True, although it's apples to oranges. The AMR inlet is triangular while the RB's is rectangular. The inner part of the AMR is now taller than the RB with the letterbox intakes. So, will AMR further acutate (acutify?
) their triangles? With more understanding of cooling they may reduce inlet sizes--this seems to be what RB have figured out based on 1.3 yrs data. The triangle does seem like a more ideal shape for the area, imo.
As others have noted before, it seems like mass dampers and inerters could have been used to quell porpoising. In the interest of simplicity though, changes to the prescribed floor geometry could also eliminate porpoising, imo. I have some ideas for that which I might post later.ryaan2904 wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 09:25They shouldnt have banned dampers and exotic suspension elements for these new gen cars. With higher focus on suspension systems, this just feels like artificially creating unnecessary headaches for the teams. Sure the top teams might cope beautifully (hold my ferrari & mercedes), but the smaller teams might takes years to be truly competitive. Makes low sense to do this if what you wanted was more competition from the backmarkers.AR3-GP wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 19:48Everyone benefitted from this. Instead of having to deal with undamped tire dynamics, more of the control is in the suspension. This should have made the job easier.sucof wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 19:16Adding to the suspension subject:
Although I think the importance of the suspension was always underrated in this forum, probably because aerodynamic components are the most visible thing on a car, do not forget that beside the move to make underbody aerodynamics more important, the tires changed as well!
These new tires rely on suspension a lot more than the previous ones, and also allow more control by the suspension regarding how the car behaves.
So tires also made suspension more important.
Changes to the floor geometry created thousands of hours of reworking in the windtunnel even though no one was porpoising come the end of 2022.vorticism wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 18:17As others have noted before, it seems like mass dampers and inerters could have been used to quell porpoising. In the interest of simplicity though, changes to the prescribed floor geometry could also eliminate porpoising, imo. I have some ideas for that which I might post later.ryaan2904 wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 09:25They shouldnt have banned dampers and exotic suspension elements for these new gen cars. With higher focus on suspension systems, this just feels like artificially creating unnecessary headaches for the teams. Sure the top teams might cope beautifully (hold my ferrari & mercedes), but the smaller teams might takes years to be truly competitive. Makes low sense to do this if what you wanted was more competition from the backmarkers.
In 2018, 2019 and 2021, it helped Mercedes. Let's see how this one goes.
FIA and FOM will be hoping for the former....
Newey got it so right. I know hes the best. But still. Mclaren openly acknowledged the new package did not show a jump of this extent and they were surprised themselves. Same with mercedes, just negatively. They followed their own concept, which produced great numbers but never materalized. They tried the rb solution, which gave bad numbers. So its interesting, that the teams almost work a bit in the dark as they cannot simulate correctly. So a bit like in the old days where they designed on intuition, knowledge and experience. Or am i totally off the chart I mean, i know its a joke that they say newey can see cfd flows with his own eyes but having that indepth knowledge of flows and experience from the ground effect area, must be a factor. So forexamble we know this "detail" should probably produce this desired effect but we cant confirm it in the tunnel, but --- it we go for it..