Ferrari SF-24 speculation

[jambuka]

Any chance Rory Byrne is really back designing the car or are these articles total BS. ?

[scuderiabrandon]

Any chance Rory Byrne is really back designing the car or are these articles total BS. ?

He'll be a supervisor/consultant.

[ing.]

Any chance Rory Byrne is really back designing the car or are these articles total BS. ?

He'll be a supervisor/consultant.

If indeed this is the case, would be nice for the team to mention his role/contribution even more if only an honorary position in recognition of his winning designs of the past.

Would also be nice if he could sprinkle a bit of F2002 magic in the new car.

[deadhead]

According to Newey the regs changed hurt Ferrari in high speed corners which is true as the SF 23 was way less competitive than the F1 75 in this area.

I think the very first signs of this was France 2022 when LEC lost it in a high speed corner.. I still think he went in there too hot, but he probably expected an F1-75 but instead he got an early taste of the SF23

But the reg didn't change before France 2022. Pretty sure Newey referred to the raised floor edges for the 2023 season.

I think they brought a new floor to France 2022 to comply with TD039, which was going in the direction of the 2023 rule changes. TD039 wasn't supposed to happen until Spa, but if I remember correctly, Hungry didn't go well either.

[deadhead]

Any chance Rory Byrne is really back designing the car or are these articles total BS. ?

He'll be a supervisor/consultant.

If indeed this is the case, would be nice for the team to mention his role/contribution even more if only an honorary position in recognition of his winning designs of the past.

Would also be nice if he could sprinkle a bit of F2002 magic in the new car.

I think he sprinkled quite a bit on the F1-75 and that was working great until the mid season changes..

[K1Plus]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:

Talking with the Scuderia’s technical director Enrico Cardile, it’s apparent that his interpretation of how the suspension and aero interact with these cars is quite different to that of Newey’s (and now Allison’s).
“Suspension set up for me is a bit overrated,” he said. “Because you design your set-up options to cover a wide range.

Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

[Soalar]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:

Talking with the Scuderia’s technical director Enrico Cardile, it’s apparent that his interpretation of how the suspension and aero interact with these cars is quite different to that of Newey’s (and now Allison’s).
“Suspension set up for me is a bit overrated,” he said. “Because you design your set-up options to cover a wide range.

Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

My father is Italian and he's definitely not stubborn .

At this point I'm pretty sure it's going to be a new year of hoping for a Ferrari title challenge and having my hopes and dreams shattered as the season starts.

[scuderiabrandon]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:

Talking with the Scuderia’s technical director Enrico Cardile, it’s apparent that his interpretation of how the suspension and aero interact with these cars is quite different to that of Newey’s (and now Allison’s).
“Suspension set up for me is a bit overrated,” he said. “Because you design your set-up options to cover a wide range.

Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

I think the bigger factor here is how the floor works at different ride heights. The aero balance shifts as the car is loaded with fuel and as it burns off. We actually saw RB run some good amounts of rake on occasions, which would inidcate they don't lose as much performance by raising the rear of the car, they don't rely on ground effect as much as they do from the suction induced by the floor vortex system, this would be supported by the fact that they ran semi-circled floor tunnels as oppose to flat ones, seen on the SF-23.

Although aero devices and suspension work in harmony, f1 suspension has vey little travel therefore I'm still comfortable putting it as a second tier factor if were talking setup window. You are always btter of having the 2 work better together but if I had to choose I'd rather have a floor work over a variety of heights oppose to trying to develop suspension that keeps the floor in the ideal range. In a real world scenario the former has proven to be the better solution. I just think the latter is muh more difficult under the current regulation set.

But I've noticed a pattern here, any reports that comes out of the Maranello camp is dismissed, any news from any other team, which is often quite rare is digested with some logic and a thought process.

[FDD]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:



Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

I think the bigger factor here is how the floor works at different ride heights. The aero balance shifts as the car is loaded with fuel and as it burns off. We actually saw RB run some good amounts of rake on occasions, which would inidcate they don't lose as much performance by raising the rear of the car, they don't rely on ground effect as much as they do from the suction induced by the floor vortex system, this would be supported by the fact that they ran semi-circled floor tunnels as oppose to flat ones, seen on the SF-23.

Although aero devices and suspension work in harmony, f1 suspension has vey little travel therefore I'm still comfortable putting it as a second tier factor if were talking setup window. You are always btter of having the 2 work better together but if I had to choose I'd rather have a floor work over a variety of heights oppose to trying to develop suspension that keeps the floor in the ideal range. In a real world scenario the former has proven to be the better solution. I just think the latter is muh more difficult under the current regulation set.

But I've noticed a pattern here, any reports that comes out of the Maranello camp is dismissed, any news from any other team, which is often quite rare is digested with some logic and a thought process.

Personally I do not want to dismissed news from Ferrari, but quite often they are let say stupid.
For example that for the smaller gearbox is good info, but that with 0,4 sec gained from higher downforce..., at the first place nobody knows how false or not is the info of +30 points DF.
However I expect much more concurrent car this year and some wins, not title challenge.
Also if Cavallino manage to build car to fight for the title it'll be awesome.

