Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[Sierra117]

Is there a regulation that says the car must be painted? It not, why not just leave it bare?

Sponsorship money.

Sure, but you could put the sponsors’ logos on a bare chassis in principle, no?

Yeah but F1 is also a giant advertisement game for your main business so it's for branding. Ferrari without the red and yellow is just not the same thing.

[zibby43]

Is there a regulation that says the car must be painted? It not, why not just leave it bare?

Sponsorship money.

Sure, but you could put the sponsors’ logos on a bare chassis in principle, no?

Yes, but they wouldn't be happy with it from a "looks" perspective. Hard to stand out on bare carbon fiber. Plus, the bare carbon fiber look isn't a great one. We aren't talking about a major weight penalty with the paint, either.

With respect to this year's car, Mattia Binotto said the regulation changes have cost Ferrari 1.5 seconds from last year.

The problem is, 1.5 seconds from when (i.e., from what point in '18)? Undoubtedly, part of the problem is trying to recoup downforce without ramping up the drag penalty.

I can't translate very well, but here's the full article:

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-19021607

[F1ern]

Sponsorship money.

Sure, but you could put the sponsors’ logos on a bare chassis in principle, no?

Yes, but they wouldn't be happy with it from a "looks" perspective. Hard to stand out on bare carbon fiber. Plus, the bare carbon fiber look isn't a great one. We aren't talking about a major weight penalty with the paint, either.

With respect to this year's car, Mattia Binotto said the regulation changes have cost Ferrari 1.5 seconds from last year.

The problem is, 1.5 seconds from when (i.e., from what point in '18)? Undoubtedly, part of the problem is trying to recoup downforce without ramping up the drag penalty.

I can't translate very well, but here's the full article:

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-19021607

He says they expected 1,5 sec loss when they 1. went to wind tunnel. And it was truth. Does not say anything about how much did they win back.

[zibby43]

Sure, but you could put the sponsors’ logos on a bare chassis in principle, no?

Yes, but they wouldn't be happy with it from a "looks" perspective. Hard to stand out on bare carbon fiber. Plus, the bare carbon fiber look isn't a great one. We aren't talking about a major weight penalty with the paint, either.

With respect to this year's car, Mattia Binotto said the regulation changes have cost Ferrari 1.5 seconds from last year.

The problem is, 1.5 seconds from when (i.e., from what point in '18)? Undoubtedly, part of the problem is trying to recoup downforce without ramping up the drag penalty.

I can't translate very well, but here's the full article:

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-19021607

He says they expected 1,5 sec loss when they 1. went to wind tunnel. And it was truth. Does not say anything about how much did they win back.

Precisely. How much time has been clawed back is the big question for all of the top teams.

[Nathanael F1]

Loving the matte red on this one. Ferrari claim it saves weight, but is it significant enough? I'd rather believe it's, as Scarbs pointed out, harder to make out the curves and features due to lack of reflections.

In an article I read that the matte paint on the RBR saved them 600 grams. This probably would make you be faster by less than 0,05 seconds per lap. Well, it shows how the teams consider absolutely every detail.
It would be nice to know if such different paints also have an aerodynamic benefit.

Newbie question...I thought F1 has a minimum weight regulation? So did RBR just have an extra 600 g of ballast?

[hollus]

Yep, that's the idea. Ballast low down for a lower center of gravity and other adjustments. Or weight freed for improvements in other components.

[Manoah2u]

Yep, that's the idea. Ballast low down for a lower center of gravity and other adjustments. Or weight freed for improvements in other components.

600 grams more for the driver's physical attributes so he can perform as best as he can with the situation he's given.

if i'd be a designer - i am not, obviously - i'd prefer to give my talented driver enough physical capacity to give his 100% and 'lose' 600 grams of possibilities on the car's behalf, than vise versa: a car with 600 grams extra for balance, but a driver who has to be at 90% because he's missing those 600 grams in his tummy, neck muscles, heart, or wherever.

well, especially if the driver isn't a little tiny guy but a huge bloke.

[hollus]

This is no longer a compromise one has to do, isn’t there a new weight limit for “driver plus seat”?
Starting this year. 80 kg?
Getting off topic here, I’d better be careful

[FMP]

I'm wondering how important a more efficient rear wing even is as the turbo era progresses in its current form.

