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.
User avatar
Zynerji
137
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Clever people don't run their mouths about things they are not sure about.

This strikes me line that ESPN survey from a few years ago... Watchers want pundits to speak with conviction more than actually being correct.

Dazed1
Dazed1
0
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:53 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Mr.G wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:14 pm
Ringleheim wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:10 pm
Jip wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:26 pm


Try to read this - https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/news/2 ... s-learned/
Thanks for that link. :)

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
532
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:17 am
Clever people don't run their mouths about things they are not sure about.

This strikes me line that ESPN survey from a few years ago... Watchers want pundits to speak with conviction more than actually being correct.
I have a feeling these guys will not keep their jobs if they said boring things all the time. So good old Gary always goes against the grain in his predictions.
... . almost. there . sTiLl.. WE...RisE. ..

🚀 🏎️ ✊ Soon my people ✊🏎️🚀

Fab55
Fab55
0
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:35 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

I think the serious problem that emerged in the first tests is that it was not possible to combine the new packaging of the sides, now able to generate sufficient load, with the usual solution of the renunciation of a substantial portion of cooling coming from the airscope (useful both straight, than in fast corners). Evidently the packaging of the bellies is now too dense and generates an incoming waste which on one hand generates useless drag and on the other serious cooling problems on the deeper organs. It is likely that in Australia, except for technical miracles, we will see a Ferrari / Alfa. In fact, Alfa clearly represents a "parachute" project precisely because of the eventuality that has now been ascertained and which was obviously feared.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

At the risk of repeating myself:
Thunder wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:36 am
This is the Ferrari SF1000 offical car thread.

Please discuss ONLY technical items of this car, and refrain from speculation.

General discussion about the team, its drivers and performance can be posted in the team thread.

Livery Talk also belongs in the Team Thread. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=28679
Please try to adhere to those lines. Thank you.
¡Puxa Esportin!

wowgr8
wowgr8
21
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:35 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Fab55 wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:30 pm
I think the serious problem that emerged in the first tests is that it was not possible to combine the new packaging of the sides, now able to generate sufficient load, with the usual solution of the renunciation of a substantial portion of cooling coming from the airscope (useful both straight, than in fast corners). Evidently the packaging of the bellies is now too dense and generates an incoming waste which on one hand generates useless drag and on the other serious cooling problems on the deeper organs. It is likely that in Australia, except for technical miracles, we will see a Ferrari / Alfa. In fact, Alfa clearly represents a "parachute" project precisely because of the eventuality that has now been ascertained and which was obviously feared.
Do you have insider information?

User avatar
godlameroso
514
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Fab55 wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:30 pm
I think the serious problem that emerged in the first tests is that it was not possible to combine the new packaging of the sides, now able to generate sufficient load, with the usual solution of the renunciation of a substantial portion of cooling coming from the airscope (useful both straight, than in fast corners). Evidently the packaging of the bellies is now too dense and generates an incoming waste which on one hand generates useless drag and on the other serious cooling problems on the deeper organs. It is likely that in Australia, except for technical miracles, we will see a Ferrari / Alfa. In fact, Alfa clearly represents a "parachute" project precisely because of the eventuality that has now been ascertained and which was obviously feared.
In other words they stuffed too much stuff in the sidepods, and there's not enough airflow coming through the roll hoop to cool everything properly. The end result is, the airflow going through the sidepods stagnates creating drag, and fails to reach all the components that require cooling. And the airflow entering through the roll hoop is insufficient. I think the current power unit layout has reached the limits of packaging and the split turbo layout is the only way forward.
Saishū kōnā

zac510
zac510
39
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Fab55 wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:30 pm
I think the serious problem that emerged in the first tests is that it was not possible to combine the new packaging of the sides, now able to generate sufficient load, with the usual solution of the renunciation of a substantial portion of cooling coming from the airscope (useful both straight, than in fast corners). Evidently the packaging of the bellies is now too dense and generates an incoming waste which on one hand generates useless drag and on the other serious cooling problems on the deeper organs. It is likely that in Australia, except for technical miracles, we will see a Ferrari / Alfa. In fact, Alfa clearly represents a "parachute" project precisely because of the eventuality that has now been ascertained and which was obviously feared.
Great to have you back Ron Dennis!

