2023 car comparison thread

[vorticism]

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

+1
It was apparent before (see image below), the Alfa has by far the widest cannon exit. Almost as wide as the beam wing.

https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/fr/ ... 79285.html
]

AR3 brings up a good point. Alfa, RB, and Merc are the only ones without waterslides. Ferrari provided the protowaterslides--we called them bathtubs last year. Unless you say that Merc's waterslides are above the driver's head.

[PlatinumZealot]

That's a very weak similarity to a water slide then.

[Mtshali_Motorsport]

I have a VERY wild theory on why I think the RB19 figured out a loophole in the regulations regarding their suspension system.

I just recently watched a youtube video that explains how Red Bull is able to use more anti-dive and anti-squat in their suspension system which allows them to run the car lower and be more stable across the lap. What I've noticed was the way how the suspension system is configured and designed in both to front and rear which so happens to be similar to what Mercedes designed in the W10 and W11. What I can also recall is how the FIA changed the way in which teams were able to design suspension systems and how certain effects were not allowed ( In particular Mercedes trick suspension system in Turkey 2021) and other similar effects.

Here's my theory. From my understanding, these changes to prevent the effects mentioned were only applied in the traditional suspension layout (front push-rod and rear pull-rod) but not the new configuration that Red Bull currently has ( front pull-rod and rear push-rod). Could Red Bull have copied Mercedes' old suspension designs and flipped them upside down to still keep those aforementioned effects and benefits while using them in an anti-dive and anti-squat format?

Hope anyone can chime in on this

[PlatinumZealot]

Suspension geometry is easy to observe, understand and copy. Teams had a whole year to do it, so the external geometry that you see there, including the extreme anti-dive, is not their silver bullet. Pretty sure on this.

The RedBull has great aerodynamics and possible internally to the suspension it has a certain behaviour to suit these aerodynamics. But you need the aerodynamics in the first place. The required attitude of the car as it goes through squats, rolls, dives and bumps can be simulated on the computer, and then you make the real life suspension to match that - but the main problem is making the aerodynamics strong in the first place.

[vorticism]

What do you think guys about Mark Hughes` article regarding why the RB19 car has such an agressive anti-dive front and anti-squat rear suspension:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... perez-mph/

I read through that and feel he's looking in a very very conventional optic as to how it's bring driven, particularly by MV.

I do agree that bringing up anti dive during braking makes it harder for the driver to determine with a degree of accurate finese just how close he is to locking.
In other words, increases performance, but trades that with feel dimished, especially if tyre is not brought to temp.
MV was more accomplished in handling that balance at various critical phase than SP.

The highest bonus for not letting the front dive is consistency in geometry of aero leading into the floor area I feel. Doesnt mean the floor is not shifting, but more that's principally achieved by rear jacking. That's an area they have huge experience of too in the significant rake attitude they've previously worked with.

Technically speaking, his claim that anti-dive geometry has a great influence on front tire warming is not correct.

The longitudinal load transfer of these F1 cars is dominated by the deceleration value, not the very minor changes in CG height associated with dive/anti-dive especially since the cars are stiffly sprung and rise at the rear is somewhat counteracted by dive at the front.

I agree. Anti-dive can only be a partial solution. The suspension still deflects vertically upon load transfer regardless of the arm inclination (within reason). It makes me think it's more about aero. The RB16 had a flat top arm, and a slightly inclined lower arm (the arms diverged rearward instead of converge as on the RB18/19), which provides the opposite sort of caster change that the RB18/19 would provide. This might be a change in chassis/suspension philosophy, or simply an indication that suspension design plays second fiddle to aero.

[Mtshali_Motorsport]

Suspension geometry is easy to observe, understand and copy. Teams had a whole year to do it, so the external geometry that you see there, including the extreme anti-dive, is not their silver bullet. Pretty sure on this.

The RedBull has great aerodynamics and possible internally to the suspension it has a certain behaviour to suit these aerodynamics. But you need the aerodynamics in the first place. The required attitude of the car as it goes through squats, rolls, dives and bumps can be simulated on the computer, and then you make the real life suspension to match that - but the main problem is making the aerodynamics strong in the first place.

