2023 car comparison thread

[vorticism]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

[Farnborough]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

Agree with this, finding it curios that the MB/FR examples don't seem to be particularly well resolved. All of the teams have substantial experience (well youd expect they do) in suspension design and kinematics etc, but they look relatively casual in their approach here.
Would present the drivers with a more linear/repeating response under varying load input from track topography.

The displacement top to bottom arm of RB design would appear to give most potential in controlling the absolute wheel placement under load, then producing the geometry shift the designers intended and closer to optimum deployment throughout lateral load range.

The RB crossbow seems to be heading to largely neutral "sag" if that's the right word, when under maximum load in compression too. That always seems to advantage to me. Camber, as described in a ski, appears part of this design, in that it sits with static load accepting a little compression to give pre-load into it's structure.

[vorticism]

Camber, as described in a ski, appears part of this design, in that it sits with static load accepting a little compression to give pre-load into it's structure.

I would accept cross country ski as an alternative term for the longbow.

[Sevach]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.

[Venturiation]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.

Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see that

[Farnborough]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.

Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see that

Of course most didn't see porpoising coming either

Certainly the lead in past iteration of downforce generating underfloor could be interpreted as "the stiffer the better" suspension concept, perhaps that blindsided many to make significant assumptions that they are now in panick making a review of.

Removal of expensive control devices in suspension system I take as the reduction of, was part of the rules aim. An assumption that everyone would be at base level by each/most of the teams appears to have wrong footed some as to just how good very conventional components can be arranged to mitigate/enhance specific areas of platform performance.

Limited budget to be applied elsewhere may also have convinced some to evolve their overall concept in the perceived most advantageous elements, while this part was placed on the back burner.

Decisions made which they and we can only fully see now.

[Just_a_fan]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

The regulations were aimed at making suspensions simpler and more standard, it definitely feels like some teams decided there wasn't much in the area and moved on, while RB did everything to achieve a better level of platform control with their geometry.

Doesn't make sense that only 1 team can see that

Red Bull have found the holy grail (under these regs) of a floor with a decent operating window - less affected by pitch/roll than others - and a suspension system that keeps the floor in that window. If you have an aero package that isn't peaky, the suspension system is going to have a much easier time keeping it happy. A peaky design needs very fine control, a less peaky one doesn't.

Red Bull might have slightly less peak downforce than another team (and even that's debatable), but because they can use all of their downforce more of the time, they've got a faster car. Racing car design is all about picking the right compromises.

[vorticism]

RB not sparking in the same location at Miami due to lack of ice skate. Similar levels of roll and ground clearance. Edit-looks like the Merc has an edge wing.

[vorticism]

Someone should compare the AMR22 & AMR23. From Ferrari to RB type sidepods. Or were there other changes which were more significant?

[Farnborough]

The whole front suspension concept change too, between 22 and 23 iteration on AM.

[wuzak]

I have seen it suggested that the difficulty in following other cars this year is due to increased outwash.

Could this be mitigated by reducing the width of the front wing?

[Vanja #66]

Rear wings for Monaco

RB - 2022 high-df wing
Ferrari - 2022 high-df wing with single pylon
Alpine - new high-df wing with new pylon design
AMR - new high-df wing

[AR3-GP]

The groove in the flap behind the DRS attachment point seems massive on the RB…

[-wkst-]

The groove in the flap behind the DRS attachment point seems massive on the RB…

Thought the same. + AM has it for the first time this year, unfortunately this part is almost hidden on the picture.



auto-motor-sport.de

[Andi76]

RB continuing the convention of drooped arms from the high nose era with the RB18/19. Provides some track width gain. When I see that Ferrari and Merc broke with recent F1 conventions like this it makes me wonder about their management. Who's steering the ship. If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

Ferrari and Mercedes probably did it for the same reason why many engineers rejected these dropped arms when they came up.... and only adopted them a little later because the aerodynamic advantages due to the higher front wings outweighed the disadvantages and limitations in kinematics. Since these aerodynamic disadvantages no longer exist today and the suspensions themselves also tend to go in this earlier direction, this was a perfectly understandable step to take.