Fab55
Fab55
0
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:35 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Leo Turrini, a reliable source, a few days before the presentation of the 1000, announced that Ferrari had experienced serious aerodynamic problems. I exclude that a team that has been working on the project for 10 months can only notice at the end that they have misunderstood the chosen forms. It is more likely that the problem relates to less predictable and reproducible internal flows at design time (you have to wait for the radiators and exchangers to be ready and test them). Ferrari's ambitious goal was to combine the low drag of the 90 with the downforce of RedBull's unsubsed "upside-down boat" sidepods. But in RedBull the sidepods contain less stuff as a substantial part of the cooling is entrusted to the airscope. If you look at the recent Ferrari tests and also Alfa Sauber (which follows the Red Bull conformation and which has clearly been used to make comparisons), everything is back. We will soon see an SF 1000 with ears?

User avatar
nico5
10
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:55 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Fab55 wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:45 am
Leo Turrini, a reliable source, a few days before the presentation of the 1000, announced that Ferrari had experienced serious aerodynamic problems. I exclude that a team that has been working on the project for 10 months can only notice at the end that they have misunderstood the chosen forms. It is more likely that the problem relates to less predictable and reproducible internal flows at design time (you have to wait for the radiators and exchangers to be ready and test them). Ferrari's ambitious goal was to combine the low drag of the 90 with the downforce of RedBull's unsubsed "upside-down boat" sidepods. But in RedBull the sidepods contain less stuff as a substantial part of the cooling is entrusted to the airscope. If you look at the recent Ferrari tests and also Alfa Sauber (which follows the Red Bull conformation and which has clearly been used to make comparisons), everything is back. We will soon see an SF 1000 with ears?
One could certainly argue how reliable a source he actually is... And I'm pretty sure no larger airscope will appear, since it would massively impact the entire flow structure downstream towards the rear wing, taking the horns off with the vortices they shed. And most importantly, redesigning cooling systems is quite a lengthy work, it's more likely they just further open the bodywork at the back, if cooling really is the one thing they're troubled about

Fab55
Fab55
0
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:35 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

In addition to the cooling problem encountered as soon as i push the mapping to 5, I hypothesize the rejection of air from the side mouths that would induce unnecessary drag. However, at Ferrari they have already designed and implemented the alternative solution: it is on the Alfa Sauber.

User avatar
SiLo
138
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

They do have an impressively small airbox and sidepods. Either they have some magic cooling system or their internal flow is ludicrously good.

There are innovations up and down the paddock but they are the only ones with incredibly tight packaging everywhere.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
MtthsMlw
994
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

They must have been really on the edge with cooling last year. This years engine cover is slimmer but not by much.
Also one thing they always nailed in recent year was cooling I doubt they suddenly got it wrong.

TimmTurbo
TimmTurbo
2
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Munich

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

I don`t understand why people put so much emphasis on their current performance. I think the only thing they feel bad about is the potential PU failure which to me still is not officially confirmed. They were back running again very quick so i think it might just be a part of the PU instead of the whole pu..

i think they went for an "A" spec car to do baseline aero and setup work in week one to verify correlation. (We have not seen any changes as far as im aware). Reportedly they went for a bigger setup window this time which would fit this theory. The 330 kp/h speed trap hit was due to tow so engine mode could have been low throughout the whole first 3 days.

I expect them to bring some updates in week 2 perhaps focussing on more detailed areo and setup work. Pushing the PU a bit more. This all makes sense to me.

We always drift in deepest speculations where no one of us has even a small idea of what technically is happening in the car.

PS: SV racesim was not that bad compared to RB and Merc.

Lets calm down and have a look on Wednesday..........

User avatar
MtthsMlw
994
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

TimmTurbo wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:29 pm
I don`t understand why people put so much emphasis on their current performance. I think the only thing they feel bad about is the potential PU failure which to me still is not officially confirmed. They were back running again very quick so i think it might just be a part of the PU instead of the whole pu..

i think they went for an "A" spec car to do baseline aero and setup work in week one to verify correlation. (We have not seen any changes as far as im aware). Reportedly they went for a bigger setup window this time which would fit this theory. The 330 kp/h speed trap hit was due to tow so engine mode could have been low throughout the whole first 3 days.

I expect them to bring some updates in week 2 perhaps focussing on more detailed areo and setup work. Pushing the PU a bit more. This all makes sense to me.

We always drift in deepest speculations where no one of us has even a small idea of what technically is happening in the car.

PS: SV racesim was not that bad compared to RB and Merc.

Lets calm down and have a look on Wednesday..........
https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/articles/ ... -wednesday
The fault was traced to a non-structural problem with the lubrication system. It’s not a cause for concern and work to correct it is already underway.