They have to do the show and tell, so we will see in the Morning what the car looks like, as well as all the details of the changes in the FIA documents. So probably around 8-9am UK time.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 19:38Yeah, let's wait until tomorrow. And there on the track we will see new details. I think during practice they will have time to take photographs in good resolution.
Good news, mwillems. Lando says the upgrades should provide a nice boost. Let's see, 2-3 tenths or even more.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 20:08They have to do the show and tell, so we will see in the Morning what the car looks like, as well as all the details of the changes in the FIA documents. So probably around 8-9am UK time.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 19:38Yeah, let's wait until tomorrow. And there on the track we will see new details. I think during practice they will have time to take photographs in good resolution.
I hope so, but he did say in the article they aren't sure what it will do on track yet, but maybe that is because they have a time benefit in mind but are hoping that it get's smashed like in Austria!LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:00Good news, mwillems. Lando says the upgrades should provide a nice boost. Let's see, 2-3 tenths or even more.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 20:08They have to do the show and tell, so we will see in the Morning what the car looks like, as well as all the details of the changes in the FIA documents. So probably around 8-9am UK time.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 19:38Yeah, let's wait until tomorrow. And there on the track we will see new details. I think during practice they will have time to take photographs in good resolution.
Yes the team have confirmed that there will be a new floor and sidepod. I am very interested to see what it is that is different.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:02Well, in addition to the rear wing, will the floor and pontoons be updated? Eh, I really wanted them to want to implement the Coanda effect, but I'm afraid that I will be very wrong.
Earlier this year I thought the problem was purely mechanical. But lately I’ve been ready to admit that perhaps it’s also a matter of the balance of the aero package at low speed. If it turns out to be a pressure gradient and equal distribution of downforce between the front and rear axles, then the suspension will only have a partial effect, while the aero body itself may have a greater impact on handling.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:09Yes the team have confirmed that there will be a new floor and sidepod. I am very interested to see what it is that is different.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:02Well, in addition to the rear wing, will the floor and pontoons be updated? Eh, I really wanted them to want to implement the Coanda effect, but I'm afraid that I will be very wrong.
Also worth noting that through the past months that there was a lot of discussion between Aero and Mechanical being prime contributors to the low speed corner issue. Tomorrow will be wonderful to understand how much the Aero side of things can bring us closer to RB in low speed corners.
It is also worth noting that whatever it is about this car that makes it unpleasant to drive still remains. One can only assume that given all the aero changes and the fact the issue hasn't changed, that this must be something to do with the mechanical side and how it interacts with the tyres and track. I wonder how much that impairs the speed of the car.
I can't imagine the issue being so black-and-white. It will be a multiple faceted aero issue if it is one, not down any one component such as the front wing in particular. I suspect mechanical performance may be a significant factor though, and in the medium-long term the hire of Rob Marshall will aid in improving this element. But let's see what sorts of changes the team has made tomorrow morning. I, for one, cannot waitLionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:36Earlier this year I thought the problem was purely mechanical. But lately I’ve been ready to admit that perhaps it’s also a matter of the balance of the aero package at low speed. If it turns out to be a pressure gradient and equal distribution of downforce between the front and rear axles, then the suspension will only have a partial effect, while the aero body itself may have a greater impact on handling.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:09Yes the team have confirmed that there will be a new floor and sidepod. I am very interested to see what it is that is different.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:02
Well, in addition to the rear wing, will the floor and pontoons be updated? Eh, I really wanted them to want to implement the Coanda effect, but I'm afraid that I will be very wrong.
Also worth noting that through the past months that there was a lot of discussion between Aero and Mechanical being prime contributors to the low speed corner issue. Tomorrow will be wonderful to understand how much the Aero side of things can bring us closer to RB in low speed corners.
It is also worth noting that whatever it is about this car that makes it unpleasant to drive still remains. One can only assume that given all the aero changes and the fact the issue hasn't changed, that this must be something to do with the mechanical side and how it interacts with the tyres and track. I wonder how much that impairs the speed of the car.
Remember, you wrote that how the upper flap of the front wing is unloaded at high speed and how this affects the flows under the floor? So, perhaps you are very close to the truth. We know that the McLaren chassis handles well in fast corners and is quite good in medium-speed corners. At these speeds, the front wing flap flexes downward, possibly optimizing underbody flow, while at low speeds, flexing the top flap back upward may not provide enough load on the front tires, as I think the rear end has something to do with it. It holds very tightly and it has something to do with the flows under the floor. What I mean is that in the phase after braking there is no adequate loading of the front wing.
Perhaps the rear axle is simply more stable in terms of downforce, while the front axle simply lacks enough downforce at the front. Is it possible that after the top flap returns to its normal position, there will be no increase in downforce due to the disruption of the air flow from the front wing?
