Andi76 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 04:22
stonehenge wrote: ↑20 Jan 2024, 23:01
I think it’s fair, though, to say that AMR, McLaren, and Mercedes have sounded more bullish than Ferrari. Personally, I am a little worried by Cardile’s comments about the importance of suspension and setup being overrated. That seems to be what caught out Mercedes for two years. Red Bull’s “secret” was that their stable platform allowed them to hit the perfect balance every single time. Well, except for Singapore, and you saw what happened there…
I know you don't mean it like that, but
when I hear phrases like "stable platform" in connection with the expression "the secret of", I always ask myself - is it really possible that many F1 engineers of today are such "technical idiots" that they no longer know the basic things that belong to a good racing car, or is there just an incredible amount of nonsense being written in the media and elsewhere these days? I mean - even back in 1994, with the return to passive suspension, it became obvious how important a stable platform is in F1. While Benetton with Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne recognized this and put a lot of work into the suspension and the highest possible "platform control" (there was a clever mechanical system on the B194 to control the ride height of the car) and adapted the aerodynamics to the passive suspension, a certain Adrian Newey was surprised by this and the Williams FW16 started the season with far too peaky aerodynamics and poor platform control. So it became very clear 30 years ago (and not only then) how important it is to have a stable aero platform. Even drivers - there are some nice reports on this about Michael Schumacher, which some of you may remember here - tried to keep the "aerodynamic platform" as stable as possible in order to get more performance out of the car. And before 1994 - active suspension... what was the aim of active suspension? Yes, exactly. A stable platform and platform control.So if a stable platform really is a secret even if "the old" generation of F1 engineers obviously spent a lot of time on platform control - then either today's F1 engineers are technical idiots who have lost sight of not only the basics of F1 car design but also its history because of all the data and details, or else there is simply far too much nonsense being written in the press and elsewhere. The answer is for everyone to find out for themselves. If someone asked me I would say that Red Bulls had slightly better platform control than others. Not that it was their "secret" , because a stable platform is not a secret, everyone tries to achieve that within their means.and that it is a combination of many things, not just one, that brings success. This polemic with expressions like "the secret" is what gives the wrong impression to many people who are not so well informed.
Sounds all logical and of course you are right. But....
F1 is about going that much further, pushing it beyond your competitor, finding the competitive edge. And that is what Newey did.
He learned, as you stated, with the FW16 the hard way what happens when your platform is not stable enough. And clearly it was where he focussed on with the new regulations.
I remember reading that Newey said he had not so much focussed on aerodynamics (the team did), but had been mainly involved with the suspension. I remember also most people not believing it. That must be sand to misguide the competition.
So I think that he found it just that bit more important than others and found the competitive edge.
: