Aston Martin AMR23

[Vanja #66]

There are couple more mechanisms at play that will be discussed in Part 3, mainly yaw simulation results. Shub, having actually seen CFD of 2021 and 2022 RB cars, noticed some mechanisms that I wasn't sure can or should be noted due to the imperfection of both models and simulation solver. So he'll be working on Part 4 as well, some really interesting stuff - definitely pure speculation, but very, very interesting

[NutritionFact]

Silver-W14
Red -SF23
Light blue-A523
Dark blue-Rb19
Green-Amr23

If you find a piece of Haas or something Papaya, pls do a Note..

Maybe the he Williams short pod is here?


Team Silverstone build a Franken-Car, they take their "unique" (Red Bull, Alpine, Ferrari, Mercedes) element, went further and make it their own. It's what Alonso said, everyone is a Aston Martin now.


Blandin said in the Undercut Interview, 1st a solid Base later add the cherries in the cake.
They build a 2nd fastest "Launch Car" and made it run.
Aston Had Updates in the pipeline, correlation is fine, should improve and they go on.
Maybe the next big update after 6 races @imola comes with floor, floor edges, rear wing, beam wing, all this nice ways to gain downforce, reduce drag and more effiency.
Should be the 1/3 of to 2/3 they would Change during the season. The 2nd 1/3 will be Center Line, Sidepods, waterslide and something Others. And then they add The cherries in the cake.
A lot of potential to unleash.

Fallows talks about a non conservativ and agressiv Update strategy (in use of the 100%). ? Baku small, 1st imola big, Barcelona the first cherries, 2nd Silverstone, Hungaroring small, summerbreak, Zandvoort small, rest of season only cherries. Just in my head..... Eventually 1 big more



Edith: "Papaya" found.

[Wouter]

From a long Japanese article from today. Very interesting but to long to translate it all.

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/redbull/r ... loor-23-3/
.

Both Red Bull and Aston Martin understand this year's regulations and are running fast machines.

In terms of team power, there is a wall that can never be overcome, but Aston Martin has broken down the current top 3 stronghold.

Comparison of Red Bull RB18 and Aston Martin AMR23!
Floor similarities and Mercedes gearbox weak points



*It's a pity that the AMR23 floor is angled so that the rear side faces the front.

Mercedes gearbox 2022 type (There is almost no change in the Mercedes gearbox 2022 and 2023.)



Due to the thick gearbox of the AMR23, the volume of air flowing through both the bottom and top surfaces of the diffuser is small.

The Mercedes gearbox has a pull rod (red arrow) and an inboard suspension such as a torsion bar (yellow dotted line) built in the middle.



The inboard suspension parts are built in behind the gear cassette (red circle), and the fairing of the drive shaft (green dotted line) is slanted and thick.

Red Bull gearbox type 2022



You can see that the part where the drive shaft (green dotted line) connects is clearly thin.

The shape of the gearbox has been shaved off along the round gears of the differential.

Compared to Mercedes, it has an uneven shape, but it is the part that is buried in the diffuser and gives the shape of the bottom surface a degree of freedom.

The upper surface spreads space and can flow air smoothly.

I think you can see from this that it is an aerodynamic requirement that Red Bull adopted pushrods and took most of the inboard suspension out of the gearbox.

[ringo]

Great find. Fine detail but will add up indeed.

[F1Krof]

[vorticism]

Edith: https://i.postimg.cc/fL4dJ6Lg/IMG-20230325-013524.jpg "Papaya" found.

Interesting reference to the MP4-(2_?) Just continue the waterslide forward; they may, or some other team may eventually if beneficial.

[zoroastar]

From a long Japanese article from today. Very interesting but to long to translate it all.

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/redbull/r ... loor-23-3/
.

Both Red Bull and Aston Martin understand this year's regulations and are running fast machines.

In terms of team power, there is a wall that can never be overcome, but Aston Martin has broken down the current top 3 stronghold.

Comparison of Red Bull RB18 and Aston Martin AMR23!
Floor similarities and Mercedes gearbox weak points

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... view-2.jpg

*It's a pity that the AMR23 floor is angled so that the rear side faces the front.

Mercedes gearbox 2022 type (There is almost no change in the Mercedes gearbox 2022 and 2023.)

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... rbox-2.jpg

Due to the thick gearbox of the AMR23, the volume of air flowing through both the bottom and top surfaces of the diffuser is small.

