Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[mantikos]

Look at all the other cars though, they have larger openings in the airbox and sort of in the sidepods too.

Mercedes is larger on the airbox, certainly not in the sidepod reigon

[Cuky]

Temperatures of the car or of the weather have not even been suggested as being a cause of any problem.

Not officially. Though, I have read one rumor that states that they had to use PU in lower power modes after FP1 because it was overheating and they feared damaging it when it has to do about 6 more GP weekends after this one. How correct that rumor was, I don't know

[dfegan358]

Maybe Ferrari knew after FP1 /fp2 they would have to run conservative modes all weekend.

Who knows really. I definitely think there was engine concerns. Most likely due to overheating rather than a fundamental design fault.

As a Ferrari fan, Bahrain is a hugely important race for Ferrari. Another disappointing race and we could be in for a long season

[F1Krof]

Maybe Ferrari knew after FP1 /fp2 they would have to run conservative modes all weekend.

Who knows really. I definitely think there was engine concerns. Most likely due to overheating rather than a fundamental design fault.

As a Ferrari fan, Bahrain is a hugely important race for Ferrari. Another disappointing race and we could be in for a long season

Nah, I truly believe Ferrari will come alive in Bahrain. It's a track Vettel likes, a track where Ferrari's always been strong. Australia is an outlier, it has a unique characteristic, different corners and very smooth asphalt. Bahrain in the contrary is a track that will bring Ferrari alive.

[KiLLu12258]

Look at all the other cars though, they have larger openings in the airbox and sort of in the sidepods too.

airbox is really small and "edgy", sidepods are the same size as last year which every other team made progress.

[BwajSF]

Look at all the other cars though, they have larger openings in the airbox and sort of in the sidepods too.

Yeah true all the airboxs look much bigger than SF90 and side pods tighter . Thats because everyone copied the idea of having a inter-cooler mounted above the engine which gets air feed directly form the airbox.

This year if you observe the front View of SF90 its clearly visible that the airbox falls right in the path of rear wing airflow.. and rear wing being bigger and wider every inch of it is bound to be efficiently used for downforce & efficiency. Having a Airbox bigger only reduces/disturbs air flowing to the rear wing plate.

Hence Ferrari moved the intercooler back into the sidepods causing the side pods size to be fractionally bigger than SF71H and making airflow to the rear wing much more cleaner and efficient.

[PhillipM]

You've got your reasoning backwards there - having a wide and taller rear wing reduces how sensitive it is the dirty air from large airboxes - so there's less advantage to having a small, narrow one.

Which is why every other team has moved parts up into the airbox and widened it.

[LM10]

You've got your reasoning backwards there - having a wide and taller rear wing reduces how sensitive it is the dirty air from large airboxes - so there's less advantage to having a small, narrow one.

Which is why every other team has moved parts up into the airbox and widened it.

So Ferrari knowingly put themselves into a disadvantageous position?

[mantikos]

You've got your reasoning backwards there - having a wide and taller rear wing reduces how sensitive it is the dirty air from large airboxes - so there's less advantage to having a small, narrow one.

Which is why every other team has moved parts up into the airbox and widened it.

So Ferrari knowingly put themselves into a disadvantageous position?

They have a different architecture and philosophy - thats all

[PhillipM]

You've got your reasoning backwards there - having a wide and taller rear wing reduces how sensitive it is the dirty air from large airboxes - so there's less advantage to having a small, narrow one.

Which is why every other team has moved parts up into the airbox and widened it.

So Ferrari knowingly put themselves into a disadvantageous position?

No, they obviously thought their solution was better for them - maybe their lower CoG will be beneficial on tyre-hungry tracks, etc. Just pointing out the reasoning the other poster had was completely backwards.

[trinidefender]

You've got your reasoning backwards there - having a wide and taller rear wing reduces how sensitive it is the dirty air from large airboxes - so there's less advantage to having a small, narrow one.

Which is why every other team has moved parts up into the airbox and widened it.

So Ferrari knowingly put themselves into a disadvantageous position?

No, they obviously thought their solution was better for them - maybe their lower CoG will be beneficial on tyre-hungry tracks, etc. Just pointing out the reasoning the other poster had was completely backwards.

It's always a compromise in any form of engineering.

Here we are making trade offs between COG and rear with benefits vs diffuser/floor benefits.

With the change from 2018 to 2019 rules the percentages of downforce from different parts of the car changed. Pertinent to this discussion, the rear wing percentage went up and the floor percentage went down. This is because:
1. The front wing changes reduced out wash which affected the floor
2. The barge board surface are was decreased overall, even if they were made slightly longer, hurting floor downforce
3. Front brake ducts made more simple hurting floor downforce
4. Rear wing made larger increasing rear wing influence and downforce on the car

Ferrari, contrary to the rest of the field, decided that they were going to maximise COG benefits and work the new larger rear wing as hard as possible to the detriment of the floor (small air box means larger sidepods which hurt floor performance). A lower COG will also allow them to run their car with softer suspension for more compliance or conversely have a more stable aero platform (increasing floor/diffuser performance).

There is one other relationship that hasn't been mentioned. The one between the rear wing and the diffuser. With Ferrari's more efficient rear wing, due to smaller airbox, it will have a greater effect on the diffuser.

