Ferrari SF-24 speculation

[f1316]

To me it is plausible it's early '24 stuff. Higher df rear wing with disconnected RW tips is not something we've seen from them before. The oblique view also shows sidepods with a fairly deep undercut (near side) and at least a slight waterslide (far side)

Surprising to see something like this though

Would they not also do something like this when testing a new component (ie a new rear wing) in isolation? Would they not want to look at it in reference to a constant (the old car)?

Tl:dr: it seems like this could just as easily be from wind tunnel runs where they were specifically (and only) evaluating the rear wing concept.

[Vanja #66]

Vanja you think these are early versions of the bodywork or something ad hoc made for the documentary?

The parts used are not for filming only, could be some late 23 or early 24 bits. I just don't see them showing in great detail something that will ultimately be used in 2024. It was already strange to see early 2023 CFD, even if blurred...

[Blackout]

From the images it seems like the 676 bears a very similar concept to the MCL60/AMR23

The windtunnel model looks very similar to the later versions of the 2023 Ferrari, while the 3d car on the screens looks closer to the '23 launch version, or even an iteration of the 2022 concept.

Whenever teams show pictures of their windtunnel, they always show old cars and specs.

[scuderiabrandon]

From the images it seems like the 676 bears a very similar concept to the MCL60/AMR23

The windtunnel model looks very similar to the later versions of the 2023 Ferrari, while the 3d car on the screens looks closer to the '23 launch version, or even an iteration of the 2022 concept.

Whenever teams show pictures of their windtunnel, they always show old cars and specs.

Confirmed by PD it's an early version of the 24 car. Produced somewhere around September 2023. The deep undercut is not possible with the 2023 chassis. I am inclinced to believe a model built in Septermber is outdated and probably different in most aspects.

On the other hand the image on the screen is of the launch version of the SF-23.

[AR3-GP]

From the images it seems like the 676 bears a very similar concept to the MCL60/AMR23

The windtunnel model looks very similar to the later versions of the 2023 Ferrari, while the 3d car on the screens looks closer to the '23 launch version, or even an iteration of the 2022 concept.

Whenever teams show pictures of their windtunnel, they always show old cars and specs.

Confimred by PD it's an early version of the 24 car. Produced somewhere around September 2023. The deep undercut is not possible with the 2023 chassis. I am inclinced to believe a model built in Septermber is outdated and probably different in most aspects.

Aerodynamics may be outdated, but things like architectural changes to suspension and gearbox, would have been built in early and remained relatively constant. If one could make out those details, they will likely carryover to what we will see next week.

Vanja, it's hardly the end of the world to show an old windtunnel model for a car which will launch in about 5 days with even more current detail revealed.

[ing.]

I don't think that, over the course of the season, the advantages of pullrod are so clear that sticking with the mechanically better solution is a really relevant disadvantage.

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

Yes, most likely to do with how loads are reacted through upper wishbone as explained in this 'old' Scrabs article:

https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/10/ ... odynamics/

"With Pull-rod the force from the rod and the wheel act in the same direction, this doubles the load in the upper wishbone and resultantly in the mounting the gearbox." He also highlights how push-rod, on the other hand, needs to be beefier to prevent buckling, though this can be mitigated due to push-rod having to have some aero profile anyway so will inherently have enough section.

The article also explains the origin or pull-rod at the rear in the last generation(s) of cars and makes us realize why maybe that concept at the rear may be outdated and why push-rod at the rear may be more desirable.

[CaribouBread]

Some interesting tidbits from the "lounge" chassis, it seems to retain the cockpit/halo outlet which was presumed to be the "s-duct" outlet on last years' car.
Another novelty is the canon outlet isn't as prominent as we've seen on downwash concepts. Instead, it has 2 suspension slit/opening and a small opening around the exhaust.
This next bit is speculation on my part, but it seems the sidepod ramps inwards quite tightly/aggressively? Maybe, like Vanja has hypothesized previously - this might still be a inwash/downwash hybrid like the post update sf-23.

[Blackout]

From the images it seems like the 676 bears a very similar concept to the MCL60/AMR23

The windtunnel model looks very similar to the later versions of the 2023 Ferrari, while the 3d car on the screens looks closer to the '23 launch version, or even an iteration of the 2022 concept.

Whenever teams show pictures of their windtunnel, they always show old cars and specs.

Confimred by PD it's an early version of the 24 car. Produced somewhere around September 2023. The deep undercut is not possible with the 2023 chassis. I am inclinced to believe a model built in Septermber is outdated and probably different in most aspects.

On the other hand the image on the screen is of the launch version of the SF-23.

Why? is their lower SIPS still outside the floor and high?
.