Actually, I was referring to the internal suspension geometry and not the external part ( swing arms, etc)

[vorticism]

It's been noticable for a while, but haven't yet posted about it. The drastically different front suspension geometries of the Merc and RB:



Of note:
-Merc arms diverge outward toward wheel.
-Upper Merc arm angles upward (reminds me of some Champ cars; below) while both RB arms angle downward.


-RB arms much farther apart, almost double the distance on the bulkhead side compared to the Merc.
-RB arms thinner.

[AR3-GP]

It's been noticable for a while, but haven't yet posted about it. The drastically different front suspension geometries of the Merc and RB:
https://i.postimg.cc/1R7pfzrn/merc-susp-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/7hh0KvwZ/RB-susp-1.jpg
Of note:
Merc arms diverge outward, RB arms remain parallel.
RB arms much farther apart using full height available within the new 18" wheels.

RB basically has the front upper control arm leg mounting to the chassis where Mercedes has their pushrod . The geometries are on different planets.

[Farnborough]

MB looks simply derivative of 21 car, but without the external (to wheel rim) knuckle on top wishbone, probably partly accommodated by shift to 18 inch rim and outlawing of those external joint.

RB a complete shift from 21 car with single beam moved from lower to top wishbone application, flip to pull rod along with specific geometry concept to work in keeping platform and hence airflow to front of floor ultimately as stable as possible.

[vorticism]

Furthermore:

[AR3-GP]

Furthermore:
https://i.postimg.cc/wMVHjBrw/merc-susp-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/6Q29ft7Q/RB-susp-2.jpg

RB's arms look like they they let more "open" in this view. Upper arm and pull rod even look like they direct flow to the tunnels. The Merc arms look very bulky by comparison. That's also one of the advantages of pull rod suspension. A skinnier linkage. The pushrod needs to be beefier because a beam in compression is prone to buckling.

Interesting to note the little vanes in front of the side pod inlet of the Mercedes which pretty much tell you they are struggling with the flow direction in this area, having to force the air down to the bottom of the radiator inlet:

[vorticism]

Yes, the RB arms being thinner and spaced farther apart should offer less drag. It's details like these that are overlooked when RB's top speed is discussed.

[Vanja #66]

Is the jury still out on RB sacrificing some driver feeling and feedback on braking performance to accommodate aggressive anti-dive (and anti-squat) geometry in order to provide ultimate stable aero platform? Seems like a very good compromise is made in any case, but would explain slightly worse braking performance of RB vs some other cars.

If the team made bunch of analysis and discovered 1 tenth lost under braking could be worth 3 in corners, seems like a very good idea to chase.

[AR3-GP]

Is the jury still out on RB sacrificing some driver feeling and feedback on braking performance to accommodate aggressive anti-dive (and anti-squat) geometry in order to provide ultimate stable aero platform? Seems like a very good compromise is made in any case, but would explain slightly worse braking performance of RB vs some other cars.

If the team made bunch of analysis and discovered 1 tenth lost under braking could be worth 3 in corners, seems like a very good idea to chase.

The AMR23 has similarly aggressive anti-dive, but they were one of the best cars on the brakes. I would say the jury is still out.

by that I mean it's clear why you would want anti-dive, but it's not obvious that it means you have worse braking as a result. The AMR is a testament to that.

[FW17]

Is the jury still out on RB sacrificing some driver feeling and feedback on braking performance to accommodate aggressive anti-dive (and anti-squat) geometry in order to provide ultimate stable aero platform? Seems like a very good compromise is made in any case, but would explain slightly worse braking performance of RB vs some other cars.

If the team made bunch of analysis and discovered 1 tenth lost under braking could be worth 3 in corners, seems like a very good idea to chase.

The AMR23 has similarly aggressive anti-dive, but they were one of the best cars on the brakes. I would say the jury is still out.

by that I mean it's clear why you would want anti-dive, but it's not obvious that it means you have worse braking as a result. The AMR is a testament to that.

He mentioned braking feedback to the driver, not braking performance.