Ferrari SF1000

[gastonmazzacane]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

What illegal engine?

[SiLo]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

What illegal engine?

Have you been living under a rock?

[Morteza]

Top flap trimmed on Ferrari's front wing to compensate aero balance.

[Big Tea]

I really can't see any big leaps coming in 1 year (especially a covid affected one). If it was that simple they would never have gone as far as manipulating the fuel flow meter. They'll still have the weakest engine next year I feel. If they don't they'll have pulled off a small miracle

I disagree here. There is no reason why they can't have a completely new, much power powerful ICE next season. They have hopefully been working on it all year and will continue to do so, while ALL resources have been REMOVED from this year's engine development. Don't spend another man hour or dime on this year's pig. This season is over. Ferrari knows that.

Don't forget, Binotto is from the engine department. Here's his chance to show us how clever he is and do what it takes to get a new PU up to speed for next season.

They can't build a brand new engine from scratch in 1 year and especially not when they plan to be competitive. Next year's engine will be an evolution of this one. Binotto/Ferrari's way of showing us they're clever was to play with the fuel flow. Which was clever I guess but the wrong thing to do, now we're paying the price for them focusing on those tricks instead of pushing the limits within the regulations

You say up to speed, what do you mean? Because if the benchmark is Mercedes or even Honda's 2021(!) engines they have no chance of catching up. I also read that the 2020 Renault engine is more powerful than Honda's fwtw

If what I suggest above is the case, it would not be a continuation of this years engine, but from which ever year the disallowed item was first introduced. For instance, if this 'widget' replaced or controlled parts A, b, c. and d, then they would have to go back to the engine where parts A,B,C,and D all had their individual controller or whatever.

With the rate of development in these systems, that can well be quit a way

[MtthsMlw]

Same aero package that was tried in Spa.

[wowgr8]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

Completely mad that all their resources went into those tricks. Even going as far as basing their entire car concept off it in 2019 which was so silly. If they focused on peak downforce for the 2019 car with that engine in the back they would have won that championship (with major repercussions after being found out)

[wowgr8]

Same aero package that was tried in Spa.
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... etai-1.jpg

People love to rag on this car but I'm still in awe whenever I look at it from this angle. It's not as shrunken down as the Mercedes but the engine cover is so so slim, I'd say only second to Mercedes in that regard. I also love how smoothly it's shaped, looks really good with the matte

[Moore77]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

Completely mad that all their resources went into those tricks. Even going as far as basing their entire car concept off it in 2019 which was so silly. If they focused on peak downforce for the 2019 car with that engine in the back they would have won that championship (with major repercussions after being found out)

To be fair, it wasn't exactly a low downforce concept. It became a relatively low downforce concept compared to Mercedes, who had designed the car a with "maximum downforce at all costs" philosophy. Mercedes were the only team that fitted thermal cameras on their car in 2018 Abu Dhabi and raced and people did not have a clue of why they were doing it. As the rules mandated that, every team has to use the car raced in Abu Dhabi for the next week's tyre testing, Mercedes scored an advantage over others.

That helped Mercedes to understand what are the demands of 2019 tyres for a simplified front wing and they realized the tyres required a lot of downforce to make them work. Then they went with downforce at all costs philosophy. That is how they were good on tyres and Ferrari and Red Bull struggled in the initial phases and wanted 2018 tyres.

Importantly, in Winter testing, Ferrari was the stand out performer and they ruled the Barcelona circuit, which is a high downforce circuit while Mercedes was working with different plans. At that point in time, nobody said, it was a low drag (meaning lower downforce) car. It all felt great and it felt like the right car with good amount of downforce, given the rule change with the front wing where everyone had lost downforce. Just that, Mercedes were smarter.

