2023 car comparison thread

[lio007]

As for FWs, are we noticing design convergence? -especially here at Monza. I can barely tell the difference between teams.

That's the very bad thing of tight and restrictive regulations.

[Farnborough]

https://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... max-1.webp

Correct me if I'm wrong... RB usually run a flatter main chord RW with a tall flap? For DRS. Here it's reversed, and Ferrari have the flat main plane and tall flap. Or do I have that reversed? Granted it's Monza so very different wings all around.

As for FWs, are we noticing design convergence? -especially here at Monza. I can barely tell the difference between teams.

There's interesting contrast here in suspension geometry between the two chassis.

The RB with generally less camber for all wheels. Plus, look at the fronts, with the driver's left front showing less camber on RB but driver's right front showing notable shift to positive / akerman effect on the SF23.

The Ferrari looks to have more static geometry (moved away from absolutely upright alignment) but also quite a big shift of front grometry through steering angle changes. Obviously intentional, but significantly different in their focus.

A change that many don't mention when starting this rule set, the shift to 18 inch rims, and the different views that each team may have taken with this in mind.

Most obvious to me is that the RB seems to be completely "fresh" start in going away from a chassis engineering point of just throwing more camber at it to increase mechanical grip. It appears to better balance that aspect to more consistently place the tyre flatter to track surfaces, hence making better utilisation of the whole tread guage rubber in prolonging it's performance over extended use period.
That may give up some absolute peak lateral ability, but appears to spread that which it can enact over a longer race stint. This would likely influence that behaviour in which the drivers bring the tyre in more carefully at start of use to kerp it more uniform over that longer period.

[vorticism]

There's interesting contrast here in suspension geometry between the two chassis.

The most noticeable one for me is that the RB arms droop, and the Ferrari's do the opposite, bucking conventions of that past couple decades. The RB19 will gain track width through wheel travel while the Ferrari will lose it.

[TimW]

There's interesting contrast here in suspension geometry between the two chassis.

The most noticeable one for me is that the RB arms droop, and the Ferrari's do the opposite, bucking conventions of that past couple decades. The RB19 will gain track width through wheel travel while the Ferrari will lose it.

Note that only the front arms on the RB droop, the rear arms are the opposite due to the anti dive geometry. On average they do not droop it seems.

Extreme droop would also make the front rise on cornering forces, wouldn't it? That will not be desirable.

[vorticism]

Note that only the front arms on the RB droop, the rear arms are the opposite due to the anti dive geometry. On average they do not droop it seems.

Neither tell the full story and the arm ultimately is planar. Track gain would depend on how far the inboard pivot axis of the arm is positioned beyond a normal/perpendicular of the wheel, regardless of fore-aft inclination (what's being called antidive). BTW not saying this is of benefit, just observing a side effect of how the arm is arranged.

Extreme droop would also make the front rise on cornering forces, wouldn't it? That will not be desirable.

How so?

[TimW]

Extreme droop would also make the front rise on cornering forces, wouldn't it? That will not be desirable.

How so?

Cornering the outer wheel will carry more lateral load (wouldn't it?) than the inner wheel. With the arms at a downward angle a (compression) lateral load will result in an upward component in the outer arm and thus lift the nose. Tension in the inner arms will negate that but not fully if it is a smaller load.

[vorticism]

Cornering the outer wheel will carry more lateral load (wouldn't it?) than the inner wheel. With the arms at a downward angle a (compression) lateral load will result in an upward component in the outer arm and thus lift the nose. Tension in the inner arms will negate that but not fully if it is a smaller load.

That might be occurring in both situations given CG is below wheel centerline. Or any derivation short of angling the arms more like:

[diffuser]

I'm interested by these floor fins that I think McLaren where the first to introduce.



They've started popping up on Merc and now Ferrari....I don't know where else they've popped up.... With all this controversy with the front wing, you'd think that something like this is gonna be taking air from the floor and throwing it up into the air. This will create turbulence on the outside. Similar to what the front wing did with the old regs. I was looking for picks to show floor spray of the McLaren but it's so hart to find. You actually need similiar amount of rain on the track to be able to compare ....






I can't find any good ones of McLaren.

[Silent Storm]

Does anyone have pictures of cars from this angle?

[AR3-GP]

Bad lighting but...

[Vanja #66]

Been meaning to write this for a while and this comparison is a good time - RB19 front wing is seriously underestimated. Smallest endplates of the field, smallest frontal area, not very aggressive flap angles, seemingly very poor outwash features, there's a lot of factors that point to it being fairly "weak" - but in fact the car is perfectly balanced for a driver with maybe the biggest oversteer preference on the grid. Not to mention that it conditions the air for downstream bodywork in a very fine manner being seemingly "weak" and yet again - the car is almost always balanced perfectly.

[scuderiabrandon]

Been meaning to write this for a while and this comparison is a good time - RB19 front wing is seriously underestimated. Smallest endplates of the field, smallest frontal area, not very aggressive flap angles, seemingly very poor outwash features, there's a lot of factors that point to it being fairly "weak" - but in fact the car is perfectly balanced for a driver with maybe the biggest oversteer preference on the grid. Not to mention that it conditions the air for downstream bodywork in a very fine manner being seemingly "weak" and yet again - the car is almost always balanced perfectly.

I've also thought about it for some time now. It has quite an aggressive anhedral angle. The outwashing feature aren't present on the flaps but the endplates have quite a drastic outwasing twist to them. More than any other team. Now to my knowledge this will also increase the diveplane span because the endplate and diveplane reg box intersect. Another thing I've considered is having a lower angle of attack means the upper set of elements will also run closer to the ground, increasing ground effect all whilst reducing the amount of upwash the front wing creates. Therefore it should be easier for them to direct that air into the SP undercut and onto leading edge of the floor

They also must have the floor performing really well, no secret at this point. Because of the nature of these floors, a stronger fence vortex will shift the center of pressure forward. Threfore they can rely less on front wing load.

[JordanMugen]

As for FWs, are we noticing design convergence? -especially here at Monza. I can barely tell the difference between teams.

That's the very bad thing of tight and restrictive regulations.

That's just not true.

These were in open regulations:



The cars look similar because they have all copied the fastest design. Indeed, in 1967 there were almost no bodywork regulations at all. It is just what always happens in Formula One.

[organic]

I disagree with that. The proof will be its absence next season.

When did we become such literal thinkers on this forum?

I wasn't talking about the presence of the bulge, but rather it's purpose which is the same as the outboard outwash bulge on the RB. RB bulge is further back and far more subtle, Ferrari had to make due with SIS tube and did the best they could. New Haas design does not pronounce it, I guess because the bubble which is there makes it impossible to achieve the optimal pressure and flow field.

https://i.ibb.co/cFYrmNB/haas-evo-2023.jpg

The yellow circle on top is where the sidepods are widest on both cars. It is just above the undercut, making sure the benefit of both features is optimal.

The yellow curve on bottom is where this point is on RB19, circled in green. Purple circle is where Haas and Ferrari are widest. This shape suggest slightly bigger pressurisation in this area than RB, however this does not meant the outwash is stronger or better, but it almost certainly means the drag generated is ever so slightly higher.

Some nice bulge in the same region from the new AMR design too.. It's almost like they're limited by a SIS tube, but I guess it's about tradeoff between waterslides and the undercut here

[KimiRai]

Convergence is so high it's close to becoming a spec series, almost all floors from above look nearly the same now, with very minor differences given by chassis limitations. Every other different concept was destroyed either by regulation changes/technical directives or they simply couldn't work due to the rigidness of the rules, even some technical directors such as Dan Fallows have criticized the ruleset being so complex and rigid.