The new aero regs introduced a notable understeer challenge for teams. Front lockups were a big thing while teams fought for balance.

With the newly simplified front wings creating even less front downforce (or at least seemingly designed that way), it seems the mid and front wings should have the most focus on their efficiency than trying to further increase rear downforce.

I could be (very) wrong, of course.

I'm not sure to catch you but note that the new regulations affected parts of the FW that were intended to increase floor and diffuser efficiency and ultimately REAR df. the part of the FW creating directly front downforce is the one left basically unchanged

I'm not sure I get you completely right but I'll explain my view and you can correct me if we think differently. So the rules for 2019 front wing is actually an increase in downforce as they are much larger. What you aren't able to do with the front wing now is to direct the flow as well, especially the outwash flow. But the amount of available downforce is higher and considering how much of the 2018 front wings carried flow generating bits - I'm guessing they have more available front wing down force than needed. Just look at how much Ferrari and some other teams sacrifise outright downforce for flow management towards the end plate. Alfa being the obvious extreme here. And to balance the increased amount of front wing down force and the higher rear wing they made the rear wing bigger as well.

[wuzak]

This is no longer a compromise one has to do, isn’t there a new weight limit for “driver plus seat”?
Starting this year. 80 kg?
Getting off topic here, I’d better be careful

Correct.

[wuzak]

Is there a regulation that says the car must be painted? It not, why not just leave it bare?

It's not red.

Ferrari did run their car in bare carbon fibre in pre-season testing at Fiorano, back when they were allowed to do more than just do a shake-down.

[jumpingfish]

With respect to this year's car, Mattia Binotto said the regulation changes have cost Ferrari 1.5 seconds from last year.

The problem is, 1.5 seconds from when (i.e., from what point in '18)? Undoubtedly, part of the problem is trying to recoup downforce without ramping up the drag penalty.

I can't translate very well, but here's the full article:
https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-19021607

Ofc SF90 could lost 1.5s but at this moment they must win it back, otherwise I can't understand their decision to make front wing with their design to outwash air instead of increasing downforce as FW on W10 Mercedes

[zibby43]

With respect to this year's car, Mattia Binotto said the regulation changes have cost Ferrari 1.5 seconds from last year.

The problem is, 1.5 seconds from when (i.e., from what point in '18)? Undoubtedly, part of the problem is trying to recoup downforce without ramping up the drag penalty.

I can't translate very well, but here's the full article:
https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-19021607

I don't think we can trust this source about losing 1.5s per lap from Binotto. It's only German site with those words but there must be an original source in Italian or English before article on motorsport-total. Didn't find it with google.

Ofc SF90 could lost 1.5s but at this moment they must win it back, otherwise I can't understand their decision to make front wing with their design to outwash air instead of increasing downforce as FW on W10 Mercedes

The part about losing 1.5s is a quote directly from Binotto.

Also, it's tough to directly compare the design philosophies of Mercedes and Ferrari when it comes to certain aspects as they have totally different approaches with respect to the rake of the cars.

[jumpingfish]

"As for handling, three days ago I went to the Formula 1 simulator, already prepared for a new car, and was able to test it. Compared with the previous machine, the changes are quite small, and in speed it is almost as good as the previous one. At Ferrari, they could make the car fairly balanced,” - Schwartzman said in an interview to the championat.com about SF90.
original in Russian -> https://www.championat.com/auto/news-36 ... taroj.html

[f1316]

"As for handling, three days ago I went to the Formula 1 simulator, already prepared for a new car, and was able to test it. Compared with the previous machine, the changes are quite small, and in speed it is almost as good as the previous one. At Ferrari, they could make the car fairly balanced,” - Schwartzman said in an interview to the championat.com about SF90.
original in Russian -> https://www.championat.com/auto/news-36 ... taroj.html

So Schwartzman didn’t join Ferrari Academy until 2019 so I see no reason why he would have tried anything other than the Abu Dhabi spec SF71H; therefore, when he says ‘almost as good as the previous one’, he can only be comparing with the final spec of last year’s car.