I think, from the result, the answer would be no.
The car was draggy this weekend because they had to run it higher due to suspension requirements of radillon/eau rouge. Not only this causes more frontal area but it means less underfloor downforce so more wing. Doesn't help the car concept itself is draggy
This time around they played cautiously regarding ride height due to they didn't know how the car will behave with full tanks over a race distance after the new TD ... furthermore this setup affected the aero balance as HAM stated after qualy ...organic wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 01:51
...
The car was draggy this weekend because they had to run it higher due to the suspension requirements of the Radillon/Eau rouge. Not only does this causes more frontal area but it means less underfloor downforce so more wing. Doesn't help that the car concept itself is draggy
Wouldn't raising the ride height help straight-line performance as it reduces drag from the floor?atanatizante wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 08:47This time around they played cautiously regarding ride height due to they didn't know how the car will behave with full tanks over a race distance after the new TD ... furthermore this setup affected the aero balance as HAM stated after qualy ...organic wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 01:51
...
The car was draggy this weekend because they had to run it higher due to the suspension requirements of the Radillon/Eau rouge. Not only does this causes more frontal area but it means less underfloor downforce so more wing. Doesn't help that the car concept itself is draggy
They know about the car is draggy when they need to rise the ride height but it seems that they are losing more time due to running such a stiff car/aero platform and this affects more the aero balance than bouncing/porpoising and riding the ride height ...
They also know the answer: a new suspension and particularly damper update but this couldn`t be done this year both for bigger aero/chassis changes needed but most of all for cost cap reasons ...
In order to see what I`m talking about you just need to watch how RB18 is such a stable platform, how incredible the car absorbs every bump/kerb and behaves under the braking when VER was running in FP2, FP3 onwards going through both Blanchimont and Bus-stop chicane...
In that regard, it is worth mentioning that he was running here with the new floor and PU updates, particularly with the new MGU-K, something that PER didn`t have this time around ...
On the surface, yes but when you raise the rideheight, the floor downforce goes away. As a result you need more highly loaded wings. Wing downforce is inefficient compared w/ floor downforce.nw942 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 22:22Wouldn't raising the ride height help straight-line performance as it reduces drag from the floor?atanatizante wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 08:47This time around they played cautiously regarding ride height due to they didn't know how the car will behave with full tanks over a race distance after the new TD ... furthermore this setup affected the aero balance as HAM stated after qualy ...organic wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 01:51
...
The car was draggy this weekend because they had to run it higher due to the suspension requirements of the Radillon/Eau rouge. Not only does this causes more frontal area but it means less underfloor downforce so more wing. Doesn't help that the car concept itself is draggy
They know about the car is draggy when they need to rise the ride height but it seems that they are losing more time due to running such a stiff car/aero platform and this affects more the aero balance than bouncing/porpoising and riding the ride height ...
They also know the answer: a new suspension and particularly damper update but this couldn`t be done this year both for bigger aero/chassis changes needed but most of all for cost cap reasons ...
In order to see what I`m talking about you just need to watch how RB18 is such a stable platform, how incredible the car absorbs every bump/kerb and behaves under the braking when VER was running in FP2, FP3 onwards going through both Blanchimont and Bus-stop chicane...
In that regard, it is worth mentioning that he was running here with the new floor and PU updates, particularly with the new MGU-K, something that PER didn`t have this time around ...
Maybe because they are not sure yet on sidepod design which could influence optimal position of crash structures etc?
On a forum in my country, someone quoted a team insider which told him that there were inconclusive data from the updates coz they were forced to raise the car due to the Eau Rouge corner/depression not to be DSQ by the new TD inforced here ... something like Ferrari and other teams did and only RB was affected in a lesser degree for their car has some rake, hence their floor DF has a bigger amount coming from diffuser rather than ground effect ...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10359983/... teams having to run at a higher ride height range at Spa, because cars cannot run too close to the ground because the compression at Eau Rouge risks the floors hitting the track, it meant some of the RB18's strengths were exaggerated.
Ie they're outlawing the design on the right:
"The FIA has both given and taken away in terms of the front wing too, as measures have been taken to further restrict the design of the flap and endplate juncture, which all but rules out the complex design introduced by Mercedes at the Canadian Grand Prix (above) and which is expected to offer more ‘outwash’ than was originally intended when the new regulations were framed."
That's my understanding
Since the aero as you wrote about problems sealing the floor when braking the aero balance is actually moving from rear to front and back... That makes it impossible to trust the car being on the limit. Also when cornering on a bumpy track the same will occur (Baku) . Mercedes should call it the day when it comes to this concept and the w13.nw942 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 22:22Wouldn't raising the ride height help straight-line performance as it reduces drag from the floor?atanatizante wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 08:47This time around they played cautiously regarding ride height due to they didn't know how the car will behave with full tanks over a race distance after the new TD ... furthermore this setup affected the aero balance as HAM stated after qualy ...organic wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022, 01:51
...
The car was draggy this weekend because they had to run it higher due to the suspension requirements of the Radillon/Eau rouge. Not only does this causes more frontal area but it means less underfloor downforce so more wing. Doesn't help that the car concept itself is draggy
They know about the car is draggy when they need to rise the ride height but it seems that they are losing more time due to running such a stiff car/aero platform and this affects more the aero balance than bouncing/porpoising and riding the ride height ...
They also know the answer: a new suspension and particularly damper update but this couldn`t be done this year both for bigger aero/chassis changes needed but most of all for cost cap reasons ...
In order to see what I`m talking about you just need to watch how RB18 is such a stable platform, how incredible the car absorbs every bump/kerb and behaves under the braking when VER was running in FP2, FP3 onwards going through both Blanchimont and Bus-stop chicane...
In that regard, it is worth mentioning that he was running here with the new floor and PU updates, particularly with the new MGU-K, something that PER didn`t have this time around ...
Unfortunately, that then gives them problems sealing the floor when braking/cornering.
To me making the suspension more rigid/controlled is not the answer - well maybe in a wind tunnel or a computer model it is.
Presumably the new suspension you talk of will give them some ride height/floor height control (particularly at the rear). Surely, the team at Brackley can do something in this regard this year even with the cost cap.
Did they not run a pre-season variant with widepods? This must have given them an indication of which part was the more troublesomeShakeman wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 20:43What if the concept I.e the size zero body work is actually fine and it’s just the under floor geometry that’s deficient? If Merc do a carbon copy of the RB or Ferrari next year without sorting the floor issues they could be all at sea for another season with Whole lot less data.
We know there’s correlation issues with the floor because the big update at Spa that the team and drivers were excited for delivered diddly squat. I really don’t think there’s the huge differences of performance between bodywork designs that many here believe, the secret sauce is the ground effect and get that right and the car could look like a house brick and lead the field.
