JPower wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 14:50
Mark Hughes had an article regarding the race from Ferrari's side but I thought this was most interesting...
There was a test at the mid-point of the season where Sainz finally got the team to agree to try a set-up direction he’d been pushing for ever since first driving the SF-23 and its nervy rear end. Because it seemed to have a built-in aerodynamic inconsistency at the rear, Sainz suggested engineering in a false understeer balance so that he could at least have confidence to push. It worked for him – and for the car.
For Leclerc, not so much. “I’m not completely comfortable with the car at the moment,” he said in Singapore. “A bit too much understeer for my liking and I struggle to drive around it. Because of the unpredictability of the car, I cannot have the oversteer that I want. Because of this rear-end unpredictability we cannot run with a lot of front because then whenever you have a snap, you lose a lot of grip from the car and it’s just very difficult to manage. It’s not that it’s an understeery car but you have to put understeer in to make it predictable.”
This wouldn't be the first time such solutions are used in F1, it's more than plausible. I expected they had a relatively complex flow at the front, so they were forced to use a specific design of FW flaps to avoid disturbing the flow towards the floor, resulting in lower front downforce. This is a simpler explanation.
Looking at the results of the Evo/post-Barcelona car, this test would most likely be the Barcelona tyre test, after which came Canada and overall decent results for the team. I expect they had to push it further towards understeer for Singapore high-downforce requirements in order to make it driveable, since Hungary and Zandvoort were really bad races for Ferrari. This was most likely the result of high-downforce testing Ferrari did in Monza tyre test.
scuderiabrandon wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 19:53
The front is the major limitation for Leclerc specifically (even though the gap him and SAI are still pretty close). I personally believe it also has a major effect on our front tyre degradation.
Absolutely.
scuderiabrandon wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 19:53
I believe the inwash concept at the rear corner of the SP is partially to blame for this. The front tyre wake that stagnates on the fac eof the rear tyre (thanks to the outwashing done by the fences, front wing, SP undercut) can too easily be diverted into the coke bottle area when in yaw or with cross winds. This dirty air migrating into a very important area causes a drastic loss in rear downforce hence the instabilities in the large radius corners when you are spending more time in yaw. I particularly like the Mercedes solution they brought to Spa. The potential outwash they can create at the rear of the SP will feed floor edge devices and manage front tyre wake in yaw.
Inwash worked more then well last year. The problem came with raising the floor edges. Ferrari also raised the whole car in Spa last year bit too much, making for the worst race pace last year (along with Mexico, but that was more PU related). Ferrari engineers said their sidepods are obsolete with TD039 last year. Raising the floor edges hurt their idea and messed it up completely. It's a very complex flow area and I wouldn't dare say what the actual phenomena are. Maybe the wide wall of the downwash ramp produces quite strong pressurisation which pushes the dirty air wide even while cornering and in yaw. I suspect it's more complex than that, since the diffuser suction is quite strong and I have to guess these two effects have to be managed with other local flow structures.
). Ferrari seems to have steadied while Merc has become increasingly erratic. This kind of thing will help Ferrari even if their car is no longer faster than the Merc due to the track. It's been a long time since you could say that.