The Mercedes gearbox has a pull rod (red arrow) and an inboard suspension such as a torsion bar (yellow dotted line) built in the middle.

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... rbox-2.jpg

The inboard suspension parts are built in behind the gear cassette (red circle), and the fairing of the drive shaft (green dotted line) is slanted and thick.

Red Bull gearbox type 2022

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... tail-1.jpg

You can see that the part where the drive shaft (green dotted line) connects is clearly thin.

The shape of the gearbox has been shaved off along the round gears of the differential.

Compared to Mercedes, it has an uneven shape, but it is the part that is buried in the diffuser and gives the shape of the bottom surface a degree of freedom.

The upper surface spreads space and can flow air smoothly.

I think you can see from this that it is an aerodynamic requirement that Red Bull adopted pushrods and took most of the inboard suspension out of the gearbox.

it looks like the sides of the "gear box cavity" on the floor is lifted more from the surface of the top of the floor than in the rb18 (sorry for lack of technical terms there). i wonder if the size of the merc gearbox is offset by raising it a bit more than the redbull..im sure that there is still an advantage to the smaller gearbox, but could it be negated in the diffusser area, since thats so important?
if you look at the main plain of the floor, from front to back, the bottom of that cavity is still level with the rest of the floor.. if that makes sense to anyone besides me.. haha

in other words, im not sure that redbulls diffuser area is bigger than astons, like it says in the article. definitely wish we had some pics of the bottoms of all these cars though

[Andi76]

While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They aren’t either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).

Honestly - you were already upset about this last year. It is explicitly emphasized that these models (of course) do not correspond to the originals and the results are therefore not transferable. So where is the problem? And why shouldn't a model that is a concept similar to the W14 or the AM be called that? Because some people cite the results as facts in discussions? In such discussions people cite their opinion or their eyeball CFD as facts, so please..- if that is your problem, then you must not have such discussions, because opinions and eyeball CFD can hardly be better. Therefore I believe that the real reason for your criticism is rather that your opinion and your eyeball-CFD "results" of these CFD simulations were opposed and you ran out of arguments... Otherwise it does not fit together for me, because as I said - people cite completely different things than facts in such discussions...

But anyway - people like Vanja do a lot of work to enable others to understand what mechanisms play a role in different concepts and how they COULD work and what the differences COULD be in terms of aerodynamics of the cars. That enriches this forum immensely and is a much better basis for discussion and to understand what the differences between cars COULD be in that regard. And that is far better and more than anything else you can find anywhere! Also it is a base and a basis to understand why a car COULD have a better performance and they show differences and trends that COULD be there. They are a better basis for discussion and understanding than anything else and except for you and three other people (obvious Mercedes fans who did not agree with the results of the CFD simulations in 2022 and the predictions based on them that this concept will fail) the rest of this forum certainly appreciates these CFD simulations. And they are without any doubt the best available material comparing different concepts in general and to which everybody has free access. How you can criticize something that benefits the general public is completely beyond my understanding. But I can't understand everything, and there are people like that and people who find fault with everything. I hope only Vanja can not be negatively influenced by this and a few individuals do not ruin again what hundreds or thousands of others benefit.

Note: even if this is "off-topic" I think this should be said in the interest of the community that appreciates Vanja's great work, as the ratings of his CFD threads clearly show.

[diffuser]

While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They aren’t either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).

Honestly - you were already upset about this last year. It is explicitly emphasized that these models (of course) do not correspond to the originals and the results are therefore not transferable. So where is the problem? And why shouldn't a model that is a concept similar to the W14 or the AM be called that? Because some people cite the results as facts in discussions? In such discussions people cite their opinion or their eyeball CFD as facts, so please..- if that is your problem, then you must not have such discussions, because opinions and eyeball CFD can hardly be better. Therefore I believe that the real reason for your criticism is rather that your opinion and your eyeball-CFD "results" of these CFD simulations were opposed and you ran out of arguments... Otherwise it does not fit together for me, because as I said - people cite completely different things than facts in such discussions...

