Well, the report was of RB being only a couple of kgs above the limit after Spain, and since 8kg would be roughly 0.25s per lap I wonder what kind of mighty upgrade must they have had to offset that sort of deficit. Or it's just Marko-spread crap as it's often the case on Amus
I'm not sure I follow. They can only run the car that the weight they were able to design to. If it's still competitive, it's not related to where it "could" have been if it was lighter.
There's not much to follow. If you have a car which weighs 800kg and has X performance, resource-wise would you go for an upgrade which wins you, say, +5 performance with no weight gain or one that wins you +10 performance but costs you -4 in weight. It is a bigger (+1) gain still, but the underlying assumption is: chances are it's also more "expensive" (especially if it's aero) which doesn't feel like the best path to go down in a budget cap, CFD/WT-limited environment as it hinders further development down the line.AR3-GP wrote: ↑11 Jul 2022, 01:43I'm not sure I follow. They can only run the car that the weight they were able to design to. If it's still competitive, it's not related to where it "could" have been if it was lighter.
At this point in the season, I don't feel that 10kg is something you just chop out of the car especially with the budget caps.
What I have seen so far:
1) Light weight DRS actuator - failed experiment in Barcelona
2) Switch to carbon floor stringers in Canada.
Apparantly they switched back to the titanium floor stringers for Austria instead of the CFRP onesAR3-GP wrote: ↑11 Jul 2022, 01:43I'm not sure I follow. They can only run the car that the weight they were able to design to. If it's still competitive, it's not related to where it "could" have been if it was lighter.
At this point in the season, I don't feel that 10kg is something you just chop out of the car especially with the budget caps.
What I have seen so far:
1) Light weight DRS actuator - failed experiment in Barcelona
2) Switch to carbon floor stringers in Canada.
I think they are trying to nail the TD039 regs before the break and, (in my opinion) they noticed more flexing with the CFRP beams
TD039 addresses excessive plank deflection and wear. The floor stringers which are being highlighted in the images are related to floor edge stiffness.DutchPanther wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 15:10I think they are trying to nail the TD039 regs before the break and, (in my opinion) they noticed more flexing with the CFRP beams
Let's say that the outboard edges are meant to flex, if they flex down and 'seal' the sides they'll boost the ground effects making it harder for the suspension to cope and squat down thus rubbing the plank right? I think it's more like a butterfly effect, you optimise one thing and automatically you effect the other...AR3-GP wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 16:00TD039 addresses excessive plank deflection and wear. The floor stringers which are being highlighted in the images are related to floor edge stiffness.DutchPanther wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 15:10I think they are trying to nail the TD039 regs before the break and, (in my opinion) they noticed more flexing with the CFRP beams
The opposite should be the case. Carbon fiber usually is much more rigid than titanium. Titanium also is a better shock absorber due to it's lower stiffness.DutchPanther wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 15:10I think they are trying to nail the TD039 regs before the break and, (in my opinion) they noticed more flexing with the CFRP beams
Actually yes you are right. Then I wonder if the CFRP beam got damaged after Silverstone and RB simply did not have enough time to reproduce it? Anyways we did not see the full extent of the damage to Max's floorgandharva wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 16:30The opposite should be the case. Carbon fiber usually is much more rigid than titanium. Titanium also is a better shock absorber due to it's lower stiffness.DutchPanther wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 15:10I think they are trying to nail the TD039 regs before the break and, (in my opinion) they noticed more flexing with the CFRP beams