2023 car comparison thread

[Vanja #66]

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.

To be honest, I'm not sure there's a big difference between AMR23 and RB19 on brakes. Ok, AMR seems slightly better on hard braking occasionally, but nothing I would define as much better. Here's Jeddah and AUS Q, in both cases just one braking point is better. I left out Bahrain since I believe it's a better comparison regarding car setup in AUS and reaching maximum potential, not something we could say about Bahrain.

[TimW]

To be honest, I'm not sure there's a big difference between AMR23 and RB19 on brakes. Ok, AMR seems slightly better on hard braking occasionally, but nothing I would define as much better. Here's Jeddah and AUS Q, in both cases just one braking point is better. I left out Bahrain since I believe it's a better comparison regarding car setup in AUS and reaching maximum potential, not something we could say about Bahrain.

I highly doubt the data is accurate enough to distinguish these differences. If you check the delta graph, at the turns, there are many gains / losses that are immediately lost / recovered again. A mismatch in synchronization would give this effect, and to me is more likely than that e.g. Alonso gained 0.2s under braking, and then immediately lost the same 0.2s in the turn or acceleration phase (last graph).

[Farnborough]

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.

I'd view it in three parts.
The benefit in keeping the aero platform stable is positive and productive. Presentation of front end geometry, floor entrance etc must pay dividend in allowing refinement of performance in a narrowed band of variable.

Don't feel there's negative from tyre contact to fundamentally change braking effectiveness. Anti dive targets geometric conflict in the leverage to avoid dive without having to compromise spring and damper rates that potentially can then be closer to optimal for chassis and tyre management. Compliance here can improve life, grip etc over a wider use profile.

Downside. Ultimately driver feel and particularly when approaching locking under reduced grip situation. The immediate interpretation of just how close the tyre is running to lock may be more difficult, but with knowledge of the characteristics can be worked around. Notice how careful MV was in tyre warming phase Australia.

RB seem to have been stepping toward this for some time, incorporating development productivity of longer learning period. Many other team appear to gave moved closer to this direction in changes from 22~23 updated design.

Cross beam (used prior to RB 18 in lower link) maybe helping as it appears to avoid building stiction into inner mount points, giving feel benefit under braking load.
Could also consider stiction within brake pedal arrangement in maximising driver feel, on both pivot and fulcrum locations.
Many small/marginal gains possibly, leading to lift in overall system whole performance. We can't see these specific details or even if they have been changed, but a logical path in chasing down fundamental improvements if that's the case.

[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.

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

His post says:

“ but would explain slightly worse braking performance of RB vs some other cars.

[AR3-GP]

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.

To be honest, I'm not sure there's a big difference between AMR23 and RB19 on brakes. Ok, AMR seems slightly better on hard braking occasionally, but nothing I would define as much better. Here's Jeddah and AUS Q, in both cases just one braking point is better. I left out Bahrain since I believe it's a better comparison regarding car setup in AUS and reaching maximum potential, not something we could say about Bahrain.

https://i.ibb.co/Mf4ynq9/braking-jeddah-2023.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/pxnw9Jz/braking-aus-2023.jpg

If your point here is there is no difference between RB and AMR, then what evidence is there that either car is worse on the brakes vs competitors? That was your point in your first post.

[Vanja #66]

I highly doubt the data is accurate enough to distinguish these differences. If you check the delta graph, at the turns, there are many gains / losses that are immediately lost / recovered again. A mismatch in synchronization would give this effect, and to me is more likely than that e.g. Alonso gained 0.2s under braking, and then immediately lost the same 0.2s in the turn or acceleration phase (last graph).

I agree it's far from perfect, but I can't supply anything better at this point. It was clear last year that Ferrari was better on braking when RB18 already adopted significant anti dive front. I'm just discussion the design direction and pros/cons of anti-dive (and anti-squat) on RB19, telemetry discussions are off topic of course

I'd view it in three parts.
***

Very good points, exactly my thoughts - slight compromise on driver feel (that could ultimately influence braking performance slightly) to gain a lot with stable car that keeps the floor within optimal ride height almost the entire lap.

If your point here is there is no difference between RB and AMR, then what evidence is there that either car is worse on the brakes vs competitors? That was your point in your first post.

As far as I know and I may not know enough, "big" anti-dive can give different and somewhat "off" feedback to the driver when braking. So this could translate to a slight lack of confidence of drivers in harder braking points which may result in overall degradation of braking performance of RB19. That was my point, I was just using telemetry to compare two cars with similar front suspension that you mentioned.

[AR3-GP]

I agree it's far from perfect, but I can't supply anything better at this point. It was clear last year that Ferrari was better on braking when RB18 already adopted significant anti dive front. I'm just discussion the design direction and pros/cons of anti-dive (and anti-squat) on RB19, telemetry discussions are off topic of course

The RB18 was overweight last year. The Ferrari also had more downforce before TD039. These are also factors that affect braking performance.