The problem with Ferrari was, they went too far with their trick and it was absurd to be around a second fast on a circuit's straights. It raised everybody's eyebrows that, how can they have made so much of progress with stable PU regulations. Some people estimated the advantage to be around 60 to 70 HP over Mercedes! That was where the trouble started. If the advantage would have looked in the range of 20 HP, I don't think they would have had any problems. Now they seems to have gone back to 2014 level in terms of competitiveness with the additional sensor regulation.

[jumpingfish]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

The problem with Ferrari was, they went too far with their trick and it was absurd to be around a second fast on a circuit's straights. It raised everybody's eyebrows that, how can they have made so much of progress with stable PU regulations. Some people estimated the advantage to be around 60 to 70 HP over Mercedes! That was where the trouble started. If the advantage would have looked in the range of 20 HP, I don't think they would have had any problems.

I agree with you. With so much downforce, the Mercedes looked very slow on the straights even compared to the RP, which in 2019 at Monza and Spa were on par with Ferrari in straight line speed. I'm sure that the Mercedes was not weaker in power than the Italians, but due to the peculiarities of cooling and fears for reliability, power could be slightly reduced, in addition to drag. It was Ferrari's mistake to have a car only for straight-line speed and thus draw attention to the engine. For example, in Hungary, a 1-minute lag behind Mercedes shows how bad the car was, especially working with tires.

[Morteza]

Via AMuS

[wowgr8]

To be fair, it wasn't exactly a low downforce concept. It became a relatively low downforce concept compared to Mercedes, who had designed the car a with "maximum downforce at all costs" philosophy. Mercedes were the only team that fitted thermal cameras on their car in 2018 Abu Dhabi and raced and people did not have a clue of why they were doing it. As the rules mandated that, every team has to use the car raced in Abu Dhabi for the next week's tyre testing, Mercedes scored an advantage over others.

That helped Mercedes to understand what are the demands of 2019 tyres for a simplified front wing and they realized the tyres required a lot of downforce to make them work. Then they went with downforce at all costs philosophy. That is how they were good on tyres and Ferrari and Red Bull struggled in the initial phases and wanted 2018 tyres.

Importantly, in Winter testing, Ferrari was the stand out performer and they ruled the Barcelona circuit, which is a high downforce circuit while Mercedes was working with different plans. At that point in time, nobody said, it was a low drag (meaning lower downforce) car. It all felt great and it felt like the right car with good amount of downforce, given the rule change with the front wing where everyone had lost downforce. Just that, Mercedes were smarter.

The problem with Ferrari was, they went too far with their trick and it was absurd to be around a second fast on a circuit's straights. It raised everybody's eyebrows that, how can they have made so much of progress with stable PU regulations. Some people estimated the advantage to be around 60 to 70 HP over Mercedes! That was where the trouble started. If the advantage would have looked in the range of 20 HP, I don't think they would have had any problems. Now they seems to have gone back to 2014 level in terms of competitiveness with the additional sensor regulation.

I don't think they did anything special with the thermal camera. The thin gauge tyres always favoured Mercedes. Look at France and Spain 2018. Performances which went against the grain considering the Ferrari was definitely quicker at the start of the season. In 2019 that as well as the simplified wings favoured Mercedes and their low rake car. Since then I also think they've taken huge steps with their mechanical improvements not just the aero ones


As for Ferrari they always said that car was about low drag and "aero efficiency" which I believe but it was stupid. $400m to make a chassis that would've been competing with the lower midfield if it weren't for the engine? Awful, I don't know how they thought that was the right thing to do. They should've also known that the 2019 tyres needed more downforce considering Pirelli let the teams test the thin gauge tyres in the Spain 2018 in-season test. Ferrari are really clueless, whomever was making those decisions at the time should lose their job

[Moore77]

To be fair, it wasn't exactly a low downforce concept. It became a relatively low downforce concept compared to Mercedes, who had designed the car a with "maximum downforce at all costs" philosophy. Mercedes were the only team that fitted thermal cameras on their car in 2018 Abu Dhabi and raced and people did not have a clue of why they were doing it. As the rules mandated that, every team has to use the car raced in Abu Dhabi for the next week's tyre testing, Mercedes scored an advantage over others.

