A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Vanes are important, though it's hard to analyze them accurately enough based on partial photos. Front end of the floor is the most advanced of any on the grid. Beam wing is also very interesting... Contrary to it, F1-75 floor front end looks almost underdeveloped. It's different philosophies yes, going along with different sidepods, but some details just look really well thought-out...
Well I fell for it I was about to come here and ask how it distinguishes between suspension movement and bumps.
Doing it on purpose or doing it on porpoise. (I'm a buffoon, the thick in thixotropic )
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
Vanes are important, though it's hard to analyze them accurately enough based on partial photos. Front end of the floor is the most advanced of any on the grid. Beam wing is also very interesting... Contrary to it, F1-75 floor front end looks almost underdeveloped. It's different philosophies yes, going along with different sidepods, but some details just look really well thought-out...
Other teams will be loving this picture im sure. The contour the the bottom edge of the inner vane is interesting
"I'm sure Newey foresaw it in the design phase and worked on the mechanics as well as the aerodynamics to solve it.
If Red Bull's solution to porpoising is mechanical they'll have that advantage over everyone for a really long time, I know redesigning suspension is a lot tougher than aero upgrades
And indeed Horner said that both cars were going to be running the new suspension:
I wouldn't know if solving it aerodynamically or via suspension is better/easier or worse/harder, but Ferrari doesn't seem to have trouble in the traction areas and in slow corners so I don't think their suspension puts them at a particular mechanical disadvantage today except for porpoising.
There will be a drag component to porpoising in addition to the vertical forces, so I wonder could their anti-dive geometry will help with this at all.
I can’t help but wonder whether the AM-RB001 Valkyrie fits somewhere in the evolution of this car.
Of course the cars are probably too different to literally test or take over components, but could it be used as a studyobject to for instance take out correlation issues?
If Red Bull's solution to porpoising is mechanical they'll have that advantage over everyone for a really long time, I know redesigning suspension is a lot tougher than aero upgrades
And indeed Horner said that both cars were going to be running the new suspension:
I wouldn't know if solving it aerodynamically or via suspension is better/easier or worse/harder, but Ferrari doesn't seem to have trouble in the traction areas and in slow corners so I don't think their suspension puts them at a particular mechanical disadvantage today except for porpoising.
There will be a drag component to porpoising in addition to the vertical forces, so I wonder could their anti-dive geometry will help with this at all.
I remember Scarbs saying Red Bull uses a Pro-Dive-Suspension. I never was able to find a really detailed image of the lower wishbones, but if the rear lower wishbone is not placed significantly higher than the front one, Scarbs is probably right. From some not very detailed pictures i would say Ferrari uses a similar suspension geometry, just a less extreme version than the Red Bull. I am not a specialist in suspension geometry, but if Scarbs is right with Red Bulls "Pro-Dive"-suspension geometry, i would say both cars use a "Pro-Dive'-suspension. But as i said - i am not a specialist in suspension geometry and i hope there are some people in here with better understanding and knowledge who can clarify that.
With more performance from the floor, wouldn't you also have to move the brake bias towards the rear a bit? One knock on effect with a very efficient floor, is slightly more MGU-K recovery because you're using more of the rear axle for braking.
We often saw at night races, the brake bias on the previous generation cars was ~58-57 forward biased, if the new cars are 54-53, that's an extra 4% more braking done with the rear axle. So assuming some losses perhaps an extra 2-3% MGU-K harvesting vs a team with a less efficient floor.
With more performance from the floor, wouldn't you also have to move the brake bias towards the rear a bit? One knock on effect with a very efficient floor, is slightly more MGU-K recovery because you're using more of the rear axle for braking.
We often saw at night races, the brake bias on the previous generation cars was ~58-57 forward biased, if the new cars are 54-53, that's an extra 4% more braking done with the rear axle. So assuming some losses perhaps an extra 2-3% MGU-K harvesting vs a team with a less efficient floor.
the current CofP should be around the throat of the venturi no? Which iirc is not really rear-biased
Well the shape of the floor is not really a classic venturi example with a simple shaped throat, so I am also curious where the CoP would lie.
That is true. There were also some images of the RB having a touch of rake too; which would perhaps — even with a conventional venturi shape — shift the CoP backwards a touch
That is true. There were also some images of the RB having a touch of rake too; which would perhaps — even with a conventional venturi shape — shift the CoP backwards a touch
CoP is shifted forward with positive rake Or did RB lower the rear end actually?
That is true. There were also some images of the RB having a touch of rake too; which would perhaps — even with a conventional venturi shape — shift the CoP backwards a touch
CoP is shifted forward with positive rake Or did RB lower the rear end actually?
The Mercs were pictured with what appeared to be "negative rake" apparently trying to get more rear end downforce.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Check the curl on the third strake on the right hand side. It's not just a flat strake. Interesting that it looks like it curls towards the centre of the chassis.
I was about to come here and ask how it distinguishes between suspension movement and bumps.
Or did RB lower the rear end actually?
