carisi2k wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 21:53
Here is the problem with removing the sidepods like Mercedes and the reason why Mercedes just aren't going to get any better if they continue down the zero pod route. The sidepods are what now control the airflow to the rear of the car.
Agreed, however I believe the idea of the Mercedes design is that the sidepods are so narrow that the front tyre wake doesn't hit them (or barely interacts with them)
at all.
That would tend to suggest that in cornering the front tyre wake will be inclined to go whenever it wants but Mercedes must feel they have that under control.
Vanja #66 wrote: ↑08 Feb 2023, 10:02
No idea what Shovlin and Eliott said, but when it comes to racing cars, there are 3 rules:
1) all other things being equal, the lightest car will win
2) all other things being equal, the car with lowest CoG will win
3) all other things being equal, the car with the most centralised mass (lowest moment of inertia) will win
I agree that F=ma is fundamental and you want to reduce m, and also reduce body roll and improve handling by points (2) and (3).
But wouldn't those rules only come into play after the more fundamental rules (according to Frank Dernie):
1) Downforce, more is better
2) Tyres in the right temperature range
3) Power, more is better
We see number (2) being the most important in categories where weight, CoG and moment of inertia are controlled (indeed in classes where everyone has the same car even).
Was not point number (2) one of Mercedes main problems in 2022, and something that would most easily explain Mercedes' wild swings in competitiveness between a Friday and a Saturday at many 2022 Grand Prix for example?
I agree that is great that for example the Ford Mondeo super touring constructor Prodrive were eventually able to lower the whole Mondeo chassis relative to the running gear, they had the money to make a custom transaxle with the differential at the top so that the half-shaft ran through the middle of the V6 which could be placed lower (a considerable advantage over rival Super Tourers with inline engines that couldn't do that trick) etc.
Sadly classes with such freedoms are mostly banned now, especially in touring cars.
Obviously nowadays it's a given that the driver sits on the floor and almost in the backseat in any touring car category now, then it goes to "do the rules say you need to use the OEM hatch", even if it doesn't say that then it's question "can we afford to do a lightweight hatch or carbon front wheel wells or plastic windows (etc) and still sell it at the regulated price for TCR" or GT4 etc...
But even in the mid-to-late 90's you were still seeing "old-school" touring cars with better tyre temperature and power beating out more modern builds with more lightweight parts and more centralised mass. The former has to be more important than the latter...?
I also agree with mendis' point about durability. No use having a car that is lightweight but breaks all the time. It's not "raceable".
E.g., Mark Larkham built a Ford Falcon for the Australian Touring Car Championship that followed all those principles of lightweight, centralised mass (he thought he may as well engineer the Falcon like a Formula 3000, where he been previously racing in the Australian version of Formula 3000 in a Reynard) but his Falcon doesn't use the tyres well and it was way too flimsy and was constantly breaking. The car was not remotely competitive:
The car was designed specifically to be a racing car. It had an extremely low centre of gravity but it did compromise reliability. We grossly underestimated the loads a V8 Supercar encompasses from kerbs and hits with other cars.
The car was designed from a theoretical load point of view. In practice though it wasn't correct.
https://www.supercars.com/news/champion ... 10-falcon/