Ferrari SF21

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.
LM10
LM10
133
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

ryaan2904 wrote:
Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:21 pm
wowgr8 wrote:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:09 am
gordonthegun wrote:
Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:51 pm
Ferrari has chosen the most advanced (and risky) project for the 2022 engine, the Superfast, that will stay the same for 3 years.
Turbo and compressor spaced apart and new combustion chambers and air inlets to generate a better turbolence for an even faster combustion with an evolved Mahle Jet-Ignition.
Only the most extreme ideas (which ones?) have been discarded not to exaggerate the unreliability risk.

Anyway, also this year engine has shown unexpected development potential, even without changing the hardware and it should improve throughout the season.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... o/6525035/

https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/amp ... tail-1.jpg

Side question, why did Ferrari open up Vettel's car like that in public?
It was their 1000th GP, a big milestone for Ferrari. So im thinking, probably to show-off their partnership with Shell in a subtle, not so flashy way. I liked it.
It of course was not to show off. They needed to fix something.

User avatar
gordonthegun
10
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:33 pm
Location: Gorgonzola (Milan), Italy.

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

gordonthegun wrote:
Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:44 am

Lower downforce rear wing in FP2. Which one will they choose for FP3 and Quali? :?:
Image
A wing generating less downforce will flex less than the same wing set up to create more downforce.
In Baku the FIA was monitoring the flexions of all teams' rear wings (using also green dots on the wings).
Can be this the reason why Ferrari chose the wing with less downforce for the race (the first in the picture above)?

In my opinion, in the race, Ferrari had too low downforce and this caused an early wear of the tyres and less traction in the middle sector and the last corner, preventing the cars from reaching the speeds on the final straight needed to overtake or to defend.

f1316
f1316
135
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

I think the problem with that is - while more downforce would have probably meant better tyre life and therefore overall race pace - they would have been a sitting duck on the long straight. As it was they were already pretty slow in a straight line (or so it seemed to me - I didn’t see the speed trap numbers).

User avatar
MtthsMlw
959
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

Image
via @NicolasF1i

User avatar
gordonthegun
10
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:33 pm
Location: Gorgonzola (Milan), Italy.

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

f1316 wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:13 pm
I think the problem with that is - while more downforce would have probably meant better tyre life and therefore overall race pace - they would have been a sitting duck on the long straight. As it was they were already pretty slow in a straight line (or so it seemed to me - I didn’t see the speed trap numbers).
I think they were slow all the same in the straights as they had no traction in the last corner because of the excessive tyre wear due to a too low-downforce setup.
The cars behind could reach them soon and overtake easily.
Poor traction means you are not able to reach high speeds soon enough, even with a low downforce car.

Sevach
Sevach
939
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

Image

New front wing endplates.

zibby43
zibby43
596
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:16 am

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

Ferrari is really impressing this year with their development rate.

FerrariF60
FerrariF60
0
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

zibby43 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:13 am
Ferrari is really impressing this year with their development rate.
ferrari should really n on 2022.....we need to start fighting for wins from the get GO....

JPBD1990
JPBD1990
50
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

FerrariF60 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:13 am
zibby43 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:13 am
Ferrari is really impressing this year with their development rate.
ferrari should really n on 2022.....we need to start fighting for wins from the get GO....
They are on 2022. Between Binotto and Mekies reports are between 90 and 95% on 2022. Also, given last year, I’m pretty confident Ferrari would have been focusing heavily on 2022 already.

Small things like the FW end plate would have been planned months ago

User avatar
Morteza
2528
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

Image

Image
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

aerofoilf1
aerofoilf1
212
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

Image

User avatar
Big Mangalhit
63
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

gordonthegun wrote:
Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:28 pm
f1316 wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:13 pm
I think the problem with that is - while more downforce would have probably meant better tyre life and therefore overall race pace - they would have been a sitting duck on the long straight. As it was they were already pretty slow in a straight line (or so it seemed to me - I didn’t see the speed trap numbers).
I think they were slow all the same in the straights as they had no traction in the last corner because of the excessive tyre wear due to a too low-downforce setup.
The cars behind could reach them soon and overtake easily.
Poor traction means you are not able to reach high speeds soon enough, even with a low downforce car.
And I think they tested both options extensively and then with all the information and computer and men power decided which course was better to get the highest speed on the straights. Unfortunately sometimes the better option simply isn't enough.

User avatar
gordonthegun
10
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:33 pm
Location: Gorgonzola (Milan), Italy.

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

aerofoilf1 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:33 am
Image
Interesting.
So, the changes are actually three.
Very particular the one regarding the height of the the fin under the wing.
Summing the three changes the wing may have a rather different effect also on the following aero parts (bargeboard, floor, diffuser).

I wonder where is the floor they tested races ago and seemed to give a big advantage.
Ferrari didn't use it in quali and race because "they had built only one", but then in the following races it disappeared.

User avatar
F1NAC
176
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: CRO

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

gordonthegun wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:56 pm
Interesting.
So, the changes are actually three.
Very particular the one regarding the height of the the fin under the wing.
Summing the three changes the wing may have a rather different effect also on the following aero parts (bargeboard, floor, diffuser).

I wonder where is the floor they tested races ago and seemed to give a big advantage.
Ferrari didn't use it in quali and race because "they had built only one", but then in the following races it disappeared.
Where did you read that part about the floor?

As far as I'm aware, that floor didn't produce significant gains so they discarded it because of budget cap with building additional floor that doesn't provide significant advantage

User avatar
gordonthegun
10
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:33 pm
Location: Gorgonzola (Milan), Italy.

Re: Ferrari SF21

Post

F1NAC wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:36 pm
gordonthegun wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:56 pm
Interesting.
So, the changes are actually three.
Very particular the one regarding the height of the the fin under the wing.
Summing the three changes the wing may have a rather different effect also on the following aero parts (bargeboard, floor, diffuser).

I wonder where is the floor they tested races ago and seemed to give a big advantage.
Ferrari didn't use it in quali and race because "they had built only one", but then in the following races it disappeared.
Where did you read that part about the floor?

As far as I'm aware, that floor didn't produce significant gains so they discarded it because of budget cap with building additional floor that doesn't provide significant advantage
Well, immediately after the FPs in which both Leclerc and Sainz alternatively tested it, Ferrari said that the results were good (the driver using the new floor outperformed the other), but they would have waited to introduce it as they had just one piece and they didn't want to make preferences on the drivers.
Then in the following races, that floor disappeared and nobody gave an explanation, or, at least, I didn't find any, about its discard.

If you go back in this thread you can find the discussion about this.