2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 side-by-side (Pictures)

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

The Ferrari F10 and F60 side-by-side
The Ferrari F10 and F60 side-by-side

The Ferrari F10, revealed today, gives us our first look at how the 2010 F1 cars compare to last year’s models.

Like their rival teams, Ferrari have to get to grips with rules banning refuelling and imposing smaller front wheel widths on them. Here are some side-by-side comparisons of their old and new cars.


2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)
2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)
2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)
2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)

Right side

2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)
2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)


2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)
2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 (click to enlarge)

Ferrari F10 launch

Image (C) Ferrari spa

139 comments on “2010 Ferrari F10 and 2009 Ferrari F60 side-by-side (Pictures)”

      1. If you ask me, the white rear and front wings are hideous. It remids me of Schmaher’s Vodafone era(I think that was the worst looking Ferrari age).
        I like F10’s Red bull looking sharp font nose.
        I love F2008 too, that Ferrari red was cool.

        1. So true. but somehow, because the red-white ferrari had won the championships many people didn’t recognize it was hideous, they just love it because it was the fastest car. LOL.

          my favourite F2008 was in the singapore night race. its red-reflecting lights was just adorable :)

  1. Can’t get over how looooong the nose is! Seems a bit… ‘shorter’ as well. You can see it’s an evolution of the F60 rather than a revolutionary new concept.

    I still hope they do as well this year as they did last year!

    1. I’d say its a revolution more than evolution. The basic dimensions are similar – what else do you expect from the strict regulations – but the car’s ‘phyisque’ is completely different. And for your info, the car is longer than last year – the longest car in F1 history I think.

      1. Interesting take on it. I should clarify that when I said ‘shorter’ I meant to refer to the height of the car when compared to the ’09 version. As for it being the longest car in F1 history, that wouldn’t be surprising at all by the looks of it!

        1. I know what you mean here but I think this is due to the chunkier & taller sidepods making it look that way. I expect the car is pretty much the same height as last years.

          Must say, I think it looks beautiful…

    2. The nose doesn’t seem any longer, the length is all added at the rear where the fuel tank is. You can see this in that the monocoque is much further forward than last years car.

  2. Thanks Keith, now I can see a few more differences. Thes sidepods are longer, smoother and less contoured, the whole car seems to be a little higher, the nose is much different and sticks out a bit and over all the car is a mile longer in wheel base.

  3. RB5 nose + BGP-001 lines in the body + MP/4-25 rear wing = Ferrari F60

    It looks good, but that doesn’t stop it from looking like a Greatest Hits of all the other cars. Did Ferrari put a single original thought into this car, or are they just apeing what the competition does to see what sticks?

    1. What kind of stupid question is that? No, they did not put one original thought into the car. They copied 100%. Have a little respect for the great ingenuity of F1 engineers, please.

      1. And so you see my point. The designers can get way with imitating the opposition, but when they have the opposition’s data, it’s plagiarism. Of course, I can’t rightly see how you could force them to not use designs that work. I expect all the current teams to look like the F10, but the new teams might offer a glimmer of hope. I’m doubtful, though; the video on VirginRacing.com shows Timo Glok sitting in a cockpit with the upraised monocoque runners.

        1. Why re-invent the wheel? If one team comes up with something new that works should the others simply offer congratulations and resign themselves to failure? Of course not.

          Everything is on display in F1 and few things are truly secret for long. That may result in teams trying to follow the approach taken by others. But what works on one car doesn’t necessarily work on another, unless you have an understanding of why it worked on the first car.

          Look at ground effect – Lotus were the first to use it in F1, others jumped on board when they realised what was going on. The Williams FW07 was closely based on the Lotus 79, but Patrick Head had done the work to understand how everything worked and refined it to make a better F1 car. The March 811 was almost a carbon copy of the FW07 (reverse engineered from an actual FW07) but failed totally because no thought had gone into how the FW07 worked.

          If Ferrari have simply bolted together the best bits from Red Bull, Brawn and McLaren they’re likely to fail.

        2. Great point PM. Of course it’s not quite so simple, I don’t think you’re saying that yourself, but your basic argument is very valid indeed. I’m sure Ferrari have their own stuff in there in heaps but it does go to show the “difference” between copying and imitating.

      2. Oooooh the tifosi are easily irked.

        Shame on you PM for pointing out that the bottom half of the front wing is a carbon copy of the BGP, the nose is a half-copy of the RB (it’s missing the horizontal “kink” at the point where the bulges are), and the back wing has been changed to something remarkably similar to the McLaren. Shame, shame shame.

        A lot of the great ingenuity of F1 engineers is seeing what everyone else is doing and whether it works on your car. That’s why everyone copied the diffuser last year, and why nobody copied Ferrari’s overheating KERS.

        Ross Brawn has already said this year’s car is going to have the RB nose. It’s a given that all the other teams will copy it too. What’s interesting is whether any team will copy the pull rod suspension, as that’s a large part of the reason the Red Bull was so fast, so grippy and so fast. I said after Australia last year that the RB, not the Brawn was the fastest car of the year, and I was proved right in Shanghai – it didn’t win the title because of its drivers and its engineering breakdowns, not because of the car’s fundamental speed.

        1. Again, I would kill for an “edit comment” button to make myself look less stupid. Of course, I could try being less stupid to start off with, but I can’t see that working.

    2. Ferrari don’t need a massive gamble, they needed a revolution in design but something they could feel confident would deliver. They can develop it more after and I’m sure they will -besides we don’t know what’s underneath-and every team will basically be copying the designs from the teams that won especially copying the RB5.
      Wheel base looks longer. Quite a few changes. This is very comforting after last year and even if it isn’t on the pace for whatever reason it doesn’t matter as Ferrari probably won’t freeze development of the car again so they can keep pushing forward.
      After months of nothing from Ferrari I’m happy the car seems quite different. There is no guarantee of pace but it doesn’t look like they have been sleeping.

