Unfortunately, we don't know, but it is quite possible that the hard suspension is a reason. A hard suspension favors that the contact frequencies become too high. This would cause the compound to harden and stiffen. This could be compensated for with higher temperatures, which soften the rubber. But since the Ferrari drivers complain about too high temperatures that prevent them from pushing at all in the race, I think this is unlikely. However, it is conceivable that the suspension is not stiff enough. This problem is hard to pinpoint and it's quite possible that you develop a new suspension because you think the problems are in the geometry. Especially if you want to drive the car closer to the ground you need a stiff suspension. If you don't get the ride height vs. suspension stiffness set-up right, high tire degradation would be the inevitable result.Sevach wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 18:27Vanja #66 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 10:23Shared best I would say. They had the most floor downforce until TD39 last year, they clearly have the most downforce of any car other than RB and RB had more rear wing. At worst, I wouldn't give RB's floor downforce advantage of more than 0.1s a lap over Ferrari, but I think there are many other things for Ferrari to sort before they can use the car to the fullest - which is masking all of their potential for everyone. After Australia it will be clearer and Baku will show us for good.The question now is are they paying too high a price to maximize this floor?
Is an extra hard suspension that is needed to run the car uber low the leading reason for the tire usage issues?
Which Team has revolutionised their car? Mercedes - no. Red Bull - no. Alpine - no. Alpha Tauri - no. Williams - no. Wait - Alfa - no, sorry. But Aston Martin? No, they basically copied Red Bull with some Ferrari influence. Evolution instead of revolution has always been the way to the top.ing. wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 20:18
Hard to understand why they were not able to hit the ground running with a proper single-pillar RW when all they did was a warm over of last year’s car with the steering rack lowered (to where it should have been last year) and the lower SIS left as is—resulting in the silly little bumps and no development leeway for more undercut—while other teams basically revolutionized their cars.
It really does! Let's call it anti-floor bar! No, seriously - it would make sense by reducing lateral load transfer and thus also bring a big advantage in terms of tires and the floor would have a constant ground clearance. On the other hand, there would be a disadvantage with regard to the floor edges, which could certainly be completely compensated for by optimizing and adapting this concept in the wind tunnel.AR3-GP wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 20:10The mechanism you describe sounds a lot like an "anti-roll bar" ?Henk_v wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 20:06At the risk of sounding a bit naive and knowing this is about the RB19;
I can't shake the thought that RB has linked the floor beams to the suspension. They can deform the floor with much higher force tha aero could circumventing stiffness regulations and they can flex it opposing to aero forces.
Rolling in a corner increases the downforce on the outside corner side and reduces the downforce on the inner corner side. This increases the rolling force on the car that needs to be countered with suspension. It also increases the load shift to the outer wheels.
If the suspension is linked to the floor and keeps the floor level while the car rolls, the inner corner tires take more of the load, reducing the load on the outer corner rear wheel. The aero does expert less rolling force, allowing for les stiff suspension setting.
But maybe thats just dumb...
Mod edit: personal comment removed