- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
understandable....
The problem for DRS with Ferrari's wing is smaller camber than RB. Just look at trailing edge angle of their wings in closed position. So less downforce and less drag when closed, but smaller difference when DRS is open. That's why I was calling it low-mid downforce wing, even if the frontal area and angle is not that small.
Yes but what is maddening to me is that Ferrari have had over a year now to try and replicate what we have tentatively decided is simply the result of "running a bigger DRS flap". And yet they have not done it! The second higher downforce wing that Leclerc tried for 1 lap on Saturday had the exact same flap size as the original wing.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 22:10The problem for DRS with Ferrari's wing is smaller camber than RB. Just look at trailing edge angle of their wings in closed position. So less downforce and less drag when closed, but smaller difference when DRS is open. That's why I was calling it low-mid downforce wing, even if the frontal area and angle is not that small.
Like I said, camber is bigger on RB rear wing, flaps are about the same size. This means RB flaps generates more drag when closed than Ferrari flap when closed, so when it opens the difference in drag reduction is bigger. This way RB is driving the rear wing main plane harder when the flap is closed, since the overall camber is bigger.
Do you think how good the electrical deployment is could affect design decision re: camber of the RW?Vanja #66 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 22:32Like I said, camber is bigger on RB rear wing, flaps are about the same size. This means RB flaps generates more drag when closed than Ferrari flap when closed, so when it opens the difference in drag reduction is bigger. This way RB is driving the rear wing main plane harder when the flap is closed, since the overall camber is bigger.
To be honest, I confirmed this difference only today, didn't notice Ferrari flap angle until yesterday. The only explanation I have is that Ferrari wanted to reduce RW drag even with flap closed (for defense in the race?) last year and they wanted to use it as benchmark now. Otherwise, it's a too obvious thing for anyone to miss.
I think he meant ers deployment as Honda supposedly have the best ers deployment so could they run a more aggressive wing and offset the drag with superior ers deployment.
A more complex mirror housing equals more drag?
Maybe, but teams have been justifying funny mirror designs for almost a decade now. Why stop now?
I dont either, sometimes simple is best.
The simple but blown through mirror housings are less draggy
Yes this could be part of how RB planned to compensate for the WT time reduction. Neglecting the less important areas to basically get the most bang for their buck in the windtunnel. Speculation of course.