2022 Australian Grand Prix: Post Race Analysis

[ferrari4life]

Anyone have any idea if our pace was just a function of the nature of the AUS track compared to the previous 2 gp's? or did we finally open it up and carry less downforce and this is were we really are with a decent gap to RB.

[Cavallino]

Anyone have any idea if our pace was just a function of the nature of the AUS track compared to the previous 2 gp's? or did we finally open it up and carry less downforce and this is were we really are with a decent gap to RB.

no, we were still slower in sector 2 where it is mostly flat

[Tifoso]

I don’t “know”, but this was supposed to be RB’s track. Sure didn’t look like it to me.

[Tony]

The way that Charles was like "Do we go for fastest lap?", getting a no from pitwall, then going for it regardless, had me laughing.
Not sure if the rest of the teams were laughing tho.

And he could have gone even faster than that, he was lapping cars while still pulling off the fastest lap of the race...

[Tony]

I wonder if the other teams are sandbagging? Maybe they got so used to it in the preseason.

[Gilles]

Anyone have any idea if our pace was just a function of the nature of the AUS track compared to the previous 2 gp's? or did we finally open it up and carry less downforce and this is were we really are with a decent gap to RB.

After a setting which was, by far, not the best possible in the Saudi race, i think we did a very good job on the car and this time RB did not (explaining such a gap)
Maybe we took some risk in lowering the rear, increasing the power (maybe), and changing aero balance.
The main factor could have been to lower the rear (still have to be confirmed), it could have give us more load and less drag, something linked with the less charged rear wing, the bigger front wing, the increase in top speed and the drivers' agreed porpoising. Still suppositions, but really possible ones

[ferrari4life]

After a setting which was, by far, not the best possible in the Saudi race, i think we did a very good job on the car and this time RB did not (explaining such a gap)
Maybe we took some risk in lowering the rear, increasing the power (maybe), and changing aero balance.
The main factor could have been to lower the rear (still have to be confirmed), it could have give us more load and less drag, something linked with the less charged rear wing, the bigger front wing, the increase in top speed and the drivers' agreed porpoising. Still suppositions, but really possible ones

yeah i was wondering if we changed something that increased the porpoising but made us faster. However we made a big jump from SA.

[SS454]

yeah i was wondering if we changed something that increased the porpoising but made us faster. However we made a big jump from SA.

Most likely a ride height change. I also suspect different spring rates and shock settings can have an effect of controlling the porpoising.

[Gilles]

Most likely a ride height change. I also suspect different spring rates and shock settings can have an effect of controlling the porpoising.

Sure, but the result could be a lot less traction. I think Ferrari chose the opposite, soft rear springs, maybe a lower rear, all balanced by forward aerodynamic loading and it works. Doesn't matter if it causes an increase in porpoising, as long as there is no high speed curve

[gump1480]

Sure, but the result could be a lot less traction. I think Ferrari chose the opposite, soft rear springs, maybe a lower rear, all balanced by forward aerodynamic loading and it works. Doesn't matter if it causes an increase in porpoising, as long as there is no high speed curve

Yeah...that high speed curves were missing in Melbourne is what allowed us to go with aggressive ride height. This configuration may not work in Silverstone. Hopefully by Barcelona we can bring a new floor to completely eradicate the porpoising issue.