Vanja #66 wrote: ↑14 May 2025, 21:24
Emag wrote: ↑14 May 2025, 16:01
Now this is rather important for Ferrari, because after reading your analysis, it really got me thinking about the importance of the mechanical platform. The timeline you laid out, with the initial success of the SF-24's updated gearbox and then the re-emergence of bouncing post-Barcelona 2024 update, is crucial. It makes me wonder if the Monza 2024 package, while appearing to "fully cure" the issue, was perhaps an aerodynamic workaround that brought the car into a more compliant window but didn't address an underlying mechanical limitation.
If the 2025 car is targeting even higher aerodynamic loads, as one would expect, it could be that this previously masked limitation, the potentially undersized damper capacity due to gearbox casing constraints, is now being exposed to a greater capacity with the grid taking their respective concepts to the extreme.
Cheers mate, glad you liked it and agree!
Yes, I was also pointing out that suspension is likely unable to absorb the loads and provide adequate damping last year during Barcelona fiasco revelation. Everyone was 100% convinced it was an aero issue, yet just because it was solved with aero updates later - doesn't mean it couldn't have been solved through suspension update as well
Apparently, even now in GES they believe they can solve a part of their issues with aero updates and it may be needed if they can't fully support their current target aero map
venkyhere wrote: ↑14 May 2025, 19:25
So Vanja, the 'layman-level' short summary of your very detailed post is :
"rear suspension stiffness is limited by too tight packaging, which limits putting a large damper to help stiffen up the rebound, thus leaving the car with a softer-than-optimal suspension which indirectly forces the front suspension to be softer as well, inorder to not lose mechanical balance"
Did I understand right ?
If yes, I circle back to the controversial post I made a few pages back (not sure whether in this car thread or the team thread) - what drove the creation of a shorter and tighter gearbox ? The need to 'push the driver back' ? Where did that need come from ? Was it purely an engineering choice ? I know I drew a lot of flak for asking this before, but I dare ask once again now.
Yes, this is my view based one everything we've heard and seen so far. I was actually 99% sure of it in early April but it would have been too far fetched without the leaks and inside info we got lately.
The shorter gearbox and repositioned elements along the X axis (longitudinally) were driven by aero requirements to reduce drag and increase downforce. By moving sidepod inlets more to the back, you cut down on their drag significantly because you can have the sides generate less pressurisation to generate outwash of front tyre wake
The car actually has CoG more on the nose than SF24, even with WB extended by 25mm. This is achieved with lots of ballast in the front wing tip
A good synopsis Vanja, and hopefully of interest to those contributors more technically involved with suspension design.
Some additional observations:- from your image of 2022 Ferrari gearbox, it can be seen from the shallow dip at top of structure (with two pale yellow patches on surface) where the exhaust exit route is located, with turbocharger sitting towards us in that image, its very close usecof space when assembled and obviously contributes to the elements they are considering if a design change is under way. Big degree of complexity in consideration there.
To the left in that image and just above the blue pipe is the "pull" link adjustment capability to set suspension static height etc. Look just how large that is to take the load ! And likely to be even more loaded as result of changing the angle of that link in later design as you've pointed out has happened.
With the loading so high, possibly even further so in later iteration, then the "gearing" from wheel movement to just how far the springs and dampers themselves move also increases. It's this part that interests me the most, that in combination of the stated difficulties in raising spring rate.
Effectively, if these loads breach the torsional performance of the rear structure, then they become ineffective by then making the structure itself distort under those loads. This having two fundamental problems easily appreciated, firstly that in roll the dampers (in the springs don't move) are not actioned to control chassis movements, and secondly it negates the rear anti roll bar function by replacement/default with that of the torsion value in that structure to massive effect.
High rear anti roll usually means less lateral yesod/grip and undesirable from that aspect. But adjustment of the real anti roll device here would have no impact.
Further, if the rear structure is moving in torsion during lateral load it brings a "three wheeling" stance to the whole chassis, which compromise the front setting too. It impacts so many aspect.
If the track engineers respond to driver observation in traditional fashion, they ultimately just move the direct problem (lacking structural torsional performance) around into other components. It can't be cured but gives this trait of chasing it around continuously without resolved outcome.
Sentiment gives it that "we don't understand why its not doing what we want" from those involved, now where have we heard that
It's effectively the opposite of "corner jacking " or similar to when you see a car with rear puncture and diagonally opposed front wheel is released from the track in extreme illustration.
It also has the effect of not being able to fully leverage aero performance, whatever status that is, it can never be fully enacted /utilized to finite effective outcome. They'll rarely be able to "see" correlation line up either as tge chassis can't deliver on accepting the load it's aero performance is able to generate. It can't be definitively judged in other words.
The discussion from team about not being able to use harder springs, the admitted use by CL of softer spring and elongated rocker (accumulation of load through gearing /geometry change) tie in with the above as they seem to bring suspension load back under yeald point of torsional performance. But then need to run higher to avoid floor strike, negating aero gains from that.
They just keep,turning in circles. If they understand fully how they've got a miss match of stress curves in there, then they'll be able to resolve the fundamental negative accumulation of those actions. IF and that's a big IF, they really have understood that, then it could be brought forward substantially.
