedback.

Let’s hope the improved floor and suspension set ups coming make big inroads.
Looks like a DRS improvement is also on the cards which could yield a further benefit if they can work out where the advantage RB is gaining from their DRS and reimplement
Surprised to see no mention of a new front wing coming, as car still seems to lack some front end

[Vanja #66]

What is the benefit of the Ferrari sidepod over the rival sidepods?

I'd argue smaller airbox and internals over engine (so much smaller engine cover), inwash and very tight rear end, strong outwash undercut. This results in bigger sidepod drag, but is negated to an extent by smaller airbox. I'm 99% certain the biggest difference of these two sidepod concepts in terms of floor performance is rear tyre squirt management between these two, ie. how it's achieved. However, this is such a delicate thing and impossible for us to tell what exactly is going on or which concept is better for this.

Ultimately trying to adapt this on the SF23 will always be a bit of a Frankenstein.

Indeed, it was very expected to hear Mercedes have worse performance with unoptimised RB downwash sides than their slimpod mid-wing approach.

Vanja if this is some new analysis by you where I can find this thread?
Thank you

Posted in AMR23 thread --> viewtopic.php?p=1126479#p1126479

[.poz]

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

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...

80% of the downforce comes from the floor

maybe rb sidepods make their floor works slightly better, maybe those sidepods are useful for something else, like stalling the beamwing when drs is open but what make the difference is in the floor

btw, to stay in topic, i think that Ferrari can't switch to rb sidepods philosophy this year, they have to move all the radiators... maybe something hybrid but i think it will be a great waste of BC money

[hollus]

A reminder for everyone and specially for the new people (welcome!).

Keep it on the hardware and its interpretation in the car threads. We do moderate the car threads more strictly than other threads, and a post deletion only wastes everybody's time. We do way too many of those in the car threads, but it is the only way to keep them focused on each car, apparently.

Pure pace, faster than / slower than, track position and other teams, all of that in the TEAM threads instead, please.

[Farnborough]

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

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...

80% of the downforce comes from the floor

maybe rb sidepods make their floor works slightly better, maybe those sidepods are useful for something else, like stalling the beamwing when drs is open but what make the difference is in the floor

btw, to stay in topic, i think that Ferrari can't switch to rb sidepods philosophy this year, they have to move all the radiators... maybe something hybrid but i think it will be a great waste of BC money

Whichever the % atributed to the floor in it's total downforce, from that has to be subtracted any lift the upper surfaces generate. The dip in top of sidepods on SF23 would ordinarily be associated with negative pressure, and why they are bleeding through in "F" duct from high pressure point to low.
Cooling vent exits here are also contributing to relief of negative pressure, but must at some point reach peak flow relative to outer surface air speed, that must cause some pressure change, looks to be increase of negative. That's a very significant surface area they run on top of pods.

[Vanja #66]

Whichever the % atributed to the floor in it's total downforce, from that has to be subtracted any lift the upper surfaces generate. The dip in top of sidepods on SF23 would ordinarily be associated with negative pressure, and why they are bleeding through in "F" duct from high pressure point to low.
Cooling vent exits here are also contributing to relief of negative pressure, but must at some point reach peak flow relative to outer surface air speed, that must cause some pressure change, looks to be increase of negative. That's a very significant surface area they run on top of pods.

Actually, the dips (or tubs as we call them) in Ferrari sidepods are basically an ambient-pressure zone, not low (or negative). The S-duct is indeed feeding air from higher to lower pressure zone, however that high-pressure zone is close to stagnation while the outlet is in near-ambient pressure area - which is still a lot lower than stagnation pressure. You can find more here

viewtopic.php?t=30249