You understood me wrong. The reason is the underbody, not the front wing. The front wing is just here as a litmus test to correctly interpret the problem.MCLvamos wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:57I can't imagine the issue being so black-and-white. It will be a multiple faceted aero issue if it is one, not down any one component such as the front wing in particular. I suspect mechanical performance may be a significant factor though, and in the medium-long term the hire of Rob Marshall will aid in improving this element. But let's see what sorts of changes the team has made tomorrow morning. I, for one, cannot waitLionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:36Earlier this year I thought the problem was purely mechanical. But lately I’ve been ready to admit that perhaps it’s also a matter of the balance of the aero package at low speed. If it turns out to be a pressure gradient and equal distribution of downforce between the front and rear axles, then the suspension will only have a partial effect, while the aero body itself may have a greater impact on handling.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:09
Yes the team have confirmed that there will be a new floor and sidepod. I am very interested to see what it is that is different.
Also worth noting that through the past months that there was a lot of discussion between Aero and Mechanical being prime contributors to the low speed corner issue. Tomorrow will be wonderful to understand how much the Aero side of things can bring us closer to RB in low speed corners.
It is also worth noting that whatever it is about this car that makes it unpleasant to drive still remains. One can only assume that given all the aero changes and the fact the issue hasn't changed, that this must be something to do with the mechanical side and how it interacts with the tyres and track. I wonder how much that impairs the speed of the car.
Remember, you wrote that how the upper flap of the front wing is unloaded at high speed and how this affects the flows under the floor? So, perhaps you are very close to the truth. We know that the McLaren chassis handles well in fast corners and is quite good in medium-speed corners. At these speeds, the front wing flap flexes downward, possibly optimizing underbody flow, while at low speeds, flexing the top flap back upward may not provide enough load on the front tires, as I think the rear end has something to do with it. It holds very tightly and it has something to do with the flows under the floor. What I mean is that in the phase after braking there is no adequate loading of the front wing.
Perhaps the rear axle is simply more stable in terms of downforce, while the front axle simply lacks enough downforce at the front. Is it possible that after the top flap returns to its normal position, there will be no increase in downforce due to the disruption of the air flow from the front wing?
Worth noting that at this weekend the new Technical Directive around flexible bodywork is enforced, the team also suggested it won't affect them. We will see tomorrow who felt the need to bring any new front wings or any other areas that might have been flexing.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:36Earlier this year I thought the problem was purely mechanical. But lately I’ve been ready to admit that perhaps it’s also a matter of the balance of the aero package at low speed. If it turns out to be a pressure gradient and equal distribution of downforce between the front and rear axles, then the suspension will only have a partial effect, while the aero body itself may have a greater impact on handling.mwillems wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:09Yes the team have confirmed that there will be a new floor and sidepod. I am very interested to see what it is that is different.LionsHeart wrote: ↑14 Sep 2023, 21:02
Well, in addition to the rear wing, will the floor and pontoons be updated? Eh, I really wanted them to want to implement the Coanda effect, but I'm afraid that I will be very wrong.
Also worth noting that through the past months that there was a lot of discussion between Aero and Mechanical being prime contributors to the low speed corner issue. Tomorrow will be wonderful to understand how much the Aero side of things can bring us closer to RB in low speed corners.
It is also worth noting that whatever it is about this car that makes it unpleasant to drive still remains. One can only assume that given all the aero changes and the fact the issue hasn't changed, that this must be something to do with the mechanical side and how it interacts with the tyres and track. I wonder how much that impairs the speed of the car.
Remember, you wrote that how the upper flap of the front wing is unloaded at high speed and how this affects the flows under the floor? So, perhaps you are very close to the truth. We know that the McLaren chassis handles well in fast corners and is quite good in medium-speed corners. At these speeds, the front wing flap flexes downward, possibly optimizing underbody flow, while at low speeds, flexing the top flap back upward may not provide enough load on the front tires, as I think the rear end has something to do with it. It holds very tightly and it has something to do with the flows under the floor. What I mean is that in the phase after braking there is no adequate loading of the front wing.
Perhaps the rear axle is simply more stable in terms of downforce, while the front axle simply lacks enough downforce at the front. Is it possible that after the top flap returns to its normal position, there will be no increase in downforce due to the disruption of the air flow from the front wing?
I just spotted this in another thread. I wasn't wrong about the flexi wings being used to stall the aero. Still not sure if that relates to our low speed corner issue just thought it was an interesting read. It seems that not only did the wings flex downwards, but the winglets/flaps themselves closed up to remove the gaps between them to induce Aerodynamic stall.organic wrote: ↑13 Sep 2023, 19:57https://formu1a.uno/retroscena-da-una-c ... tive/?s=09The Federation focused especially on that area of connection between the nose and the front wing , on which other teams believe that Aston Martin had to change something during the season, as well as on the area of connection between the endplate and the flaps but also between the flaps themselves, where teams always try to seek stall by dynamically closing the slots between one profile and another. However, the new DT018 is not only related to the front wing as we also talk about the connection of the elements making up the rear wing,such as the mobile wing and the mainplane, to the side bulkheads. The FIA then refers to how the beam wing is connected to the wing endplates, to the crash structure and/or to the (mono) pylon, as well as how the latter is attached to the rear impact structure. The technical directive also mentions areas of the bottom, the plank and its related slots (the board underneath the bottom is made up of several pieces), as well as those joints with pins that allow relative rotation on an axis. This also led to an update of the famous, and very impactful for Ferrari, technical directive 039-22.
organic wrote: ↑13 Sep 2023, 22:42https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-f ... olutionary
This is from the FIA themselves about TD018. Nice to have a bit more transparency.
