Both Red Bull and Aston Martin understand this year's regulations and are running fast machines.
In terms of team power, there is a wall that can never be overcome, but Aston Martin has broken down the current top 3 stronghold.
Comparison of Red Bull RB18 and Aston Martin AMR23!
Floor similarities and Mercedes gearbox weak points
*It's a pity that the AMR23 floor is angled so that the rear side faces the front.
Mercedes gearbox 2022 type (There is almost no change in the Mercedes gearbox 2022 and 2023.)
Due to the thick gearbox of the AMR23, the volume of air flowing through both the bottom and top surfaces of the diffuser is small.
The Mercedes gearbox has a pull rod (red arrow) and an inboard suspension such as a torsion bar (yellow dotted line) built in the middle.
The inboard suspension parts are built in behind the gear cassette (red circle), and the fairing of the drive shaft (green dotted line) is slanted and thick.
Red Bull gearbox type 2022
You can see that the part where the drive shaft (green dotted line) connects is clearly thin.
The shape of the gearbox has been shaved off along the round gears of the differential.
Compared to Mercedes, it has an uneven shape, but it is the part that is buried in the diffuser and gives the shape of the bottom surface a degree of freedom.
The upper surface spreads space and can flow air smoothly.
I think you can see from this that it is an aerodynamic requirement that Red Bull adopted pushrods and took most of the inboard suspension out of the gearbox.
Interesting reference to the MP4-(2_?) Just continue the waterslide forward; they may, or some other team may eventually if beneficial.NutritionFact wrote: β25 Mar 2023, 02:24
Edith: https://i.postimg.cc/fL4dJ6Lg/IMG-20230325-013524.jpg "Papaya" found.
it looks like the sides of the "gear box cavity" on the floor is lifted more from the surface of the top of the floor than in the rb18 (sorry for lack of technical terms there). i wonder if the size of the merc gearbox is offset by raising it a bit more than the redbull..im sure that there is still an advantage to the smaller gearbox, but could it be negated in the diffusser area, since thats so important?Wouter wrote: β25 Mar 2023, 10:24From a long Japanese article from today. Very interesting but to long to translate it all.
https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/redbull/r ... loor-23-3/
.Both Red Bull and Aston Martin understand this year's regulations and are running fast machines.
In terms of team power, there is a wall that can never be overcome, but Aston Martin has broken down the current top 3 stronghold.
Comparison of Red Bull RB18 and Aston Martin AMR23!
Floor similarities and Mercedes gearbox weak points
https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... view-2.jpg
*It's a pity that the AMR23 floor is angled so that the rear side faces the front.
Mercedes gearbox 2022 type (There is almost no change in the Mercedes gearbox 2022 and 2023.)
https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... rbox-2.jpg
Due to the thick gearbox of the AMR23, the volume of air flowing through both the bottom and top surfaces of the diffuser is small.
The Mercedes gearbox has a pull rod (red arrow) and an inboard suspension such as a torsion bar (yellow dotted line) built in the middle.
https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... rbox-2.jpg
The inboard suspension parts are built in behind the gear cassette (red circle), and the fairing of the drive shaft (green dotted line) is slanted and thick.
Red Bull gearbox type 2022
https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... tail-1.jpg
You can see that the part where the drive shaft (green dotted line) connects is clearly thin.
The shape of the gearbox has been shaved off along the round gears of the differential.
Compared to Mercedes, it has an uneven shape, but it is the part that is buried in the diffuser and gives the shape of the bottom surface a degree of freedom.
The upper surface spreads space and can flow air smoothly.
I think you can see from this that it is an aerodynamic requirement that Red Bull adopted pushrods and took most of the inboard suspension out of the gearbox.
Honestly - you were already upset about this last year. It is explicitly emphasized that these models (of course) do not correspond to the originals and the results are therefore not transferable. So where is the problem? And why shouldn't a model that is a concept similar to the W14 or the AM be called that? Because some people cite the results as facts in discussions? In such discussions people cite their opinion or their eyeball CFD as facts, so please..- if that is your problem, then you must not have such discussions, because opinions and eyeball CFD can hardly be better. Therefore I believe that the real reason for your criticism is rather that your opinion and your eyeball-CFD "results" of these CFD simulations were opposed and you ran out of arguments... Otherwise it does not fit together for me, because as I said - people cite completely different things than facts in such discussions...Hoffman900 wrote: β22 Mar 2023, 15:09While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They arenβt either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).
And it's fun!Andi76 wrote: β26 Mar 2023, 08:45Honestly - you were already upset about this last year. It is explicitly emphasized that these models (of course) do not correspond to the originals and the results are therefore not transferable. So where is the problem? And why shouldn't a model that is a concept similar to the W14 or the AM be called that? Because some people cite the results as facts in discussions? In such discussions people cite their opinion or their eyeball CFD as facts, so please..- if that is your problem, then you must not have such discussions, because opinions and eyeball CFD can hardly be better. Therefore I believe that the real reason for your criticism is rather that your opinion and your eyeball-CFD "results" of these CFD simulations were opposed and you ran out of arguments... Otherwise it does not fit together for me, because as I said - people cite completely different things than facts in such discussions...Hoffman900 wrote: β22 Mar 2023, 15:09While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They arenβt either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).
But anyway - people like Vanja do a lot of work to enable others to understand what mechanisms play a role in different concepts and how they COULD work and what the differences COULD be in terms of aerodynamics of the cars. That enriches this forum immensely and is a much better basis for discussion and to understand what the differences between cars COULD be in that regard. And that is far better and more than anything else you can find anywhere! Also it is a base and a basis to understand why a car COULD have a better performance and they show differences and trends that COULD be there. They are a better basis for discussion and understanding than anything else and except for you and three other people (obvious Mercedes fans who did not agree with the results of the CFD simulations in 2022 and the predictions based on them that this concept will fail) the rest of this forum certainly appreciates these CFD simulations. And they are without any doubt the best available material comparing different concepts in general and to which everybody has free access. How you can criticize something that benefits the general public is completely beyond my understanding. But I can't understand everything, and there are people like that and people who find fault with everything. I hope only Vanja can not be negatively influenced by this and a few individuals do not ruin again what hundreds or thousands of others benefit.
Note: even if this is "off-topic" I think this should be said in the interest of the community that appreciates Vanja's great work, as the ratings of his CFD threads clearly show.
This last discussion has shown that a huge amount of votes have no actual credibility and are used as an "I agree" rather than it actually being a contribution.
The thing is, you can draw some limited conclusions, you can draw some possible conclusion and you can draw some 110% inaccurate conclusion. This, naturally, goes for every possible simulation that ever was, is and will be made.