Ferrari SF-25

[Farnborough]

So the gearbox casing (structural member of the car) cannot take torsional loads if the suspension is stiff ?
How did this happen ? revised packaging given the 'shorter gearbox casing' requirement. Where did that requirement come from ?
'driver needs to sit more rearwards'.

I am sure the customer teams - Hass/Sauber uses their own gearbox casing design or are using SF-24's version. How can a top tier 'factory team' like Ferrari with state of the art tech and facilities at their disposal, get something like 'mechanical structure' wrong ? It's too basic a mistake. As a fan, I am boiling over, what must Elkkaan be feeling ? This is utter nonsense.

A reasonable assessment. Its not absolutely clear (whether they'll publish more in depth explanation IF they get a fix will be interesting) what they now view as under performance in detail of what is really happening.

Shorter structure SHOULD in ordinary practice give a better structural performance, and I'd discount that in logical reasoning.

The loads have been increasing substantially from step into 2022 season design. Whether they've truly enacted a reliable solution in this era would have to be considered. It's generally been a patchy and up/down performance overall for them. There was clear evidence of existence in this direction at COTA with plank wear exclusion in previous chassis. I don't feel the change to this year is entirely isolated.

This is one of the core area of a TD by laying out the hard performance "describers" putting trust in the factory decisions responsible, ultimately to "coach" them into the correct performance zone.

There's obviously huge pressure to reduce weight, to compromise in fitting component and it's relative performance within strict aero driven scheme.
Knowing the dominant attribute, to be preserved at all,cost, which may bring necessary compromise in another part of design is one that really defines a good TD .

Hopefully they know here exactly where they've currently missed their target, to then implement a step change.

The aero platform looks good, tentatively offering a glimpse of true performance when the track punishes the dynamic shortcomings less.
It could be a big step for them.

[Vanja #66]

I've speculated (base on the comments emanating from team report) that once the "spring" rate is raised to a certain level, then the structure becomes vulnerable to that applied loading. That being just basic mechanical principle, but effectively losing control of system performance by doing so.

Compliance in suspension system by virtue of poor torsional and bending stiffness of structural (sub)frame is one of the oldest problems of racing cars. I'm pretty sure the understanding of it pre-dates F1 itself

From what I've been told, GB casing sizing is done based on deflection criteria, not stress criteria - precisely to prevent compliance. Let's not fall victims to Occam's razor

[organic]

Ferrari in Monaco config


Max DWF rear-wing

Giuliano Duchessa