At this weekend’s FIA Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix, the FIA is introducing a new Technical Directive regarding the aerodynamic influence offered by particular components, and while directives are advisory and do not constitute Technical Regulations, they form a key element of the Federation’s application of the rules – providing clarity, ensuring compliance and promoting fairness.
In the case of TD018, the clarity is provided around bodywork design details and in particular front and rear wings that according to FIA Single Seater Technical Director Tim Goss “try to get the most out of the boundaries that exist within the regulations”.
“There are a lot of clever engineers out there looking to get the most out of the regulations and we have to make sure that everyone has a common understanding of where the boundaries are and we have to be fair and balanced across the whole group in how we apply them,” he says. “And in recent times we have seen a little bit too much freedom being applied to the design details of aerodynamic components.”
In the new directive, Goss says that the FIA became aware of a number of cases where bodywork designs (in particular, front and rear wing designs), comply with the requirements of Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations, governing Aerodynamic Component Flexibility, but which could be deemed to contravene the provisions of Article 3.2.2, because they “exploit regions of purposely designed localised compliance and/or relative motion between adjacent components”.In layman’s terms, as Goss explains, it means that clearer guidance around how components are joined together needed to be given.
“For us, the important bit of Article 3.2.2 is that ‘all aerodynamic components or bodywork, influencing the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference and that they must make use a uniform, solid, hard, continuous surface under all circumstances’,” he explains. “Now, quite clearly things cannot be totally rigid. So, we have a range of load deflection tests that define how much elements can bend and we've evolved those tests to represent what the teams are trying to achieve on track and to put a sensible limit on them. We play by those rules, while teams look to exploit the allowance in terms of deflection. That’s normal. So the TD is just about making sure that we, the FIA, and the teams, all have a common understanding of where we will draw the line in terms of these design details.”
And according to TD018 that line now exists at point where “regardless of conformity with the load tests defined in Article 3.15 [the FIA] would consider any design which uses the relative motion between adjacent components of mechanisms in order to maximise aerodynamic deformation to be in breach of Article 3.2.2. “What we don't want to see,” says Goss, “as an example, is that the joint of a rear beam wing and an end plate is decoupled in any way such that it rotates about a pivot there, or that it can move laterally or up and down.”Advisories such as the one being made this weekend often stem from questions being asked about the legality of one team’s car by a rival, but in the case of TD018, Goss explains that guidance is being issued in response to a broader recognition that more clarity was needed.
“It's not that we've seen any one particular car or feature that we've targeted, or an element that's been common across the whole grid,” he says. “This is about where front and rear wing elements join the nose, join the rear impact structure, join the rear wing endplates. And there have been several instances where teams have tried to make the most of the deflection allowance by permitting some bits and pieces to start moving relative to each other. And if you've allowed one piece to be decoupled relative to another, the bodywork might have to have some degree of local flexibility at that location. And if there is local flexibility, we’re saying, clearly, that's not compliant with being uniform, solid, hard and continuous. Under the TD, we have included various examples, designs which we consider are not permitted and exceptions which we consider are permitted.”To illustrate the grid-wide need for clarity, the FIA technical department issued a draft version of the directive to teams, asking for further feedback before finalising the advisory.
“With matters such as this we issue the TD in draft form,” explains Goss. “We've been speaking to some teams for several weeks where we believed there was a need for clarity, and then issued our proposal to all teams asking for feedback by the 29th of August. We then spoke again in Monza, about design details, where teams were asking us about examples. It’s just a matter of fairness to everyone, making sure we all have that common understanding, and that everyone knows how we are going to operate from a given date.”
To ensure further transparency going forward the FIA is to also begin requesting additional drawings of the structural designs of areas of concern.
“Teams have to submit designs at the moment, they upload lots of information but now they will have to upload structural connections and that in itself helps to self-police it.”
And ultimately, the FIA Single-Seater Technical Director says that advisories such as Technical Directive 018 are a hugely important mechanism through which the F1’s rulemaker can effectively and progressively guarantee fairness.
“This Technical Directive is an example of where ourselves and the teams work together to try and make sure that we have a common understanding and it is a huge positive,” he says. “It's not simple, but if we can evolve that understanding in a sensible, considered way then I think we’re going in the right direction.”
