2023 car comparison thread

[vorticism]

Cropped some images together. Variations on the A-arm inclination from flat to highly inclined.
McL ─ AMR ∖ RB \
Also note RB have the thinnest arms which has been apparent since last year.

[Sevach]

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fscf5wzaQAE ... ame=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FscwBaSaYAE ... name=large

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.

It does look extremely narrow.
Perhaps it's the gearbox that everybody has been talking about lately.

[Farnborough]

Quite a difference isn't there, in front arm geometry.

The anti dive would appear to keep the front of the chassis "platform" within a very tight range judging from the images of that type under varying load.

Unlike pure spring rate to do similar, this allows more malleable setting of the torsion spring rate to be used.

Dramatically reduced pitch seems vital in keeping floor front (strikes, outwash etc) in more planar orientation to pull out consistency in peak performance.

[Vanja #66]

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.

Illusion I would say, due to cannon vent. Look at the width of the diffuser, it almost appears bigger on Ferrari. Good point of reference is also the rear wing pylon mounting, exhaust is fixed diameter and so is the pylon arch basically.

[trinidefender]

Quite a difference isn't there, in front arm geometry.

The anti dive would appear to keep the front of the chassis "platform" within a very tight range judging from the images of that type under varying load.

Unlike pure spring rate to do similar, this allows more malleable setting of the torsion spring rate to be used.

Dramatically reduced pitch seems vital in keeping floor front (strikes, outwash etc) in more planar orientation to pull out consistency in peak performance.

And the trade-off?

[Farnborough]

There's usually a tradeoff as you note.

Ordinarily that starts to diminish the feel the driver gets at the limit when on the brakes, the tyre is still worked the same but the driver needs to be hyper sensitive in interpretation to the point at which the grip is at it's limit. This likely to be especially truncated in reduced ultimate grip scenario.
Time benefits in keeping the floor plus aero platform working in considering the gain over many laps, but recognition of limitations to avoid over stepping this area when critical conditions naturally truncate the feel that's avaliable.

[F1Krof]

Did anyone manage to get a sneak peek of Checo's beached RB19?

[AR3-GP]

Did anyone manage to get a sneak peek of Checo's beached RB19?

I hear there is a bidding war for the originals

I suspect it's very similar to last season, but I am curious as well.

[ringo]

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fscf5wzaQAE ... ame=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FscwBaSaYAE ... name=large

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.

Notice how the drs for the redbull is pulled colinearly with the hydraulic piston?
One arm connecting piston and wing. Very direct. They angle the piston in line with the intended movement.

The ferrari the piston is almost horizontal and then two linkage arms are used to pull the wing.

Minor detail, but could be a small contibution on DRS performance. The DRS will have a more linear slot opening gap vs time/piston displacement characteristic. This is very critical on the straights. I like how refined RBR get woth little differentiators.

[vorticism]

Ferrari's car looks gut but the concept is straight off of one of a 2010 car. Basic inlet, basic outlet. Seems the most aero neutral of all the teams.

[ing.]

Cropped some images together. Variations on the A-arm inclination from flat to highly inclined.
McL ─ AMR ∖ RB \
Also note RB have the thinnest arms which has been apparent since last year.

https://i.postimg.cc/Kzg56DXZ/Screen-Sh ... -14-PM.png

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... 5-12-9.jpg

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -09-10.jpg

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -07-12.jpg

The anti-dive geometry is determined by the intersection of the upper and lower wishbone inboard pivot axes. The location of the instantaneous center (IC, the white dot in the image below) relative to the CG height is used to determine the % anti-dive.

As seen on RB18 (and assuming RB19 is similar) the lower wishbone angle is also quite pronounced resulting in a relatively low IC location. So, the anti-dive geometry of RB19 is not as extreme as the upper wishbone angle would lead you to believe.

Looking at the image you can understand why one reason a high level of anti-dive is not desirable: the tangent of the arc of the tire contact patch movement on bump has a forward component which increases with a higher location of the IC. This results in reduced compliance to bumps.

Despite (or because of) the extreme angles of the wishbones on the RB, especially the upper wishbones, I expect the car has a good level of camber gain—the effect link inboard location is much lower than the forward inboard pick-up—as well as caster and kingpin inclination gains. This combination of geometries may be responsible for “lifting” the front outside corner to compensate for lean in corners.

[vorticism]

+1 .ing
The rear attachment point on the RB upper arm also stands off the chassis by a few cm which should provide some toe out on compression. The longbow ends would traverse a spiral arc and not a radius, although this may be trivial.

[OO7]

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fscf5wzaQAE ... ame=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FscwBaSaYAE ... name=large

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.

I'm pretty sure it is narrower.

[mclaren111]

Australia...

[AR3-GP]

https://i0.wp.com/www.salastamparacing. ... .jpg?ssl=1


Australia...

The Alfa is begging for slides.