Ferrari SF1000

[JPBD1990]

Vettel right now on the C5 on a fast lap! 1.16.8

Sector 3 time: 26.5

So either yesterday's 26.0 was with a cut corner as some said or simply the C3 tire is much better around here...which i think is the truth...but still Mercedes managed a 1.15.7 with C5!

Vettel was pushing so saying he didn't push enough is not true! Of course no one knows the fuel loads!

Aaaand he's going again...

He did a 16.2 in testing last year....

[aral]

A reminder....could you please discuss testing on the testing thread and keep this thread to the technical details of the SF1000. Thanks

[Fab55]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

[JPBD1990]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

I don’t think that’s as much confirmation as it is speculation. Ferrari brought a new engine cover to the second test, which is even tighter. Why would that be the case if they suffered the problems you describe with the less dense sidepod/engine cover from the first test? It also appears they aren’t suffering cooling issues as they haven’t opened anything up

[One and Only]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

I don’t think that’s as much confirmation as it is speculation. Ferrari brought a new engine cover to the second test, which is even tighter. Why would that be the case if they suffered the problems you describe with the less dense sidepod/engine cover from the first test? It also appears they aren’t suffering cooling issues as they haven’t opened anything up

I doubt anyone is suffering cooling issues with these ambient temperatures, but I guess Ferrari have calculated that into equation as well. Since top speed wasn't Ferrari's issue last year I wouldn't read too much into it.

[wowgr8]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

The way you speak makes me want to believe you, where are you getting this information? Are you an insider? Your theory makes sense as to why they're using the spoon wing at a mid-high downforce track

[PlatinumZealot]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

This rumour is rubbish. It's like saying Ferrari are Novices. Something like this is so easy to design, test and correct for.

[Fab55]

It's not an unusual problem in F1. Remember MCL 33? This car had the same aerodynamic lockout problem that compromised the 2018 Championship. Go see the team's belated analysis again.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not an unusual problem in F1. Remember MCL 33? This car had the same aerodynamic lockout problem that compromised the 2018 Championship. Go see the team's belated analysis again.

I can tell you definitley did not see the tighter side pods Ferrari brought yesterday huh.

[Fab55]

I carefully checked the photos of yesterday and today with those of the first three days of the tests and I assure you that the side pods are the same as the presentation. The only novelty is the medium-load wing, which indicates that in Ferrari they prefer to lose a bit of load in order to recover speed. The wing at the end of today's practice is back the straight one.

[LM10]

I carefully checked the photos of yesterday and today with those of the first three days of the tests and I assure you that the side pods are the same as the presentation. The only novelty is the medium-load wing, which indicates that in Ferrari they prefer to lose a bit of load in order to recover speed. The wing at the end of today's practice is back the straight one.

RBR has had the slimmest rear wing of all top teams. Does this mean they have drag issues as well?

[Cbckly917]

It's not an unusual problem in F1. Remember MCL 33? This car had the same aerodynamic lockout problem that compromised the 2018 Championship. Go see the team's belated analysis again.

The MCL33 was crippled by a mistake spacing the sidepod/bargeboards with the front axle which meant that turning the front wheels would cause all kinds of havoc downstream. Meant they had to slap barn door wings to each end of the car. What you're suggesting would be an extraordinary error, even by Ferrari standards.

[Ringleheim]

Either Ferrari was running huge amounts of fuel on the softest tires (which makes no sense whatsoever), or the car just isn't very fast.

Everything we have seen, heard, and observed through the first and second test to date supports the notion that it is the latter.

I will be curious to see how the Tracing Point stacks up against the Ferrari in qualifying at Albert Park, never mind the Mercedes and Red Bull.

[Ringleheim]

Today's tests confirm what has already been observed on page 20. The SF 1000 suffers very useless drag. The vents on the sidepods reject the inflow as the packaging of radiant bodies and exchangers placed inside the sidepods is too dense and not sufficiently permeable. Alfa Romeo's ears avoid this problem as the flow part from the airscope slides under the skin to the back, skipping the first stumbling block given by the main radiators. Top speed SF 1000 307KM/H while the Alfa Romeo over 320 KM/H and Ferrari had to reduce the rear wing lift with the spoon wing.

If the problem was this clear cut, and so black and white and obvious that YOU understand it, Ferrari would understand it even better.

And they'd be engineering a fix to it as I type. So no worries then!

Don't get me wrong: I think the car is slow and has issues intrinsic to its design. I just doubt the problem is precisely what you describe.

[gastonmazzacane]

Either Ferrari was running huge amounts of fuel on the softest tires (which makes no sense whatsoever), or the car just isn't very fast.

Everything we have seen, heard, and observed through the first and second test to date supports the notion that it is the latter.

But this sounds like an opinion rather than facts.