2023 car comparison thread

[AR3-GP]

That's why Alonso says the Alpine is the most similar car to his AMR 23.

The RB and the AMR are more similar in the subtle ways. Front suspension and underfloor.

[SiLo]

So, rear wings don't flex any more?

https://i.ibb.co/hfrjXQ7/jeddah-2023-williams-flex.jpg

Just as a reminder, camera is fixed on the chassis, so the suspension movement under braking is observed with rear tyre movement (also marked)

Don't think anyone ever implied they stopped flexing completely, just that they can't take the piss with it like they did before.

[Farnborough]

The AM appears to use the same type cross beam single element (top front wishbone leg) as the RB, it's definitely more cousin to the RB in that respect.

Sidepod air intake entry concept too is much closer to RB.

[Farnborough]

Notice also that the RB appears to have both front and rear suspension arms moving the wheels forward (that would depend on other geometry too) but looks to have the effect, superficially, of moving the whole car backwards within it's own wheelbase, that's if the pickup points on the tub and gearbox remained in the same location as last year.

[Henk_v]

The season has started and the first upgrades have made their way to the track. What really, really bugs me in discussions here, in the media and in the narratives the teams put out is that everybody pretends that all teams have equal in-season development budgets.

1) what a team can spend on development is highly dependent on how effective its cost structure is. Only a fraction of the cost cap is spent on development. Development budgets are NOT the same between teams
2) nobody knows what has been spent during winter, nobody knows how much of the 22 budget went to the 22 car and what was spent on the 23 car. Nobody knows what will be spent on the 24 car this year.

Yet we al seem to pretend all teams have equalizer in-season dev budgets and any team bringing soem updates is associated with manipulating CC

[zoroastar]

Amazing to me just how different the front suspension geometry is between the Alpine and Aston in that pic.

i was about to say, seems like a lot more cluttered on the alpine.

[GrizzleBoy]

Something g I wondered wincw I saw the RB18s suspension is whether their geometry allows some kind of passive DAS type toe changes at different speeds.

The fact that the front most arms are 90 degrees to the centre line of the car and the rear most arm slopes downwards and backwards kind of gives me the idea that the suspension assembly can flex back and forth slightly, as well as up and down, which could cause toe angle changes at different loadings.

[PhillipM]

Very, very doubtful. It'd be horrendous the minute you hit the brakes and turned into a corner if you had the wishbones flexing backward and forwards.

The whole front/rear wishbone thing is a red herring, either way they're structurally incredibly stiff longitudinally, it's the arm spacing and thickness that matters there not whether it's mounted in front or behind. That's driven 90% by aero.

[atanatizante]

Which are the reasons behind W14's wide gearbox? or it`s just the gearbox casing?

And in addition, how much is W14`s diffuser affected by this wide gearbox casing compared to RB19?

[AR3-GP]

Looking at the single pillar construction. Ferrari's pillar seems a bit chunkier than RB19. Possibly to tackle with wobblyness.

RB19 rear seems narrower than SF23 but perhaps it's an optical illusion because of the cannon outlets on the RB.

The rearmost part definitely looks very narrow.

[Holm86]

Which are the reasons behind W14's wide gearbox? or it`s just the gearbox casing?

And in addition, how much is W14`s diffuser affected by this wide gearbox casing compared to RB19?

http://postimg.cc/T59wHqSr

The image shows it pretty well, the RB floor around the diffuser has a lot more space for the diffuser tunnels.

The reason is that Mercedes uses pullrod suspension, which means the dampers and bellcranks are mounted on the bottom of the gearbox, taking up space from the diffuser tunnels.

[Farnborough]

Good comparison of how much air is directed to moushole on those two above.

The Ferrari having it's main stream on top of floor going up to diffuser, with divert to get into moushole.

The RB with top plane of sidepods favouring diffuser direction, but with downwash route from underside of sidepods inlet going more directly into that moushole. This may favour bleeding the diffuser off at higher speeds more readily to shed drag when not needed.

