I'm not saying we shouldn't look at older cars, I'm saying we should look at similar cars. And this one, with an entirely sealed underfloor is not similar in any way. Effectively it has no diffuser, or venturi tunnels, and the space underneath would be almost at minimum pressure whether the car was moving or not. Both of these are in stark contrast to the current, and older cars.johnny comelately wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 12:11With respect, you may be mistaken.SiLo wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 11:39Well yes because it has a big fan sucking the air out in a consistent fashion and minimal downforce from any other surface. In this context it is entirely unrelated.johnny comelately wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 10:58
Very high, maybe extreme ground effect generated by active non-conventional means in the last millennium with no porpoising (that i know of)
Now I am lost for words
It is all related, it is not a binary situation
In problem solving, looking at many sources of information often helps in finding a solution.
I could almost guarantee some of the current designers would have looked at older race cars for this reason.
Are you saying this discussion should be limited to just the existing troublesome cars and the few who arent?
I for one want to know why with this reduced downforce formula, akin to the Chaparral, why these problems have cropped up.
They are the largest Gurney flaps I have seen.
My point is, this car is a terrible comparison, not that making comparisons it terrible.