Does SAT have the same rear suspension as RBR? The RB18 has a bit of rake and the AT does't.
Seems to me that they have their own developped rear suspension.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Does SAT have the same rear suspension as RBR? The RB18 has a bit of rake and the AT does't.
According to one of the twitter guys, they are the same. He says that AT have their own front suspension though (Merc/AM have the same relationship)
They take all. Gearbox, suspension, hydraulics, and PU.
Thank you for this information @AR3-GP.AR3-GP wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 16:30.
According to one of the twitter guys, they are the same:
https://twitter.com/NicolasF1i/status/1 ... wsrc%5Etfw
The suspension will be part of a system which includes the aero package. AT have a different aero package to RBR and so the suspension won't necessarily work with it the way it does on the RB18. That's one potential downside of buying a back end from another team - it will have been designed for their car.AR3-GP wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 16:33They take all. Gearbox, suspension, hydraulics, and PU.
That's why I believe the RB's top speed has aerodynamic origins. The suspension is helping certainly with raising and lowering but all teams have suspension systems which do this. The AT shows that it's not purely a suspension trick. Being able to lower the car (like most teams already) doesn't grant straightline speed. The aero package has to be designed in such a way.
I honestly don’t know. There could be multiple reasons.
Just because they share components, doesn’t mean they set them up the same way.AR3-GP wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 16:33They take all. Gearbox, suspension, hydraulics, and PU.
That's why I believe the RB's top speed has aerodynamic origins. The suspension is helping certainly with raising and lowering but all teams have suspension systems which do this. The AT shows that it's not purely a suspension trick. Being able to lower the car (like most teams already) doesn't grant straightline speed. The aero package has to be designed in such a way.
Well that's my point I think. Suspension alone is not the answer.
Holy cow.Wazari wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 00:58No need to thank me. I was one of many who took an underpowered, unreliable PU and transformed it into the PU it is currently with about a 10.5 kW advantage over its competitors. As far as the logo, most people know what's under the engine cover regardless what may be on it.
That’s just normal compression under aero load, what RedBull is doing is definitely not just aero. It’s a combination of aero and mechanical imo.
Its not hard as you say. But aerodynamic and weight limits discourage it. Notice the volume of the RedBull installation. It's massive and has multiple sets of torsion tubes.
1. The F1 community is small and we talk. I know a PU engineer at Mercedes and one at Ferrari and while our conversations are guarded, things like peak power is not a secret. Of course they maybe fudging at numbers but I don't think so. So we know each other's output, there's nothing any of us can do anything about it. It is what it is.atanatizante wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 09:44
Hi there!
A have some questions for you had you are willing to answer ...
1. Which are the methods to determine that Honda PU has more power than other PUs? and how reliable are those methods knowing that other teams said they don't know precisely about the actual numbers and they are just "guestimate"?
2. We know that last year's fuel needed to have 5.75% bio-components. It`s true that in Honda`s case these bio-components were just ethanol hence it was no power loss for this year?
3. Just a "guestimate" thought: since last year Honda`s MGU-H was the most efficient one for it has the greatest percentage of transforming (indirectly) fuel into electric energy when needed in Q3 and in the race both for overtaking and defending. Hence the ERS clipping on the straights is retarded compared to the others ...
Remember when someone thought It'd be a good idea to freeze 40-60kw advantage back in 2014? Must have been some genius who green lit that decision, whoever it was.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 22:30Holy cow.Wazari wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 00:58No need to thank me. I was one of many who took an underpowered, unreliable PU and transformed it into the PU it is currently with about a 10.5 kW advantage over its competitors. As far as the logo, most people know what's under the engine cover regardless what may be on it.
Thats 15hp
So much for engine freeze!
The means Toro Rosso chassis is not great assuming this is a qualifying power gap.
With this budget cap, making fundamental changes to a car's DNA is very difficult because you have to steal from peter to pay paul. Changing the suspension radically is going to require a new gearbox, rear suspension, and so on. Having to use your budget on this, means you can't spend it elsewhere.
Not sure what you're trying to show with the posting of this video? I've watched it many times on F1TV and it wasn't flapping in any of the corners leading up to the back straight. The way it snaps out made me think it was vortex induced.etusch wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 09:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVkRdqVQUAwispano6 wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 08:36Indeed, I had been studying the footage after the race to see when it came loose and it seemed to snap off immediately after coming out of the W13's slipstream tunnel. Might the W13 be generating some type of dirty outwash that caused it? I'm curious to see how other cars have been affected as well to see if this is a design flaw in the brow that is supplied to all teams.gandharva wrote: ↑25 Oct 2022, 15:23The deflector broke off exactly when Max pulled out of the slipstream to overtake Hamilton
https://i.imgur.com/tnS7o6E.png
https://i.imgur.com/pqavCCf.png