That helped Mercedes to understand what are the demands of 2019 tyres for a simplified front wing and they realized the tyres required a lot of downforce to make them work. Then they went with downforce at all costs philosophy. That is how they were good on tyres and Ferrari and Red Bull struggled in the initial phases and wanted 2018 tyres.

Importantly, in Winter testing, Ferrari was the stand out performer and they ruled the Barcelona circuit, which is a high downforce circuit while Mercedes was working with different plans. At that point in time, nobody said, it was a low drag (meaning lower downforce) car. It all felt great and it felt like the right car with good amount of downforce, given the rule change with the front wing where everyone had lost downforce. Just that, Mercedes were smarter.

The problem with Ferrari was, they went too far with their trick and it was absurd to be around a second fast on a circuit's straights. It raised everybody's eyebrows that, how can they have made so much of progress with stable PU regulations. Some people estimated the advantage to be around 60 to 70 HP over Mercedes! That was where the trouble started. If the advantage would have looked in the range of 20 HP, I don't think they would have had any problems. Now they seems to have gone back to 2014 level in terms of competitiveness with the additional sensor regulation.

I don't think they did anything special with the thermal camera. The thin gauge tyres always favoured Mercedes. Look at France and Spain 2018. Performances which went against the grain considering the Ferrari was definitely quicker at the start of the season. In 2019 that as well as the simplified wings favoured Mercedes and their low rake car. Since then I also think they've taken huge steps with their mechanical improvements not just the aero ones


As for Ferrari they always said that car was about low drag and "aero efficiency" which I believe but it was stupid. $400m to make a chassis that would've been competing with the lower midfield if it weren't for the engine? Awful, I don't know how they thought that was the right thing to do. They should've also known that the 2019 tyres needed more downforce considering Pirelli let the teams test the thin gauge tyres in the Spain 2018 in-season test. Ferrari are really clueless, whomever was making those decisions at the time should lose their job

Thin tread or thick, Mercedes won 2018. Other than France and England, they won in so many places with the other tires. These are silly excuses from fans to justify their team's inability to building championship winning car. Being a Ferrari fan, I wouldn't buy them.

A team like Mercedes wouldn't run thermal cameras for nothing. There is no scientific evidence to say, Low rake works better than high rake for simplified front wings. That's a bad theory. In fact, Mercedes have added more rake this year!

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... =widget-22

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motors ... 64820/amp/

Horner thinks there is not actually much of a difference now between the different concept solutions.

“I think Mercedes have been raising and raising their rear ride height,” explained Horner, when asked if the high rake concept was now the wrong route for F1.

“If you look at how much it has increased over the last few years, it’s not a long way off where we are. So I would disagree with that comment.”

People also said, Mercedes' longer wheel base is the reason for their slow corner speed struggles in 2017. Look what happened, they dominated slow corners since mid of 2018. It's about finding right solution for any chosen concepts.

[nico5]

Ferrari should have had a alternate plan since FIA would have found out about the illegal engine issues one day or the other, what was their backup options. they should have run a parallel development to achieve the result without having to play with the fuel flow.

What illegal engine?

Have you been living under a rock?

No, I don't think it's that. It's because when Merc burns oil it's usually called 'great engineering'. Must be that.

[nico5]

To be fair, it wasn't exactly a low downforce concept. It became a relatively low downforce concept compared to Mercedes, who had designed the car a with "maximum downforce at all costs" philosophy. Mercedes were the only team that fitted thermal cameras on their car in 2018 Abu Dhabi and raced and people did not have a clue of why they were doing it. As the rules mandated that, every team has to use the car raced in Abu Dhabi for the next week's tyre testing, Mercedes scored an advantage over others.