[Mtshali_Motorsport]

I noticed something about the floors of the RB18 and the W13 last year.
The venturi under the RB18 floor has it's narrow area further downstream. I do not know if this was addressed with W14.
Also redbull have more generous volume under the floor because the venturi is gentler.
As the venturi ends, the diffuser starts. So very aggressive expansion at the rear diffuser relative to the front of the floor.
On the other hand Mercedes with their first floor iteration of the ground effect rules, have a more symetrical floor front to rear, but this may be where it loses out. Lower, more restrictive underfloor volume and the centre of pressure is more forward. There is more of a delay downstream of the lowest point of the venturi before the rear diffuser.

Additionally, the expansion between front center vane and centre floor wall under the RB18 also have more volume, and has a less tight expansion rate compared to W13. Note the blue line and arrows. W13 vanes are closer together and expansion rate is "tighter" as you downstream.
RBR could also be create a little nozzle jet stream with the two converging outer vanes to influence the flow at the edge of the floor downstream.
https://i.ibb.co/N9SWkrn/W13-VSRB18.png

But yes, the main and fundamental difference is the tunnel volume and the venacontracta of the floor. Redbull delays the venacontracta further downstream, then rapidly expands again into the rear diffuser.

W14 is more balance, but this results in a less volume under the car upstream the venacontra point, and can explain why it is more sensitive to ride. The RB has a better buffer due to its distribution of underfloor volume. It prioritizes the intake volume expansion over the rear, which is the outlet volumetric expansion. As to why this is done, I do not know. I am just pointing out my observations.

There are also mini diffusers between two planes of the floor "T", ie plank plane and tunnel roof. Indicating that the reference plane is playing some role in the ground effect as well for RBR.

In conclusion mercedes could investigate this if they haven't already. It makes more sense to me why RBR has the floor cut out where it is. The upper outwash and the rear biased venacontracta are linked.


https://f1i.autojournal.fr/wp-content/u ... _w13_5.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT3w6SFWYAA ... ame=medium

By far the best post I've read in this thread, +1 for your observation

to answer the bold highlighted point, the overall shape of the RedBull floor from the side view plane is direct resemblance to the flat floors of the old regulations with the front of the floor raised up at an angle, maybe it could be that they took the 2021 RB16B and modified it for the new technical regulations.

In context to Mercedes I feel that the key to fixing their problems with the W14 is for them to revisit the W12. There are hidden parallels that old car has which has not been explored or exploited that majority of people haven't picked up yet.

just a thought.....

[zoroastar]

I noticed something about the floors of the RB18 and the W13 last year.
The venturi under the RB18 floor has it's narrow area further downstream. I do not know if this was addressed with W14.
Also redbull have more generous volume under the floor because the venturi is gentler.
As the venturi ends, the diffuser starts. So very aggressive expansion at the rear diffuser relative to the front of the floor.
On the other hand Mercedes with their first floor iteration of the ground effect rules, have a more symetrical floor front to rear, but this may be where it loses out. Lower, more restrictive underfloor volume and the centre of pressure is more forward. There is more of a delay downstream of the lowest point of the venturi before the rear diffuser.

Additionally, the expansion between front center vane and centre floor wall under the RB18 also have more volume, and has a less tight expansion rate compared to W13. Note the blue line and arrows. W13 vanes are closer together and expansion rate is "tighter" as you downstream.
RBR could also be create a little nozzle jet stream with the two converging outer vanes to influence the flow at the edge of the floor downstream.
https://i.ibb.co/N9SWkrn/W13-VSRB18.png

But yes, the main and fundamental difference is the tunnel volume and the venacontracta of the floor. Redbull delays the venacontracta further downstream, then rapidly expands again into the rear diffuser.

W14 is more balance, but this results in a less volume under the car upstream the venacontra point, and can explain why it is more sensitive to ride. The RB has a better buffer due to its distribution of underfloor volume. It prioritizes the intake volume expansion over the rear, which is the outlet volumetric expansion. As to why this is done, I do not know. I am just pointing out my observations.

There are also mini diffusers between two planes of the floor "T", ie plank plane and tunnel roof. Indicating that the reference plane is playing some role in the ground effect as well for RBR.

In conclusion mercedes could investigate this if they haven't already. It makes more sense to me why RBR has the floor cut out where it is. The upper outwash and the rear biased venacontracta are linked.


https://f1i.autojournal.fr/wp-content/u ... _w13_5.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT3w6SFWYAA ... ame=medium

By far the best post I've read in this thread, +1 for your observation

to answer the bold highlighted point, the overall shape of the RedBull floor from the side view plane is direct resemblance to the flat floors of the old regulations with the front of the floor raised up at an angle, maybe it could be that they took the 2021 RB16B and modified it for the new technical regulations.