[Xyz22]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:



Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

I think the bigger factor here is how the floor works at different ride heights. The aero balance shifts as the car is loaded with fuel and as it burns off. We actually saw RB run some good amounts of rake on occasions, which would inidcate they don't lose as much performance by raising the rear of the car, they don't rely on ground effect as much as they do from the suction induced by the floor vortex system, this would be supported by the fact that they ran semi-circled floor tunnels as oppose to flat ones, seen on the SF-23.

Although aero devices and suspension work in harmony, f1 suspension has vey little travel therefore I'm still comfortable putting it as a second tier factor if were talking setup window. You are always btter of having the 2 work better together but if I had to choose I'd rather have a floor work over a variety of heights oppose to trying to develop suspension that keeps the floor in the ideal range. In a real world scenario the former has proven to be the better solution. I just think the latter is muh more difficult under the current regulation set.

But I've noticed a pattern here, any reports that comes out of the Maranello camp is dismissed, any news from any other team, which is often quite rare is digested with some logic and a thought process.

Because some Italian media have a history of reporting false information, especially regarding technical aspects of the car, like Gazzetta dello Sport (they said the SF 1000 would have been like the Mercedes with slim nose, etc.) and Corriere dello Sport/Sera. Moreover, Ferrari has much bigger exposure and therefore the amount of material is much more compared to other teams, so this doesn't help as well.

Then you add that some info are based on wind tunnel/sim data which can be quite different from real on track performance. Latest example is the 1s faster claim from last year, where even the CEO released a bullish statement (probably based on what they were telling him from sim/wind tunnel data).

[gordonthegun]

Meanwhile, Ferrari passed the crash test and this is certain piece of news.

Motorsport IT:
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... /10562204/

"The news came out when the Sports Management reopened after the shutdown imposed on the F1 teams by the International Federation from 22nd December, because in reality the frontal test was passed brilliantly before Christmas.".

[deadhead]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... oho+Social

Here we go again:



Fool me once same on me, fool me again. The ignorance is quite something, time will tell.

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

My father is Italian and he's definitely not stubborn .

At this point I'm pretty sure it's going to be a new year of hoping for a Ferrari title challenge and having my hopes and dreams shattered as the season starts.

No chance of a title, but maybe a few wins..

[KimiRai]

Hilariously, for now, Nugnes has been the most "reliable" and "feet on the ground" reporter.

He has also been the first one to reveal the aim of developing a thinner gearbox and avoided talking about specific gains in terms of performance (i.e. 0.5s / 1s etc.)

In any event guys no one will touch Red Bull unless they screw up somehow, which is highly unlikely.

I for one welcome a Nugnes redemption arc. He never seemed to me as terrible as was often suggested.

Okay, apart from some big mistakes But I feel every journalist is bound to make them at some point, there are plenty worse than him in my opinion.

[scuderiabrandon]

TBH Ferrari rode the kerbs and bumps better than anyone else, however their setup window was super small. Makes me wonder if they're really stubborn down there in Maranello?

I think the bigger factor here is how the floor works at different ride heights. The aero balance shifts as the car is loaded with fuel and as it burns off. We actually saw RB run some good amounts of rake on occasions, which would inidcate they don't lose as much performance by raising the rear of the car, they don't rely on ground effect as much as they do from the suction induced by the floor vortex system, this would be supported by the fact that they ran semi-circled floor tunnels as oppose to flat ones, seen on the SF-23.

Although aero devices and suspension work in harmony, f1 suspension has vey little travel therefore I'm still comfortable putting it as a second tier factor if were talking setup window. You are always btter of having the 2 work better together but if I had to choose I'd rather have a floor work over a variety of heights oppose to trying to develop suspension that keeps the floor in the ideal range. In a real world scenario the former has proven to be the better solution. I just think the latter is muh more difficult under the current regulation set.

But I've noticed a pattern here, any reports that comes out of the Maranello camp is dismissed, any news from any other team, which is often quite rare is digested with some logic and a thought process.

Because some Italian media have a history of reporting false information, especially regarding technical aspects of the car, like Gazzetta dello Sport (they said the SF 1000 would have been like the Mercedes with slim nose, etc.) and Corriere dello Sport/Sera. Moreover, Ferrari has much bigger exposure and therefore the amount of material is much more compared to other teams, so this doesn't help as well.

Then you add that some info are based on wind tunnel/sim data which can be quite different from real on track performance. Latest example is the 1s faster claim from last year, where even the CEO released a bullish statement (probably based on what they were telling him from sim/wind tunnel data).

But thats the difference though, the Italian media also reports on other teams and it is received much differently than it is when it comes to Ferrari.

If it were Ferrari who reportedly failed a crash test (which came from the Italian media) it would've been a sulk-fest as it usually is in threads Ferrari related, which is getting a bit old now. I'd rather have insightful conversttions about it. The topic pin the RB thread] was discussed with regards to simulation software, error tolerance, and whether failing a destructive test is beneficial in terms of the performance gain or it is a finacial setback.

[Vanja #66]

Not surprised as it’s the same guy I wrote about here:

Indeed, my face always goes (-_-*) when I see some of them as authors...

Any chance Rory Byrne is really back designing the car or are these articles total BS. ?

Seems he is and he's probably involved more than on F1-75, otherwise he wouldn't have come from half way around the world...