ringo wrote: ↑13 Mar 2022, 21:19
AeroDynamic wrote: ↑13 Mar 2022, 10:55
I'm not sure if its just good downforce. It might be weight as well. Does anyone have an order of cars by wheel base length? I've been curious to learn where the cars are different in that aspect.
The Mercedes has lived up to its recent trend of concept: efficiency and low drag over downforce. The concept is extreme and the downforce performance hinges on that floor maybe even more than the other cars with the bulk-sidepods. So, the fact that their unresolved porpoising is in their way from really activating the peak potential of that car concept is not surprising. The more the raise the ride height, perhaps the greater the ratio of downforce loss there is on their car because its even more sensitive and dependent on this than the others?
If they sort out the porpoising (and I have no doubt they will) I won't be surprised if that car supersedes the rest with margin.
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/G ... 880386.jpg
I agree. The other cars may have a larger % of their downforce coming from wings and beam wing. W13 may have gambled all their chips on the floor.
Sorry but... do you have some pointers for this conclusion?
From this picture F1-75 has both less front wing and less rear wing than the W13.
RB-18 has perhaps somewhat slightly more rear wing, although primarily behind the centerline cooling which is less used, and less front wing.
But as a comment overall I'm not sure what benefit would be being more floor or more wing, it's a balance, on slow corners the floor will not help much, while the wings will get in the way on a straight. Any way to allocate the downforce is going to come down to a compromise with how they have other areas in the car setup like suspensions.