Ferrari wouldn't have done it for no reason, contrary to popular belief, teams don't design components on a whim, especially not a team as large and well funded as Ferrari. There was some serious engineering that went into this decision. Whether it's the right one, we don't actually know.

If you follow Willem Toet's (F1 aerodynamicist who was head in Sauber and back there I believe) work then you'll come across a reoccurring theme. Teams will maximise the large downforce generating parts even if it means creating lift somewhere else in the car as this generates the greatest total downforce. Take for example the front suspension. Teams could design it to create small amounts of downforce but instead it is actually designed to create lift because there is more benefit to using that airflow that the front suspension can push down to the floor. As this relates to Ferrari's airbox, they are using a small airbox to maximise its increased downforce potential while sacrificing some of the potential of the diffuser.

P.s. Sorry for rambling a bit.

[cinquecento]

So Ferrari knowingly put themselves into a disadvantageous position?

No, they obviously thought their solution was better for them - maybe their lower CoG will be beneficial on tyre-hungry tracks, etc. Just pointing out the reasoning the other poster had was completely backwards.

It's always a compromise in any form of engineering.

Here we are making trade offs between COG and rear with benefits vs diffuser/floor benefits.

With the change from 2018 to 2019 rules the percentages of downforce from different parts of the car changed. Pertinent to this discussion, the rear wing percentage went up and the floor percentage went down. This is because:
1. The front wing changes reduced out wash which affected the floor
2. The barge board surface are was decreased overall, even if they were made slightly longer, hurting floor downforce
3. Front brake ducts made more simple hurting floor downforce
4. Rear wing made larger increasing rear wing influence and downforce on the car

Ferrari, contrary to the rest of the field, decided that they were going to maximise COG benefits and work the new larger rear wing as hard as possible to the detriment of the floor (small air box means larger sidepods which hurt floor performance). A lower COG will also allow them to run their car with softer suspension for more compliance or conversely have a more stable aero platform (increasing floor/diffuser performance).

There is one other relationship that hasn't been mentioned. The one between the rear wing and the diffuser. With Ferrari's more efficient rear wing, due to smaller airbox, it will have a greater effect on the diffuser.

Ferrari wouldn't have done it for no reason, contrary to popular belief, teams don't design components on a whim, especially not a team as large and well funded as Ferrari. There was some serious engineering that went into this decision. Whether it's the right one, we don't actually know.

If you follow Willem Toet's (F1 aerodynamicist who was head in Sauber and back there I believe) work then you'll come across a reoccurring theme. Teams will maximise the large downforce generating parts even if it means creating lift somewhere else in the car as this generates the greatest total downforce. Take for example the front suspension. Teams could design it to create small amounts of downforce but instead it is actually designed to create lift because there is more benefit to using that airflow that the front suspension can push down to the floor. As this relates to Ferrari's airbox, they are using a small airbox to maximise its increased downforce potential while sacrificing some of the potential of the diffuser.

P.s. Sorry for rambling a bit.

Wow, brilliant summary there.
But it always confuse me that motorsport Italia argue that Ferrari front suspension made them suffering from bumpy Albert Park surface.
I found it funny because at the other hand, Brundle always praise how Ferrari reacts to the bump, and how it was much more composed than the Mercs as their driver even had to wrestle the car at the straight. It's just that Ferrari came out trailing when it comes to braking and their traction out of slow corner.
Onboard compilations also show at how Ferrari took turn 11-12 pretty decent.
The nature of the bumpy track itself, wasn't it suppose to give car that able to run softer suspension an edge?
What is your take on this?

[dankane24]

Interesting article,
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech ... a/4356509/
Hope the conclusion drawn by the author are correct and it was just multiple unfortunate circumstances that caused Ferrari to lose it's testing pace in Australia.

[Juzh]

Interesting article,
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech ... a/4356509/
Hope the conclusion drawn by the author are correct and it was just multiple unfortunate circumstances that caused Ferrari to lose it's testing pace in Australia.

From the article:
This exacerbated the problems at hand and allowed Vettel to slip back into the clutches of Leclerc, whose issues had subsided with the use of the harder tyre and allowed him to recover energy in a more conventional way, limiting his apex losses and generally being quicker on the straights.

A detailed look on the f1 timing would tell us leclerc had at best the same pathetic speed on the straights as Vettel did, so this explanation is somewhat sketchy.

[GrizzleBoy]

Interesting article,
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech ... a/4356509/
Hope the conclusion drawn by the author are correct and it was just multiple unfortunate circumstances that caused Ferrari to lose it's testing pace in Australia.

From the article:
This exacerbated the problems at hand and allowed Vettel to slip back into the clutches of Leclerc, whose issues had subsided with the use of the harder tyre and allowed him to recover energy in a more conventional way, limiting his apex losses and generally being quicker on the straights.

A detailed look on the f1 timing would tell us leclerc had at best the same pathetic speed on the straights as Vettel did, so this explanation is somewhat sketchy.

Leclerc had speed trap speeds comparable to the Mercs in Q3 though.

It was only Seb who had notably lower top speed in Q3.

I guess the race is another matter though.