so far:
Antonnelli: 1.17.9
Lawson 1.19.7
Hamilton 1.20.2
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
well the MGU-K has a big 'driver aid' effectFrukostScones wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 12:23yeah, the acceleration phase this cars must be really difficult...Chuckjr wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 11:53Interesting how every driver talks about how incredibly different the cars are. Not surprising, but really emphasizes adaptability this year. Which drivers will be able to completely adapt their style to the cars strengths? The better the adaptation skills, the better the lap times will be. Sensitivity to torque and feeling the rear tires on the road will be a premium blend. /4oMTMngrsh0?si=7cYquMRSkixo6LaQ
but won't the feeling be different for different parts of the track and modus. different power/torque at same throttle position? I would really like to understand. RE: I looked into it, I can understand but still I think it gives more drama than it takes away (the MGU-K).Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 13:07well the MGU-K has a big 'driver aid' effectFrukostScones wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 12:23yeah, the acceleration phase this cars must be really difficult...Chuckjr wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026, 11:53Interesting how every driver talks about how incredibly different the cars are. Not surprising, but really emphasizes adaptability this year. Which drivers will be able to completely adapt their style to the cars strengths? The better the adaptation skills, the better the lap times will be. Sensitivity to torque and feeling the rear tires on the road will be a premium blend. /4oMTMngrsh0?si=7cYquMRSkixo6LaQ
it cannot be otherwise
Rumors says that they will do a 200km shakedown on saturday.
Didn’t influence riding with the wake over the rear wheels.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026, 17:13That theory was from a rudimentary fan done CFD concept that didn’t have the correct geometry and they would have no way of knowing if their CFD even correlated even if it was the right goemetry. However this nuance take, grounded in engineering reality, makes you a bad guy from the internet hype machine and mods here playing favorites.SB15 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026, 16:56So I wanted to move this topic about the zero-pod concept and why it didn't work as a "concept" because of sidepods we've seen from the RB22. Someone mention something that the concept had a lot of drag because the amount of outwash/front tyre wake that was hitting the rear tyres and other aerodynamic parts.
That got me thinking? Would the concept still fail regardless because of the 18 inch tyre? And is the 18 inch tyre one of the biggest reasons why the ground effect cars failed?
Not saying it isn’t wrong, but I’m quite sure it missed a lot of the nuances of the design and how it worked. The top speed issues seemed to come from the fact the car was porpoising terribly and thus causing drag as the car bottomed out and the air over and under the car varied with the bouncing. So no one can conclusively say it was that. Even the rudimentary fan done CFD showed more exposed floor area made for more downforce (assuming parts gave infinite stiffness which may have been some it), but as Newey stated, and he knew this from Indy Car in the 1980s, it’s better to have a wider operating downforce ride height range than a higher peak downforce that only works at narrow ride heights.
They were the fastest team, drove a good chunk of laps. There’s no question they look the strongest right now but nobody else showed their cards, and probably neither did merc.
Ragebait?