That helped Mercedes to understand what are the demands of 2019 tyres for a simplified front wing and they realized the tyres required a lot of downforce to make them work. Then they went with downforce at all costs philosophy. That is how they were good on tyres and Ferrari and Red Bull struggled in the initial phases and wanted 2018 tyres.

Importantly, in Winter testing, Ferrari was the stand out performer and they ruled the Barcelona circuit, which is a high downforce circuit while Mercedes was working with different plans. At that point in time, nobody said, it was a low drag (meaning lower downforce) car. It all felt great and it felt like the right car with good amount of downforce, given the rule change with the front wing where everyone had lost downforce. Just that, Mercedes were smarter.

The problem with Ferrari was, they went too far with their trick and it was absurd to be around a second fast on a circuit's straights. It raised everybody's eyebrows that, how can they have made so much of progress with stable PU regulations. Some people estimated the advantage to be around 60 to 70 HP over Mercedes! That was where the trouble started. If the advantage would have looked in the range of 20 HP, I don't think they would have had any problems. Now they seems to have gone back to 2014 level in terms of competitiveness with the additional sensor regulation.

I don't think they did anything special with the thermal camera. The thin gauge tyres always favoured Mercedes. Look at France and Spain 2018. Performances which went against the grain considering the Ferrari was definitely quicker at the start of the season. In 2019 that as well as the simplified wings favoured Mercedes and their low rake car. Since then I also think they've taken huge steps with their mechanical improvements not just the aero ones


As for Ferrari they always said that car was about low drag and "aero efficiency" which I believe but it was stupid. $400m to make a chassis that would've been competing with the lower midfield if it weren't for the engine? Awful, I don't know how they thought that was the right thing to do. They should've also known that the 2019 tyres needed more downforce considering Pirelli let the teams test the thin gauge tyres in the Spain 2018 in-season test. Ferrari are really clueless, whomever was making those decisions at the time should lose their job

Then how do you explain Ferrari was very quick through high speed corners where DF is king and massively slow in the low speed where mechanical grip is the discriminant? Also, few people seemed to notice, but Ferrari's straight line speed was most of the times EQUAL to Mercedes in race trim, when the two had similar engine performances. Ferrari was also running huge smaller rear wings at times and would only get a 5kph advantage at the speed trap in qualy, when they would gain most time in acceleration. I think Ferrari 2019 was actually less aero-efficient than Merc, on top of lacking some peak downforce, but not that much. The engine made it look like they were dominant on the straights, but that was just qualy, as I said

[CRazyLemon]

I really can't see any big leaps coming in 1 year (especially a covid affected one). If it was that simple they would never have gone as far as manipulating the fuel flow meter. They'll still have the weakest engine next year I feel. If they don't they'll have pulled off a small miracle

I disagree here. There is no reason why they can't have a completely new, much power powerful ICE next season. They have hopefully been working on it all year and will continue to do so, while ALL resources have been REMOVED from this year's engine development. Don't spend another man hour or dime on this year's pig. This season is over. Ferrari knows that.

Don't forget, Binotto is from the engine department. Here's his chance to show us how clever he is and do what it takes to get a new PU up to speed for next season.

Ferrari most likely will have a more powerful ICE next season, but so will Mercedes, Renault and Honda. As was mentioned above, nobody knows exactly what and by how much Ferrari's power unit was effected by the technical clarifications and the settlement with the FIA... hopefully they can offset the gains the others make and claw back some ground, but realistically I don't think they'll be at the levels of Renault and Honda (forget Mercedes) in time for next season. Reliability also comes into play if they truly need to have a completely new ICE too, whilst the others can continue with their evolutions of their current layouts.

In all of this, I also feel for Haas and Sauber; With a decent ICE in the back, I reckon they'd all be in the thick of the midfield action; Haas especially considering the torrid season they had last year.

In theory they could throw reliability down the drain for pure performance gains next year. They're writing 2021 off anyway. Also you're allowed to make reliability upgrades during the season, so why not just go full out.