matteosc wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 14:34
izzy wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 14:21
f1jcw wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 14:08
Thats not sounding good, sounds like they have gone in the wrong direction.
Yes, if it's correct, but is it? Where did Paulo Filisetti the technical journalist get this info? These would have to have been missed by Mercedes aero's in their wind tunnel, which does do yaw presumably.
I agree, its seems highly unlikely that detached flows from the upper surface of the car went unnoticed in simulations and wind tunnel. In my opinion it is way more likely that the car is set to run very low, but they cannot do that because of porpoising. I think that in Mercedes case rising the car height causes a loss of downforce higher than in other cars.
There is always the possibility that they stuck too much to previous years concepts and miss out some new opportunities that the new regulations offer, but it is too early to say. I guess we will have to wait at least until Imola/Barcelona to know who was right.
Whether true or not, there is some scope for this being plausible.
a) - Mercedes had the least amount of wind-tunnel time at the beginning of last season.
b) - Mercedes had the most ground to make up to catch Red Bull at the beginning of last season (along with AMR they were more heavily affected by the floor changes).
c) - No matter what they do in the tunnel, flow detachment is difficult to spot (unless every square mm of model is covered in pressure sensors.
d) - Wind tunnel testing is limited to 180km/h, although I believe that they are allowed to model higher speeds in CFD. CFD runs are also limited.
e) - The airflow changes with speed.
As I say, whether true or not, it is plausible.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.