2023 car comparison thread

[Stu]

I have seen it suggested that the difficulty in following other cars this year is due to increased outwash.

Could this be mitigated by reducing the width of the front wing?

To track-width (tyre centreline) would do it, but they would still look for small outwash ‘wins’ because of steering lock. Reducing it to inside edge of tyre/wheel would maybe be more effective; although how that would effect the rest of the floor/body down-stream is another thing (can of worm’s opened).

[wuzak]

I have seen it suggested that the difficulty in following other cars this year is due to increased outwash.

Could this be mitigated by reducing the width of the front wing?

To track-width (tyre centreline) would do it, but they would still look for small outwash ‘wins’ because of steering lock. Reducing it to inside edge of tyre/wheel would maybe be more effective; although how that would effect the rest of the floor/body down-stream is another thing (can of worm’s opened).

It certainly would look better and reduce the number of broken front wings.

[AR3-GP]

There is some similarity between Merc's latest floor and the RB18/19. The treatment at the rear of the boat section is similar. The kink in the boat section at the middle of the floor is also similar. This is a great contrast to what Merc debuted the W13 with.

RB18 Monaco spec:


W14 Monaco spec:

[Farnborough]

The two seem to be sharing that detail as you've pointed out, around gearbox etc, but they are vastly different in "chamber" volume in the mid to front end area of the floor.

The MB, in common with SF23, seem to be broadly flat-ish under significant area of floor, whereas the RB captures much increased air volume/mass in that large chamber, and used to negative pressuring the under floor. Larger volume/mass will simply take longer to change in pressure terms.

The flatter approach would seem to possibly give higher peak negative, but with very fast attenuation of that load when varied in height vs RB as likely being with much softer attenuation as the chassis plane moves vertically.

It may be viewed that the RB is being held in better reference by the suspension, but it will (with softer accumulation and dissipation of negative pressure) bring the frequency response more into a form that conventional damping can accurately respond to, send ultimately control.
In other words, the RB may be giving it's suspension any easier job to start with.

[JordanMugen]

The MB, in common with SF23, seem to be broadly flat-ish under significant area of floor

It's hard to tell depth from a photo, but you suppose Ferrari and Mercedes are still being greedy with a narrower/flatter venturi throat area under the car than Red Bull for the former two to chase more downforce (at the expense of greater ride height sensitivity)?

Surely they have learnt their lesson by now and backed that off greatly like Red Bull?!

As we see Red Bull is still the only car that does not use the full diffuser expansion area to the legality box. Less is more?

[atanatizante]

Maybe someone with better knowledge could explain us the roles of the two "pockets" and the "chanell" underneath the central structure under the plank...

[deadhead]

[Venturiation]

https://ibb.co/znX5QB0

For the mercedes the rear and middle look similar to the redbull but the front a bit like the Ferrari
Ferrari seems to be the most basic

[Vanja #66]

https://ibb.co/znX5QB0

There's a lot of new features on the RB floor since last year, much more than I expected to be honest. Amazing work and proves once again the cost cap penalty was absolutely inconsequential in practice. Not visible from this photo, but from others it's clear they are once again giving up on raw venturi-generated downforce since their throat is again quite high (and located in the rear, like last year) whereas Ferrari and Mercedes try using lower throat, especially Ferrari.

As was said, RB is running lower than other cars, but this demonstrates they are generating downforce in a way that doesn't depend on ever-decreasing ride height for optimal performance. They reach their ride height quickly (probably also have softer suspension settings) and are then fixed at it, meaning they operate in a window with a more predictable and stable downforce coefficient, allowing them to optimise suspension for squared velocity increase as usual. On the other hand, Ferrari e.g. undoubtedly has to make "special" settings to account for an increase in coefficient (with ride height lowering at higher speeds), requiring stiffer suspension that's hurting them - amongst other things.

The only other phenomena that can generate such downforce in RB floor, now that raw venturi throat phenomena is practically out of the picture (vs competitors) is the strong front fence vortex. With so much sculpting, looks like it's generated and sustained while working very hard, with all those flicks and turns and kicks. Like last year, RB frontal part of the tunnel is very high and this allows the vortex to develop fully and possibly get energised with other geometries there.

With everything said, it does now seem like the only way to achieve both sustainable downforce and suspension settings that allow wider operating window for the car is to give up some ground effect downforce on the floor and work on other structures to claw back raw downforce, like RB does. In exchange, you get to have your cake and eat it - even at lower speeds.

[Stu]

https://ibb.co/znX5QB0

There's a lot of new features on the RB floor since last year, much more than I expected to be honest. Amazing work and proves once again the cost cap penalty was absolutely inconsequential in practice. Not visible from this photo, but from others it's clear they are once again giving up on raw venturi-generated downforce since their throat is again quite high (and located in the rear, like last year) whereas Ferrari and Mercedes try using lower throat, especially Ferrari.

As was said, RB is running lower than other cars, but this demonstrates they are generating downforce in a way that doesn't depend on ever-decreasing ride height for optimal performance. They reach their ride height quickly (probably also have softer suspension settings) and are then fixed at it, meaning they operate in a window with a more predictable and stable downforce coefficient, allowing them to optimise suspension for squared velocity increase as usual. On the other hand, Ferrari e.g. undoubtedly has to make "special" settings to account for an increase in coefficient (with ride height lowering at higher speeds), requiring stiffer suspension that's hurting them - amongst other things.