But anyway - people like Vanja do a lot of work to enable others to understand what mechanisms play a role in different concepts and how they COULD work and what the differences COULD be in terms of aerodynamics of the cars. That enriches this forum immensely and is a much better basis for discussion and to understand what the differences between cars COULD be in that regard. And that is far better and more than anything else you can find anywhere! Also it is a base and a basis to understand why a car COULD have a better performance and they show differences and trends that COULD be there. They are a better basis for discussion and understanding than anything else and except for you and three other people (obvious Mercedes fans who did not agree with the results of the CFD simulations in 2022 and the predictions based on them that this concept will fail) the rest of this forum certainly appreciates these CFD simulations. And they are without any doubt the best available material comparing different concepts in general and to which everybody has free access. How you can criticize something that benefits the general public is completely beyond my understanding. But I can't understand everything, and there are people like that and people who find fault with everything. I hope only Vanja can not be negatively influenced by this and a few individuals do not ruin again what hundreds or thousands of others benefit.

Note: even if this is "off-topic" I think this should be said in the interest of the community that appreciates Vanja's great work, as the ratings of his CFD threads clearly show.

And it's fun!

[wesley123]

as the ratings of his CFD threads clearly show.

This last discussion has shown that a huge amount of votes have no actual credibility and are used as an "I agree" rather than it actually being a contribution.

There's a reason why people who are/were involved in F1 do not actually do simulations like these; It's because they are plain wrong.

It's really interesting how the narrative went from "Well you can't deduce that because F1 cars have really optimized flow structures that could break if you introduce a different part" to drawing conclusions and placing them as fact because you see a simplified model that sort of incorporates the solutions through eyeballing it from pictures.

The CFD's a great, sure, and you can learn a lot from them. But to draw conclusions of real world cars from them is just plain wrong and intentionally spreading misinformation.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not about being wrong or right. It's about application and stating the necessary caveats. As scientists and engineers, we cannot claim that our theories are "correct" or representative without a series of proofs and peer reviews. It is silly to think that Vanja is claiming his CFD results are accurate or reflect whats actually happening on the cars. He clearly states, hey guys this is my shake of the stick, and it may not be accurate, but it gives an indication of the effects that could be happening.

Now any seasoned scientist, engineer or critical thinker knows this is fine. No one with any reasonable amount of experience in the STEM fields is using his results as a form of academic reference. It's just a great attempt that is used for discussion and postulations... I actually disagree with some aspects of his CFD results, mind you. I believe the models could be done better, but it's awesome work by him. If I really opposed them I would have gone and done my own models and get results to counter him (Hoffman! lol). But I did my share of CFD on this site (back in EBD, F-duct and coanda exhaust days) and it's not an easy thing to do. I can't believe people can't appreciate it.

[Vanja #66]

The CFD's a great, sure, and you can learn a lot from them. But to draw conclusions of real world cars from them is just plain wrong and intentionally spreading misinformation.

The thing is, you can draw some limited conclusions, you can draw some possible conclusion and you can draw some 110% inaccurate conclusion. This, naturally, goes for every possible simulation that ever was, is and will be made.

We don't need CFD to draw conclusions about 4 basic characteristics of AMR23 sides:
- underbite lip helps with preventing the floor leading edge separation, same as Ferrari and RB inlets did from the start of last year, by extending the surface of pressurised zone forming under the inlet
- outwashing undercut provides, well, outwash... and obviously strong one judging by the very aggressive geometry
- downwash waterslide leads more air to the beam wing with aggressive curvature (trading lift to do so) and forms ambient(ish) pressure zone on the rear surface where it meets with horizontal surface area
- side wall leads clean air from the undercut all the way to the diffuser mousehole

The exact impact and influence of these phenomena is unknown, but their existence is known and unquestionable. Shub, having seen actual F1 car CFD results and working on some stuff for RB18, is more than knowledgeable about the major phenomena and performance drivers, so he reads into these simulation results far more than I am ready (and knowledgeable!) to do. It's speculation, but very well-informed speculation.

[zoroastar]

in the 70s & 80s the teams would have loved to draw some conclusion from software like that. some would have been right in real world, and some wrong, but they would have used whatever they had to try to get any advantage they could have.
and if you go back further, they would have been burned at the stake for witchcraft

[Vanja #66]

Here's the Part 3, where yaw influence on outwash is discussed, along with few other things



As promised, here's the link to the folder with all the images. Please don't abuse them and remove the watermarks

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/cb1ul8ct ... pds3ljnqcj

And a few of them for preview

[organic]

Saudi spec for Alonso / Bahrain spec for Stroll.

No new rear wing for AMR as of today