In context to Mercedes I feel that the key to fixing their problems with the W14 is for them to revisit the W12. There are hidden parallels that old car has which has not been explored or exploited that majority of people haven't picked up yet.

just a thought.....

its kind of amazing how simple and elementary the merc looks compared to the redbull as well. it almost looks like mercedes bought a prefabbed part somewhere.

[ringo]

I noticed something about the floors of the RB18 and the W13 last year.
The venturi under the RB18 floor has it's narrow area further downstream. I do not know if this was addressed with W14.
Also redbull have more generous volume under the floor because the venturi is gentler.
As the venturi ends, the diffuser starts. So very aggressive expansion at the rear diffuser relative to the front of the floor.
On the other hand Mercedes with their first floor iteration of the ground effect rules, have a more symetrical floor front to rear, but this may be where it loses out. Lower, more restrictive underfloor volume and the centre of pressure is more forward. There is more of a delay downstream of the lowest point of the venturi before the rear diffuser.

Additionally, the expansion between front center vane and centre floor wall under the RB18 also have more volume, and has a less tight expansion rate compared to W13. Note the blue line and arrows. W13 vanes are closer together and expansion rate is "tighter" as you downstream.
RBR could also be create a little nozzle jet stream with the two converging outer vanes to influence the flow at the edge of the floor downstream.
https://i.ibb.co/N9SWkrn/W13-VSRB18.png

But yes, the main and fundamental difference is the tunnel volume and the venacontracta of the floor. Redbull delays the venacontracta further downstream, then rapidly expands again into the rear diffuser.

W14 is more balance, but this results in a less volume under the car upstream the venacontra point, and can explain why it is more sensitive to ride. The RB has a better buffer due to its distribution of underfloor volume. It prioritizes the intake volume expansion over the rear, which is the outlet volumetric expansion. As to why this is done, I do not know. I am just pointing out my observations.

There are also mini diffusers between two planes of the floor "T", ie plank plane and tunnel roof. Indicating that the reference plane is playing some role in the ground effect as well for RBR.

In conclusion mercedes could investigate this if they haven't already. It makes more sense to me why RBR has the floor cut out where it is. The upper outwash and the rear biased venacontracta are linked.


https://f1i.autojournal.fr/wp-content/u ... _w13_5.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT3w6SFWYAA ... ame=medium

Do you think that RB18`s floor was targeting not for inconstant, unpredictable peak downforce as W13 had but rather for a lower one which was more constant and predictable?

And in order to compensate for the downforce loss from the floor they focused on diffuser to produce more of it, by running it harder through increasing expansion of it by designing rounded upper corner diffuser edges and by running a pull road rear suspension heading for unobstructed clean airflow at the back of the car? And last, but not least for having a vertical slit at the end of the diffuser vertical fence, if I`m not wrong ...

With this year's modified floor rules, it seems that the RB19 car is running as low as possible (as the W13 car did last year) in order to compensate for the downforce loss and it`d be interesting to know how they`re able to run it so low that sparks in qualy trim but didn`t have this kind of issue ones the car is in race trim ...

I think they were targeting higher downforce than mercedes over a wider range of ground clearances.
I do not think it's a see saw between low or high. The RB floor just has more area under the rideheight vs downforce curve, if that were to be drawn.
Let's say for argument's sake, the mercedes floor has a curve that looks like a tangent curve between zero and 90 degrees (as an example, this is not the case). Very low numbers at high ride heights and starts spiking as height decreases and approaches the ground.


On the other hand, the RB curve has more meat underneath, maybe similar to a sigmoid curve.

Before any jumps and says "hey the realtionship with ground clearance and downforce doesnt look like that!" Just note this is just to illustrate.
The actual characteristic will look different, but I am sure the RB has more area under it.

I think the peak downforce that the W14 floor has over the RB is not sustainable in real life. It only looks good in the wind tunnel.
So I think the RB has more downforce overall 90% of any given time and ridehight. W14 only has downforce in a very fickle regime where the suspension is almost maxed out and the slightest change in height is a lot of force, therefore it has poor control.