Scuderia Ferrari SF70H

[f1316]

In the RB13 thread there is speculation that the RB is squatting (losing its hight rake possibly to stall the diffuser with a lower ride height than the one it is designed for) in high speed straights even with DRS open.

But this image seems to show the same in the Ferrari, also with DRS open and taking into account that this year car seems to have a huge rake.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/248 ... /slet1.jpg

I saw a similar picture (albeit without DRS open) and saw the same; we've also seen significant rake on the Ferrari in corners so seems quite similar.

[Sevach]

In the RB13 thread there is speculation that the RB is squatting (losing its hight rake possibly to stall the diffuser with a lower ride height than the one it is designed for) in high speed straights even with DRS open.

But this image seems to show the same in the Ferrari, also with DRS open and taking into account that this year car seems to have a huge rake.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/248 ... /slet1.jpg

I think the Red Bull is more extreme than that, you can see that the front wing actually goes up compared to it's height at slower speeds, the Ferrari looses it's rear ride height but the FW is still pretty close to the ground.

[f300v10]

What were deemed very basic launch wings and floor still not changed on the Ferrari; they're obviously using them as a baseline but slightly surprised they weren't just dummy pieces for launch purposes and that they're being run at all.

I don't understand these 'very basic' comments. The front wing is clearly an updated version of the design they used last year, with modifications to the endplates and upper flaps. This is the case for almost all the teams up and down the pit lane, and is what I would expect as the rules governing the front wing layout didn't really change, nor did the laws of physics. As for the floor, have you looked at the complexity of the diffuser? It sure doesn't look 'basic' to me, nor does the forward section with the integration of the floor and barge boards. There are very few test days for the teams to run parts that aren't representative of what they plan to run at the start of the season, they need the most accurate data they can get. I would expect at most a few small updates to the wings before the first race, but no major changes in design philosophy.

[Morteza]

https://twitter.com/piusgasso/status/836553146809921536

[Big Mangalhit]

In the RB13 thread there is speculation that the RB is squatting (losing its hight rake possibly to stall the diffuser with a lower ride height than the one it is designed for) in high speed straights even with DRS open.

But this image seems to show the same in the Ferrari, also with DRS open and taking into account that this year car seems to have a huge rake.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/248 ... /slet1.jpg

I think the Red Bull is more extreme than that, you can see that the front wing actually goes up compared to it's height at slower speeds, the Ferrari looses it's rear ride height but the FW is still pretty close to the ground.

I didn't quite understood what you meant there.

You implied that the RB are having a higher FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) and thus losing AoA. ("the Ferrari looses it's rear ride height but the FW is still pretty close to the ground")

or

RB is having a lower FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) which could stall it and then have it back up to normal height for the corners? ("you can see that the front wing actually goes up compared to it's height at slower speeds")

[THRAK]

Adrian Newey says he does not understands Ferrari sidepod philosopy.

James Key from Toro Rosso has a kinder way of telling it : "Amongst the other cars, the Ferrari has to be the most surprising, their sidepods design is unique. It's worth studying it, as details from McLaren and Haas"

http://www.formulapassion.it/2017/02/f1 ... cedes-blu/

[Sevach]

Delete please.

[Sevach]

I didn't quite understood what you meant there.

You implied that the RB are having a higher FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) and thus losing AoA. ("the Ferrari looses it's rear ride height but the FW is still pretty close to the ground")

or

RB is having a lower FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) which could stall it and then have it back up to normal height for the corners? ("you can see that the front wing actually goes up compared to it's height at slower speeds")

Option A, Red Bull seems to pitch so heavily on the straight that the FW goes up instead of normal behaviour of going down.



In the Ferrari everything goes down, the rear of course dives more than the front.

[Giando]

Adrian Newey says he does not understands Ferrari sidepod philosopy.

Is he going to be right again after 23 years... or will he be proved wrong?

In 1994 Adrian Newey said he didnt' understand the aerodinamics of the side-pods intakes of the Ferrari 412T1 designed by John Barnard... which eventually would have been massively modified after a few races in the season...

Interesting...

[Big Mangalhit]

I didn't quite understood what you meant there.

You implied that the RB are having a higher FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) and thus losing AoA. ("the Ferrari looses it's rear ride height but the FW is still pretty close to the ground")

or

RB is having a lower FW height in the straights (high speed accompanied with squat) which could stall it and then have it back up to normal height for the corners? ("you can see that the front wing actually goes up compared to it's height at slower speeds")

Option A, Red Bull seems to pitch so heavily on the straight that the FW goes up instead of normal behaviour of going down.
http://images.adrivo.com/images/950/q_8 ... 805136.jpg


In the Ferrari everything goes down, the rear of course dives more than the front.