Some interesting tidbits from the "lounge" chassis, it seems to retain the cockpit/halo outlet which was presumed to be the "s-duct" outlet on last years' car.
Another novelty is the canon outlet isn't as prominent as we've seen on downwash concepts. Instead, it has 2 suspension slit/opening and a small opening around the exhaust.

[AR3-GP]

Why do you say that push rod is a "mechanically better solution"? In terms of kinematics, there is no difference between the two. It is only a rod which actuates the spring/damper due to the forces at the wheel. In terms of the mechanics, pull rods can be made lighter than push rods because rods are stronger under tension forces (pull rod), than they are under compression forces (push rod) for an identical cross-sectional area. Push rods have to be heavier.

There may be an "operational" advantage for the push rod (suspension setting changes can be done from above through an access hatch), but I do not see an advantage in mechanical or kinematic considerations.

Because James Key (and others over the years) said so:

While the pull-rod front suspension fell out of favor with the previous generation of vehicles, the potential aerodynamic advantages it offers for ground effect cars are now becoming increasingly clear.
(...)
"It's one of the few facilities you have between the front wing and the rest of the car. So you want to make the most of it aerodynamically. The disadvantage is of course mechanical. That's absolutely not what you want to do."

"It's inside out and back to front: that's not a nice suspension design in itself," says Key, who also emphasizes that moving away from the tried-and-tested push-rod concept wasn't easy, but he expects it to be "The real challenge is to overcome all the mechanical compromises once you get the aerodynamics under control"
(...)
"I think that the bottom line is that you are better off, even if you have to make compromises. The debate about pull and push rod at the rear is not really a topic of conversation. For various reasons of packaging, it is mechanically better there, on push rod to put."

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... t-24020715

So you shouldn't discuss this with me, but with Sauber's technical director.

Yes, most likely to do with how loads are reacted through upper wishbone as explained in this 'old' Scrabs article:

https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/10/ ... odynamics/

"With Pull-rod the force from the rod and the wheel act in the same direction, this doubles the load in the upper wishbone and resultantly in the mounting the gearbox." He also highlights how push-rod, on the other hand, needs to be beefier to prevent buckling, though this can be mitigated due to push-rod having to have some aero profile anyway so will inherently have enough section.

The article also explains the origin or pull-rod at the rear in the last generation(s) of cars and makes us realize why maybe that concept at the rear may be outdated and why push-rod at the rear may be more desirable.

Thank you for sharing this. With the discussion of the difference in force reactions in the upper control, I'm not sure I would classify it as an advantage or disadvantage. I would only call it "differences".

Small differences in the mechanics probably don't outweigh aerodynamic driven benefits.

[Farnborough]

There's another significant element to this in addition, front suspension layout that is.

Not seen on chassis other than RB....the top wishbone being of singular "cross beam" type, attached/located on tub in completely different interface than conventional pivot type wishbone.

One effect is to have, all but, nil stiction under suspension loading. Along with corss linked wheel characteristic over and above heave and anti roll facilities we usually expect and see.

[.poz]

[scuderiabrandon]

The windtunnel model looks very similar to the later versions of the 2023 Ferrari, while the 3d car on the screens looks closer to the '23 launch version, or even an iteration of the 2022 concept.

Whenever teams show pictures of their windtunnel, they always show old cars and specs.

Confimred by PD it's an early version of the 24 car. Produced somewhere around September 2023. The deep undercut is not possible with the 2023 chassis. I am inclinced to believe a model built in Septermber is outdated and probably different in most aspects.

On the other hand the image on the screen is of the launch version of the SF-23.

Why? is their lower SIPS still outside the floor and high?
.

Some interesting tidbits from the "lounge" chassis, it seems to retain the cockpit/halo outlet which was presumed to be the "s-duct" outlet on last years' car.
Another novelty is the canon outlet isn't as prominent as we've seen on downwash concepts. Instead, it has 2 suspension slit/opening and a small opening around the exhaust.

https://i.imgur.com/Uu9vkGF.png

The SIS was still in the sidepod in 2023 yes, on this model it is clear that is not the case.

[scuderiabrandon]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44 ... 623bf9.jpg

SF71H with current wheels and wings for pitstop practice

[AR3-GP]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44 ... 623bf9.jpg

This is a frankenstein car. It has a previous gen sidepod and a ground effects era front wing.

[ing.]

There's another significant element to this in addition, front suspension layout that is.

Not seen on chassis other than RB....the top wishbone being of singular "cross beam" type, attached/located on tub in completely different interface than conventional pivot type wishbone.

One effect is to have, all but, nil stiction under suspension loading. Along with corss linked wheel characteristic over and above heave and anti roll facilities we usually expect and see.

I expect the RB method is not dissimilar to the others’ designs—the loads are taken out in shear at the top of the tub instead of on the sides—but the behaviour of the wishbone on one side doesn’t influence the other side as they are both sides are effectively fixed at the centre on the chassis.