Comparison of all 2011 cars

[Formula None]

Red Bull have flexible suspension!

Well I hope so.

[kakogohrena]

Compare, Red Bull have flexible suspension!

Not that I'm complaining, but this is what your comparison link showed me.

Sorry guys, this is 1 April's joke

[kakogohrena]

MP4-26 & RB7 aligned at the back wheel (even the spokes lined up by coincidence!):

Thanx.
RB7 RW higher, this is obvious. I would like to see a comparison of the chassis, when they stand still.

[bot6]

The one in white definitely has more rake and a slightly lower nose... =D>

Nicely packaged sidepods on both chassis...

[kakogohrena]

MP4-26 vs RB7 on Australian GP. Back view
chasis rb7 higher again.

photos aligned to rear tires.

[shelly]

and the mclaren diffuser is narrower (posted the same picture in the diffuser hole therad also)

[kakogohrena]

no comments

[horse]

no comments

Top photo must be a poor comparison. RB is closer to the camera than the McLaren.

[kakogohrena]

no comments

Top photo must be a poor comparison. RB is closer to the camera than the McLaren.

Top cars align and scaling at the rear wheels.

And another comparison, the last for today:

Ferrari,Mclaren and Red Bull


Ground clearance and rear wing RB7 higher than the MP4-26 and F150
I do not create a theory, I just compare pictures and see the difference.

[horse]

I can think of no good reason why the car would take a set with the camera higher than the still position and its bum in the air. I can only think that the car is in the middle of a "bounce", which is fair considering it is riding the curves in the above side-by-side comparison.

The extra down-force from the front end might well give the car the rake we see when the wing is at its most "bent", but in that case the camera should be lower too, like in Formula None's picture:

[bhall]

Ground clearance and rear wing RB7 higher than the MP4-26 and F150
I do not create a theory, I just compare pictures and see the difference.

Judging the fact that the comparison photos weren't taken at the same spot on the track and the fact the the Red Bell wheel has noticeably less camber, I'd hazard a guess and say that the Red Bull is simply in a moment where its suspension isn't as compressed - I'm sure there's a proper technical term for that which I don't know - making it appear taller than the Ferrari and the McLaren. Also, that kind of infraction would be caught by the FIA with a quickness.

Make the same comparison again with the cars lined up by their floors, which is after all the reference plane, and I'm sure you'll see that they're of the same height.

And, really, as I understand the rules, a team could have their car four feet off the ground if they wanted, just so long as its car's dimensions complied with the regulations in regard to the all important reference plane.

EDIT: Rebound!

[Owen.C93]

Is the little triangle cutout in the RB wing to meet height regulations or just for aero benefit, whatever that may be.

[Formula None]

Its right behind the DRS/ARW actuator. Maybe that's why? To reduce the height of the flap that's in the wake of the actuator.

[Lindz]

It's hard chasing all the threads around, but yeah it's been discussed in many other threads how much more rake the RB7 has. They can't go too low because the plank goes all the way to the end of the tea tray. If any part of it is worn too much, the car will be DQ'd. So the tea tray leading edge is about the same height as (let's say) the Mcaren's, but the car is running a lot more rake so the front wing is closer to the ground and the rear wing is 'taller'.

[shelly]

With respect to the splitter/teatray leding edge, what are (by regulation) the distances of foremost front wing and rearmost rear wing?

That is, it I ideally pitch the car around splitter leading edge, how many mm do I have to raise the rear wing in order to get a 1mm lowering of the front wing? (assuming for the moment that everything is ideally rigid)