I see what you mean. Indeed the Ferrari looks more like a whole car dip more pronounced at rear, while RB is more a tilt. Ofc it's hard to compare because different places on the track, different speeds etc all play a role.

[Sevach]

I see what you mean. Indeed the Ferrari looks more like a whole car dip more pronounced at rear, while RB is more a tilt. Ofc it's hard to compare because different places on the track, different speeds etc all play a role.

Agreed on all counts.


I'll also add that it's testing, Red Bull might be trying something funky that may not end up in the final car.

[jaba.hut]

This behavior of RB could be result of their "active" suspension and possibility to adjust it in different loads and speeds.

[Just_a_fan]

https://twitter.com/piusgasso/status/836553146809921536

So the top entry is just feeding in to the radiators the same as the main opening? Presumably this is better overallthan having a large front opening. I guess it can also be used to clean up dirty air flow over the side pods from the mirrors etc.

[f1316]

What were deemed very basic launch wings and floor still not changed on the Ferrari; they're obviously using them as a baseline but slightly surprised they weren't just dummy pieces for launch purposes and that they're being run at all.

I don't understand these 'very basic' comments. The front wing is clearly an updated version of the design they used last year, with modifications to the endplates and upper flaps. This is the case for almost all the teams up and down the pit lane, and is what I would expect as the rules governing the front wing layout didn't really change, nor did the laws of physics. As for the floor, have you looked at the complexity of the diffuser? It sure doesn't look 'basic' to me, nor does the forward section with the integration of the floor and barge boards. There are very few test days for the teams to run parts that aren't representative of what they plan to run at the start of the season, they need the most accurate data they can get. I would expect at most a few small updates to the wings before the first race, but no major changes in design philosophy.

Thou must look to thy moderator for guidance:

Guys, these are new regulations. Everybody is starting from a blank sheet. What we now see are basic cars to get an understanding of them. Next week and in Melbourne the teams will introduce upgrade packages.

Now obviously none of anything being run on any car is basic in the true sense of the word, but really I was just recalling what others had said at launch - the spirit of which was "these ain't the wings designed for this car" (in fact, I queried the lack of tyre squirt slots in this very thread and turbo replied that it was only a basic launch spec floor).

Primarily my point is that the wings and floor all work with the aero concept - they're not old pieces just slapped on for launch; they may not be the refined/finished versions but it would be pointless to do this much testing with wings contrary to what how you're trying to manage the air flow.

Hope that makes sense.

[f300v10]

What were deemed very basic launch wings and floor still not changed on the Ferrari; they're obviously using them as a baseline but slightly surprised they weren't just dummy pieces for launch purposes and that they're being run at all.

I don't understand these 'very basic' comments. The front wing is clearly an updated version of the design they used last year, with modifications to the endplates and upper flaps. This is the case for almost all the teams up and down the pit lane, and is what I would expect as the rules governing the front wing layout didn't really change, nor did the laws of physics. As for the floor, have you looked at the complexity of the diffuser? It sure doesn't look 'basic' to me, nor does the forward section with the integration of the floor and barge boards. There are very few test days for the teams to run parts that aren't representative of what they plan to run at the start of the season, they need the most accurate data they can get. I would expect at most a few small updates to the wings before the first race, but no major changes in design philosophy.

Thou must look to thy moderator for guidance:

Guys, these are new regulations. Everybody is starting from a blank sheet. What we now see are basic cars to get an understanding of them. Next week and in Melbourne the teams will introduce upgrade packages.

Now obviously none of anything being run on any car is basic in the true sense of the word, but really I was just recalling what others had said at launch - the spirit of which was "these ain't the wings designed for this car" (in fact, I queried the lack of tyre squirt slots in this very thread and turbo replied that it was only a basic launch spec floor).

Primarily my point is that the wings and floor all work with the aero concept - they're not old pieces just slapped on for launch; they may not be the refined/finished versions but it would be pointless to do this much testing with wings contrary to what how you're trying to manage the air flow.

Hope that makes sense.

I did note that you yourself didn't call the car 'basic', I am disagreeing with those that expect major changes before the first race. There are MUCH fewer testing days this season, so the teams can't afford to run a non representative car in pre-season testing. I also see nothing 'basic' about any part of the Ferrari as it is currently running. There are 3 large tire squirt slots on the current floor. Yes they are different from the 10 or so smaller slots of last season, but that doesn't mean they are 'basic'. Same with the wing package, similar to last year but updated.

People said the same thing about the Ferrari aero package last pre-season. The car was launched and all the talk was of an updated aero package that would appear at the last test. That didn't occur and the 2016 car ran in Melbourne looking basically like it did at the launch. I expect the same again this season.