The only other phenomena that can generate such downforce in RB floor, now that raw venturi throat phenomena is practically out of the picture (vs competitors) is the strong front fence vortex. With so much sculpting, looks like it's generated and sustained while working very hard, with all those flicks and turns and kicks. Like last year, RB frontal part of the tunnel is very high and this allows the vortex to develop fully and possibly get energised with other geometries there.

With everything said, it does now seem like the only way to achieve both sustainable downforce and suspension settings that allow wider operating window for the car is to give up some ground effect downforce on the floor and work on other structures to claw back raw downforce, like RB does. In exchange, you get to have your cake and eat it - even at lower speeds.

On top of all of that, it does look as though they are running a throat at the front of the floor, before allowing some recovery in the centre section (large volume). The CSA changes in the rear third of the floor (before the rear throat into the diffuser) are mind-blowing in their complexity. Almost randomly using the regulation box max & min and creating subtle features in the roof of the tunnel.
In my head this would seem to create a lot of small pressure variations over a much longer distance along the length of the floor. CoP migration should be reduced and the progressive nature of the forward throat section allows for some rake (further increasing the effectiveness of the whole Venturi section).

[Vanja #66]

On top of all of that, it does look as though they are running a throat at the front of the floor, before allowing some recovery in the centre section (large volume). The CSA changes in the rear third of the floor (before the rear throat into the diffuser) are mind-blowing in their complexity. Almost randomly using the regulation box max & min and creating subtle features in the roof of the tunnel.
In my head this would seem to create a lot of small pressure variations over a much longer distance along the length of the floor. CoP migration should be reduced and the progressive nature of the forward throat section allows for some rake (further increasing the effectiveness of the whole Venturi section).

Yeah, loads of small pressure variations all over the floor. And we can't even begin to understand how strong their floor edges work I don't think there's any significant CoP migration, other than some generated by the tiny amount of roll. The car doesn't seem to change its pitch at any point, any speed, any occasion...

[AR3-GP]

https://ibb.co/znX5QB0

There's a lot of new features on the RB floor since last year, much more than I expected to be honest. Amazing work and proves once again the cost cap penalty was absolutely inconsequential in practice. Not visible from this photo, but from others it's clear they are once again giving up on raw venturi-generated downforce since their throat is again quite high (and located in the rear, like last year) whereas Ferrari and Mercedes try using lower throat, especially Ferrari.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between the floor detail and your conclusion that therefore the cost cap penalty wasn't sufficient. If anything, the way the car has matured is a direct result of the cost cap penalty.

RB committed very early on to refinement of last year's concept with most of the focus on the floor due to the penalty. As a result, the upper aero surfaces show much less development and the car lacks much of the detail and appendages on the top side that other cars have like halo fairings, mirror fairings, dubious floor winglets and so on. People struggled to even see how the RB19 was different from the RB18 on the top. With a penalty, it's natural that you develop where you get the most bang for your windtunnel hours and if anything, the penalty gave them increased focus on how important the floor is compared to rival teams.

[ing.]

Seems to me the mouse hole is benefiting RB’s aggressive aft-most (second) kick/venturi which has an aggressive expansion into an adverse pressure gradient.

That aft venturi reminds me of the Porsche 956 forward venturi—which used the “Singer-dent” just aft of it—and is being used for some targeted DF spike at the rear axle.

Also wondering if RB are using this to maybe choke the flow to the diffuser when at low rear ride height to get their high Vmax?

Interesting that this oft-referenced site is writing about double venturi and stalled diffuser…

https://formu1a.uno/fondo-ferrari-tropp ... o-venturi/

[mendis]

https://ibb.co/znX5QB0

There's a lot of new features on the RB floor since last year, much more than I expected to be honest. Amazing work and proves once again the cost cap penalty was absolutely inconsequential in practice. Not visible from this photo, but from others it's clear they are once again giving up on raw venturi-generated downforce since their throat is again quite high (and located in the rear, like last year) whereas Ferrari and Mercedes try using lower throat, especially Ferrari.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between the floor detail and your conclusion that therefore the cost cap penalty wasn't sufficient. If anything, the way the car has matured is a direct result of the cost cap penalty.

RB committed very early on to refinement of last year's concept with most of the focus on the floor due to the penalty. As a result, the upper aero surfaces show much less development and the car lacks much of the detail and appendages on the top side that other cars have like halo fairings, mirror fairings, dubious floor winglets and so on. People struggled to even see how the RB19 was different from the RB18 on the top. With a penalty, it's natural that you develop where you get the most bang for your windtunnel hours and if anything, the penalty gave them increased focus on how important the floor is compared to rival teams.

True. RB and Ferrari stopped development at the summer break last year. As Ferrari lost performance due to TD039, RB had no reason to bring further upgrades in the season, while Mercedes was bringing upgrades to get out of the woods. RB19 was probably under the work from June/July of last year, before the cost penalty came into existence from October. Again, that penalty isn't a complete pause for RB19 development, it's just curtailed time available.

[matteosc]

Is it possible that RedBull is using the vortexes generated by all the feature under the floor to reduce the sensitivity of the load with respect to the ride height? Ferrari, which has a very smooth floor, seems to be the one struggling the most with ride height. Mercedes apparently started following the RedBull path, but there are so many work in progress parts in their car that it is difficult to judge.