the problem is porpoising. Does the project need to be changed? What updates – Corriere.it

The doubts quickly dissipated after two races, the anti-porpoising aerodynamic rules – validated after a negotiation between the teams and the FIA ​​- strengthened Red Bull’s operations. Forcing designers to increase floor heights has frozen or in some cases slowed down performance, making single-seater ground effect concepts more sensitive to underfloor turbulence. Partly violating its very nature. Not a surprise because the suction effect is now more disturbed, disappointing that since Ferrari and Mercedes there have not been adequate solutions to better protect the Venturi tunnels and the diffuser via the bottom edge. Sealing the car to the track in the best possible way is a challenge that today requires a different spirit than when the new regulations were written.

The difficulties that most of the engineers have been encountering for some time derive from the very few days of testing on the track. A fact that must be resigned to, however if the intent was to simplify the aerodynamic concept to produce a championship with ever closer cars, 2023 is marking a bad setback. If indeed the only winning concept turned out to be that of the RB19, taken up not by chance and for large stretches by Aston Martin, we would witness the failure of this new technical course in terms of greater balance and competitiveness on the grid. For the simple reason that it would be practically impossible for anyone to quickly take over a technically structured team like Red Bull by copying. The RB18 (car 2022) had finished in Abu Dhabi with a technical advantage of about 3 tenths of a consolidated over Ferrari, at least 5 over Mercedes. The gap has now dramatically widened and the gap has multiplied. If until then only Max Verstappen was able to drive at his best, now the superiority of Christian Horner’s team is demonstrated by the easy performance of Sergio Perez, who previously struggled. the photograph of a domain beyond expectations, reminiscent of the Mercedes hegemony. Of a car that doesn’t compromise with rebounds and can afford a non-existent front wing.

Can Ferrari recover or should he change the project?

If we look at where it started a year ago, the table immediately shows how far Ferrari is running below expectations compared to the step forward that one would have expected. The surprising gap. In the race, the SF-23 is going slower than the F1-75 and yet its direct heir and with many elements that are theoretically better than the previous one, has an engine with more power, for a big step backwards. The car hasn’t performed badly in qualifying so far because it uses the softer tires to compensate for the mechanical stiffness. in the tender phases that does not generate the estimated load in the tunnel and pays the consequences.

difficult to find different reasons other than to indicate in the porpoising the root of one’s ills. Unlike Newey’s engineers, Ferrari’s technicians are forced to clearly compromise the balance to resist rebounds, generating an indirect gap ranging from 5 to 7 tenths. In Jeddah, as in Bahrain, the car it still suffered and paid the price on the harder tyres. It has not yet been 100% said that the problem is the concept but it is legitimate to doubt it because there is the risk of losing a year of concrete developments. In this regard we often talk about the appearance of the bellies which is secondary. In Maranello they know that the error is to be found in the efficiency of the underbody and in the distribution of the load, rather than in the aerodynamic design, for example of the bonnet, which is actually defined in a later and more advanced phase. Which means we have not yet entered the phase of whether to decide to abandon this type of project for another, although some departments are studying it carefully. We need to know what the RB19 does under certain conditions… they say in Maranello.

If the power is there now, why not increase the incidence of the wings?

It’s not that simple. If, as it seems, porpoising is limiting choices, increasing resistance would mean increasing exposure to jumps, leading to having to stiffen a car which, seen in Arabia, would already seem to be at the limits of stiffness. This would lead to significant disadvantages in handling, as well as drag, which cannot be compensated for with a larger wing. The new fund that will come later will have to be able to solve this problem. If it works, it would make it possible to make instantaneous steps forward in the package, unlocking much of the hidden potential that Vasseur himself has repeatedly reiterated as being there.

What will be the gap in Melbourne? Difficult to make predictions. Ferrari on paper doesn’t go to Australia to win but to accumulate other data. Nonetheless, it will bring updates that are already scheduled up to Barcelona every weekend. The Albert Park circuit could put less emphasis on the strengths of the Red Bulls and the weaknesses of the Ferrari as it has no medium speed corners in sustained support. According to the data collected on the first two tracks, we could see a redhead fit in the first two sectors of the track, but more suffering in the third. But it will be far from the monstrous performance with Leclerc a year ago, Charles won in Australia giving Max Verstappen 5 tenths per lap.

Zimmerman to lead the 2026 engine project

In the meantime, more under the radar, it is underway a programmed reshuffle on the engine side. The clearly more powerful figure is that of Wolf Zimmermann who heads the power unit 2026 project. Units that will be 50% electric and will respond to very different criteria than the current ones, in particular in the efficiency ratio between Energy/hour rather than fuel/hour. The single-cylinder prototype of the new unit started on the test bench a few weeks ago.