Ferrari SF1000

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
Fer.Fan
Fer.Fan
0
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post


Fer.Fan
Fer.Fan
0
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

There is still a hope... =P~ [-o< [-o<

wowgr8
wowgr8
2
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:35 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Sevach wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:19 pm
Ferrari sporting humongous hot air exits in FP1.

Helping the engine breathe easier? Internal airflow?
I hardly remember them running the tighter air exits last year, they almost always had them wide open. The tightest instance I remember was Bahrain

p910iFrank
p910iFrank
0
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Has someone info about b-soec planned for Hungary?

User avatar
MtthsMlw
807
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

p910iFrank wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:40 am
Has someone info about b-soec planned for Hungary?
No b-spec planned. I expect some further updates in scale of the recent ones in Hungary as well. Like some bargeboard stuff and maybe a bigger cape.
I don't think they managed to bring everything already.

Xwang
Xwang
19
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:12 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

It seems to be back to 2014, where the car was underpowered and then it was also not drivable under the rain when the power should not be an issue.
So it lacks power and drive-ability.
I'm still learning English so please excuse me if my English is not good enough and feel free to correct me via PM if you want.

MichaelFerrari
MichaelFerrari
4
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

I think it all comes down to politics.
Ferrari designed this car with last year's engine in mind, so hoping to add downforce (less drag) and the best engine on the grid.
They got "caught" and now they must run an underpowered engine with too much downforce to carry.

My gut feeling is that if you put last year's engine in this SF1000, it will be bloody fast, competing with the mercs.

There 's no point bashing Ferrari as if all of a sudde they became dumb in F1.

Their trick was too obvious last year, now they are paying the price!

Don' t try to make me believe no other team is twisting the rules, that's pure hypocrisy.

Ferrari must improve their politics to beat merc, Toto is too good at it.

mmred
mmred
-2
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

MichaelFerrari wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:53 pm
I think it all comes down to politics.
Ferrari designed this car with last year's engine in mind, so hoping to add downforce (less drag) and the best engine on the grid.
They got "caught" and now they must run an underpowered engine with too much downforce to carry.

My gut feeling is that if you put last year's engine in this SF1000, it will be bloody fast, competing with the mercs.

There 's no point bashing Ferrari as if all of a sudde they became dumb in F1.

Their trick was too obvious last year, now they are paying the price!

Don' t try to make me believe no other team is twisting the rules, that's pure hypocrisy.

Ferrari must improve their politics to beat merc, Toto is too good at it.
ferrari is behind in every aspect of the car. it will take years to see it back in front

User avatar
JordanMugen
49
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Xwang wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:46 pm
It seems to be back to 2014, where the car was underpowered and then it was also not drivable under the rain when the power should not be an issue.
So it lacks power and drive-ability.
It is very confusing that the supposedly "high downforce" Ferrari is not more competitive in wet conditions. :?:

I thought the Ferraris would be in the top 5. :oops:

LM10
LM10
96
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:52 pm
Xwang wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:46 pm
It seems to be back to 2014, where the car was underpowered and then it was also not drivable under the rain when the power should not be an issue.
So it lacks power and drive-ability.
It is very confusing that the supposedly "high downforce" Ferrari is not more competitive in wet conditions. :?:

I thought the Ferraris would be in the top 5. :oops:
Yea, today's qualifying showed that the Ferrari not only lacks power, but has significant aero issues. Their cornering was not that bad last week when it was dry, but whatever their aero problem is, there surely is one. And today's qualifying definitely showed that Ferrari indeed must have some big correlation issues.

My guess has been that they might have built the car around a powerful PU, meaning with much downforce and therefore quite draggy, but today there was no sign of that downforce so I'm not sure anymore.

nemanja
nemanja
2
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

LM10 wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:57 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:52 pm
Xwang wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:46 pm
It seems to be back to 2014, where the car was underpowered and then it was also not drivable under the rain when the power should not be an issue.
So it lacks power and drive-ability.
It is very confusing that the supposedly "high downforce" Ferrari is not more competitive in wet conditions. :?:

I thought the Ferraris would be in the top 5. :oops:
Yea, today's qualifying showed that the Ferrari not only lacks power, but has significant aero issues. Their cornering was not that bad last week when it was dry, but whatever their aero problem is, there surely is one. And today's qualifying definitely showed that Ferrari indeed must have some big correlation issues.

My guess has been that they might have built the car around a powerful PU, meaning with much downforce and therefore quite draggy, but today there was no sign of that downforce so I'm not sure anymore.
They run much less wing than others. Go check pictures yourself. I'm not saying they are great but it should be much better tomorrow in dry race.

LM10
LM10
96
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

nemanja wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:02 pm
LM10 wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:57 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:52 pm


It is very confusing that the supposedly "high downforce" Ferrari is not more competitive in wet conditions. :?:

I thought the Ferraris would be in the top 5. :oops:
Yea, today's qualifying showed that the Ferrari not only lacks power, but has significant aero issues. Their cornering was not that bad last week when it was dry, but whatever their aero problem is, there surely is one. And today's qualifying definitely showed that Ferrari indeed must have some big correlation issues.

My guess has been that they might have built the car around a powerful PU, meaning with much downforce and therefore quite draggy, but today there was no sign of that downforce so I'm not sure anymore.
They run much less wing than others. Go check pictures yourself. I'm not saying they are great but it should be much better tomorrow in dry race.
You're right about the wing. I hope they will have an easier going in the race tomorrow.

Xwang
Xwang
19
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:12 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

My idea is that they have tried to use an higher rake approach (like Red Bull) but neither their tools (wind tunnel, CFD, dynamic simulations) nor their people seems to be able to correctly "manage", understand and develop it.
Moreover they lack power and maybe the engine is less driveable too.
Finally if it is true that the gearbox lacks of rigidity, then they are too much quick (meaning that with a chassis which twist I think it is not posible to have any kind of car performance at all, so in my opinion if the gearbox is flawed then it should be the first part to be fixed otherwise all the data they get meantime are flawed and could lead them to take an even worst development path).
In any case I doubt that they will able to and that they will want to solve anything and they hope that focusing on the 2022 will automatically solve their issues.
But they do not understand that their issues, show that they lack the proper methods to work and so I do not see how they think to obtain a different result while continuing doing the things in the same (wrong) way.
Moreover they are also politically unwise because I really doubt that any of the other team, in their financial situation and with the veto power would have accepted to limit development knowing that they were in such technical troubles (and this is an issue that they have since late 2000s when they agreed to forbid tests when it was the way they used to develop the car. It's like shooting on your feet!!!).
I'm still learning English so please excuse me if my English is not good enough and feel free to correct me via PM if you want.

Silent Storm
Silent Storm
107
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:42 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Why did they not go for high downforce wing? They don't have the straight-line speed to overtake anyone tomorrow so I don't understand why they went for low downforce when it was clear since Thursday it was going to rain on Saturday.
There is always a way, and it usually doesn't work.

Jolle
Jolle
187
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Silent Storm wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:42 pm
Why did they not go for high downforce wing? They don't have the straight-line speed to overtake anyone tomorrow so I don't understand why they went for low downforce when it was clear since Thursday it was going to rain on Saturday.
because... they would come in last in tomorrow's race?