Agree with this, finding it curios that the MB/FR examples don't seem to be particularly well resolved. All of the teams have substantial experience (well youd expect they do) in suspension design and kinematics etc, but they look relatively casual in their approach here.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.
I would accept cross country ski as an alternative term for the longbow.Farnborough wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 09:49Camber, as described in a ski, appears part of this design, in that it sits with static load accepting a little compression to give pre-load into it's structure.
The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.
Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see thatSevach wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 18:32The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.
Venturiation wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 18:54Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see thatSevach wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 18:32The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.
Red Bull have found the holy grail (under these regs) of a floor with a decent operating window - less affected by pitch/roll than others - and a suspension system that keeps the floor in that window. If you have an aero package that isn't peaky, the suspension system is going to have a much easier time keeping it happy. A peaky design needs very fine control, a less peaky one doesn't.Venturiation wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 18:54Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see thatSevach wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 18:32The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.
Ferrari and Mercedes probably did it for the same reason why many engineers rejected these dropped arms when they came up.... and only adopted them a little later because the aerodynamic advantages due to the higher front wings outweighed the disadvantages and limitations in kinematics. Since these aerodynamic disadvantages no longer exist today and the suspensions themselves also tend to go in this earlier direction, this was a perfectly understandable step to take.vorticism wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 01:03RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.