    3. So, picture this. You’re revealing your 2010 design for the first time, all the other teams are watching. Do you a) Go with a conventional design and save some of the innovations for testing or do you b) Show your hand at the first opportunity and give the other teams the maximum amount of time to copy you?

      I think Ferrari have gone for option B. Either that or this design is everything they’ve got and they’re starting off with the successful ideas from last year. Which seems like the only sensible thing to do given how disastrous their own ideas were at the start of last year.

      1. Given the fact that it takes months to design a car, teams aren’t going to be able to see, imitate and build a car in time for Bahrain after Ferrari launch. Especially when there’s no telling how it will fare on the track. After all, the F60 was one of the first cars launched last year, and it was terrible.

        1. No, but if they showed everything now that gives the teams an extra week or so to get going of they see something they think might work for them.
          So even if they can’t get anything ready for Bahrain, the extra week could make the difference between getting it ready for say Malaysia or China.

          And anyway, my last point stands. This may well be everything they’ve got and they’ve just copied everyone else’s good ideas as a base to build upon. Why would they do anything else considering how bad they started last year?

          1. No, you misunderstand me: why do you think Red Bull waited until the British Grand Prix to introduce a double-diffuser? It was because adding one required Adrian Newey to do a massive redesgn of the rear end. The teams don’t just look at what everyone has done, quickly sketch it and end it off to the machine shop to be made. It takes time to develop and time to build.

            And nor are they going to do it for future upgrades. Why imitate the Ferrari’s design for your first upgrade when Ferrari themselves are simply going to do an upgrade of their own?

          2. And I think you’ve misunderstood me.

            I’m not saying that the teams will *definitely* want to copy anything from Ferrari, or that seeing everything today would have made them work quicker.
            I’m saying that if it takes the teams 3 months to get something onto the car and they saw something on the Ferrari today rather than seeing it at the first test, they would have an extra week to think about it/start designing it if they thought it was something which would give the Ferrari an advantage.

            Granted, it’s not a lot of extra time, but why give the other teams any time to think about your advantages if you can wait and reveal them at the last moment?

          3. it may take 1-2 weeks to make a production model to bolt onto a car, but it only takes hours / a day or two to make a scale version or CFD model to simulate on your own chassis and then make a decision to develop it for the next upgrade.

          4. PM to be fair it only took Newey so long to introduce a double deck diffuser because of the rear pull-rod suspension. The other teams had the DDDs rolled out much faster.

            Also, that was quite a major ‘exploit’ in the regulations (which should have been banned, and RB would have dominated) compared to the smaller aero improvements one expects to see in these launches.

  4. I think that the car looks much better with the larger fuel tank, it’s a bit more bulky – in a nice way.

    Another wee note – is there any particular reason why Bridgestone has disappeared – Look at the black bits (barge boards?) from the plan photo and also the tyres aren’t branded….

  5. Sorry, one more thing, notice how the tops of the sidepods have been sculpted. Quite nice looking actually!

    This is like a “Where’s Wally” book, the more you look, the more you notice!

  6. The radiator inlets are much smaller in the F10…they did manage to improve the engine…plus look under the nose… its damn optimized for the double diffuser.

    1. which is an improvement over the old one. The old one looks a little more upright, a little unsure of itself. This new one looks like its straining at the leash, it wants to go.

      1. yeah I though the tyre spec would have made a larger visual difference. Not nearly as much as the difference in length and proportions forced by the new tanks.

        will the wheelbase length affect things like chicane speeds, I wonder? or is that kind of thing compensated for easily in other design areas?

        1. Realistically 25mm is only the width of a thumb – given the substantial change to the chassis your unlikely to be able to pick up on that.

          I doubt the extra length is solely the result of the fuel tank’s volume – there is a chance however it may have something to do with fuel tank weight distribution – 170kg of fuel is a lot to lump in any one place.

  7. This looks like a fat RB5 – notice the push rod rather than pull rod suspension through. Nose, air intakes, bargeboards and rear wing. it even has some of the fancy aero devices on the front wing simliar to the Brazil version of the RB5

  8. Thanks for these photos, Keith! I’ve been trying to spot the differences manually by comparing pictures from last year’s launch. Needless to say, you’ve made the task much easier!

    So here’s my take on the design… Nothing surprising really. A lot of the aero looks the same as it was on the last developments of the F60b. I guess they just did some fine-tuning in that department. We’ve all pretty much anticipated the higher nose and the RB5-esque bulges. The sidepods look more sculpted from the front, ala-BMW F1.09, and are quite fat. Pretty subtle changes on the whole… Not sure if it looks like six months’ work though. Hope that’ll be enough to keep them ahead of the pack!

    Oh, and are the pictures to scale? If so, that would mean a MASSIVE increase increase in wheelbase.

    I’m not digging the new livery though. The white wings make it look like one of their cars from the early noughties! quite a departure from the last few years. Missing the post Monaco ’07 paintjob more than ever!

    1. the long wheelbase is what first caught my eye. It’s going to change the handling characteristics of the car just by itself. Presumably this is to incorporate the larger fuel tank. Does this mean we will be seeing a lot of longer wheelbase cars this year?

      also – at first glance i thought the little vertical fins on the front wing endplate had gone but on closer inspection they have actually been extended upwards and then extra evolution of the plain horizontal ends can be seen with that ‘bump’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>