. "Red Bull has fallen from one extreme to the other. Last year it was the car that was highest at the back. Now it's the lowest at the rear axle," says Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott.
"If we were to drive so low, the underbody would break for us," compares Toto Wolff.
Of course, doesn't make it true, but wanted to clear it up that there are actual quotes in there on the topic"The traction is breathtaking," confirms Wolff.
I think you have a great theory on this. I don't think it's much to do with front suspension as AMUS hints. I very much think it's the floor aero. We've already seen Mercedes' handy work last season. A car that is far too sensitive to rideheight to be run low. It may still retain some of those characteristics as the car is still their own design, revised. It will tend towards having the same DNA.mechanoit wrote: ↑28 Feb 2023, 15:48I made a lengthy post in the general aerodynamics topic that could be related to this. First I have to say I am unsure how true this rumour is. There doesn’t seem to be a direct quote from Wolff or any Mercedes engineers, just AMuS reporting of it supposedly.pursue_one's wrote: ↑27 Feb 2023, 23:59AMuS reports that apparently the ground clearance of the RB19 is at least 10 millimetres below everyone else. Toto Wolff says their floor would break if they would do the same. Also Mercedes engineers claim to have noticed that the AMR23 drives at a lower ride height too, and despite that, gets over the bumps well. It is also strong on corner exit. The comparison with Aston Martin is interesting for Mercedes because they supply Aston Martin with the engine, gearbox and rear suspension.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rain-2023/
If we assume that Mercedes did say this and further assume it is true, then I see some potential link to my earlier post in the general aerodynamics topic. I noted there that Red Bull could one and/or two potential ways to achieve this. One is to bleed off any excess downforce produced after a certain point as ride height compresses with increased car speed and corresponding increase in downforce. Such a bleed off or aerodynamic “vent” or “relief valve” (not literal relief valve) could stop the ride height compressing further which can result in the floor entering choke or stall zone that sets off porpoising. Such an aerodynamic “vent” could even be as simple as having a tuned floor edge together with other associated upstream control surfaces, that allow some small losses under the floor at the desired speed which counteracts further downforce from building up. The second way, and which could even be used in combination with the first way, is they’ve found a way to get some type of inertia damping or equivalent effect even though hydraulic and mechanical devices have been banned.
The Red Bull doesn’t run stiff, and in fact seems notably softer sprung relative to other cars. This is quite obvious to see when it rides the kerbs and hits bumps on the track. It seems to absorb vertical accelerations almost entirely within its suspension. Yet it can run low, maximising the high downforce zone for the venturi floor and not stall the floor even when it hits bumps on the track and the ride compresses. I still struggle to understand how they are doing it. I am leaning towards them simply designing a floor that isn’t too aggressive in how the venturi constricts and opens up again, so their peak downforce isn’t very high but the operating zone is much wider. Tuning the floor seems to be key. Not enough of an aggressive venturi, and downforce produced is too low. Too aggressive, and downforce produced is too high for the fast straights and fast corners. Almost seems like they need a specific floor for each type of track. Of course all of this is just guess work but I find it intriguing.
Will we be able to see this if the car gets lifted ?mechanoit wrote: ↑28 Feb 2023, 15:48I made a lengthy post in the general aerodynamics topic that could be related to this. First I have to say I am unsure how true this rumour is. There doesn’t seem to be a direct quote from Wolff or any Mercedes engineers, just AMuS reporting of it supposedly.pursue_one's wrote: ↑27 Feb 2023, 23:59AMuS reports that apparently the ground clearance of the RB19 is at least 10 millimetres below everyone else. Toto Wolff says their floor would break if they would do the same. Also Mercedes engineers claim to have noticed that the AMR23 drives at a lower ride height too, and despite that, gets over the bumps well. It is also strong on corner exit. The comparison with Aston Martin is interesting for Mercedes because they supply Aston Martin with the engine, gearbox and rear suspension.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rain-2023/
If we assume that Mercedes did say this and further assume it is true, then I see some potential link to my earlier post in the general aerodynamics topic. I noted there that Red Bull could one and/or two potential ways to achieve this. One is to bleed off any excess downforce produced after a certain point as ride height compresses with increased car speed and corresponding increase in downforce. Such a bleed off or aerodynamic “vent” or “relief valve” (not literal relief valve) could stop the ride height compressing further which can result in the floor entering choke or stall zone that sets off porpoising. Such an aerodynamic “vent” could even be as simple as having a tuned floor edge together with other associated upstream control surfaces, that allow some small losses under the floor at the desired speed which counteracts further downforce from building up. The second way, and which could even be used in combination with the first way, is they’ve found a way to get some type of inertia damping or equivalent effect even though hydraulic and mechanical devices have been banned.
The Red Bull doesn’t run stiff, and in fact seems notably softer sprung relative to other cars. This is quite obvious to see when it rides the kerbs and hits bumps on the track. It seems to absorb vertical accelerations almost entirely within its suspension. Yet it can run low, maximising the high downforce zone for the venturi floor and not stall the floor even when it hits bumps on the track and the ride compresses. I still struggle to understand how they are doing it. I am leaning towards them simply designing a floor that isn’t too aggressive in how the venturi constricts and opens up again, so their peak downforce isn’t very high but the operating zone is much wider. Tuning the floor seems to be key. Not enough of an aggressive venturi, and downforce produced is too low. Too aggressive, and downforce produced is too high for the fast straights and fast corners. Almost seems like they need a specific floor for each type of track. Of course all of this is just guess work but I find it intriguing.
From what i read W14 was trying to mimic a lot of the same stuff as the W13 Bahrain testing to correlate data. They even used the same barn door wing as W13 for all 3 days. So their massive drag during testing was on purpose. Merc said they won't be using that wing in the first race.Venturiation wrote: ↑01 Mar 2023, 23:59do teams use the lowest possible ride height in testing ?
or is the W14 as the same height as W13 to compare it and do correlation with the simulator same as the rear wing situation?
but what about ride heightzeroday wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 00:37From what i read W14 was trying to mimic a lot of the same stuff as the W13 Bahrain testing to correlate data. They even used the same barn door wing as W13 for all 3 days. So their massive drag during testing was on purpose. Merc said they won't be using that wing in the first race.Venturiation wrote: ↑01 Mar 2023, 23:59do teams use the lowest possible ride height in testing ?
or is the W14 as the same height as W13 to compare it and do correlation with the simulator same as the rear wing situation?