[Vanja #66]

The RB18 was overweight last year. The Ferrari also had more downforce before TD039. These are also factors that affect braking performance.

Fair point, but I'm still hoping to hear more from other members, especially suspension experts

[AR3-GP]

The RB18 was overweight last year. The Ferrari also had more downforce before TD039. These are also factors that affect braking performance.

Fair point, but I'm still hoping to hear more from other members, especially suspension experts

Those members are too busy selling their knowledge to Ferrari and Mercedes

[Farnborough]

As mentioned, the resolution of above comparison is likely insufficient to make conclusive analysis.

If you look at them from slightly different approach, that of not needing to brake to such a low point in speed, is one of the attributes of a faster car (shorter lap time) in that the requirement to remove speed is less crucial to the corner entry, hence vindication of aero performance of that vehicle.

Obvious in a statement, but a car with higher aero performance will ultimately extend the range over which the driver chooses to apply and modulate the brake phase.

Increased straight line speed could dictate earlier brake, but for less time and distance. One of the comment from TW presumably from his drivers first hand experience, in Bahrain, was the RB can get onto throttle so very early in corner phase. Likely that metre by metre corner mapping would be needed to fully analyse. Or the driver just claims their opponent has more downforce, surely the common view of each driver in the disadvantaged seat !

[Farnborough]

The RB18 was overweight last year. The Ferrari also had more downforce before TD039. These are also factors that affect braking performance.

Fair point, but I'm still hoping to hear more from other members, especially suspension experts

The application of "crossbow" suspension into wishbone may have more in depth effects with overall package of front suspension.

If the dive under brake load is attenuated by the specified geometry, then the wheel's mass (considerably increased for 18") may have a similar control via that fixed link as spring medium in much the same direction as a conventionally considered mass damper.
If tuned to the tyre frequency specifically (renualt did this in FA years) then the torsion bar and damper rates don't have to be so arranged to accommodate this specific load pattern.
Considered separately, with each aspect controling and tunable to accommodate different input, then the whole assembly can yeald a fundamentally better performance profile.
If those aspect are potentially isolated within the design, the torsion and damping rates may more accurately target the remaining aspects more optimally, potentially giving a more subtle regime to help with tyre wear/lifting etc.
Slow warm up of front, suggests the system "whole" treats the tyre gently, making that long run performance a much more attainable target.
And all while delivering planar accuracy to aero platform

[mechanoit]

I'd view it in three parts.
The benefit in keeping the aero platform stable is positive and productive. Presentation of front end geometry, floor entrance etc must pay dividend in allowing refinement of performance in a narrowed band of variable.

Don't feel there's negative from tyre contact to fundamentally change braking effectiveness. Anti dive targets geometric conflict in the leverage to avoid dive without having to compromise spring and damper rates that potentially can then be closer to optimal for chassis and tyre management. Compliance here can improve life, grip etc over a wider use profile.

Downside. Ultimately driver feel and particularly when approaching locking under reduced grip situation. The immediate interpretation of just how close the tyre is running to lock may be more difficult, but with knowledge of the characteristics can be worked around. Notice how careful MV was in tyre warming phase Australia.

RB seem to have been stepping toward this for some time, incorporating development productivity of longer learning period. Many other team appear to gave moved closer to this direction in changes from 22~23 updated design.

Cross beam (used prior to RB 18 in lower link) maybe helping as it appears to avoid building stiction into inner mount points, giving feel benefit under braking load.
Could also consider stiction within brake pedal arrangement in maximising driver feel, on both pivot and fulcrum locations.
Many small/marginal gains possibly, leading to lift in overall system whole performance. We can't see these specific details or even if they have been changed, but a logical path in chasing down fundamental improvements if that's the case.

Good post.

To maybe expand on the part you mentioned about spring and damper rates, anti-dive and anti-squat geometry reduce the moment arms that induce dive and squat, however the actual moment values themselves are dependent on the spring rates. So you could for example have a greater anti-dive and anti-squat geometry coupled with lower spring rates and have more dive and squat than another car with less anti-dive and anti-squat geometry but which is coupled with commensurately higher spring rates.

What Red Bull have effectively done is work out the best spring and damper rate window for mechanical grip to suit slow and medium corners across most tracks and surfaces, which results in relatively soft rates, and then design their suspension geometry with enough anti-dive and anti-squat to keep those characteristics in the right window both for high speed aero as well as keeping the right angles for braking into a corner without losing rear downforce because the rear raises up too much and loses rear downforce, and then subsequently putting the power down from mid corner onwards without the front raising up and the front wing losing downforce.

The new aero regulations have fostered a huge amount of focus on maximising the floor and downforce from it. I am of the opinion that many of the teams incorrectly prioritised this without fully appreciating that lap time is mostly made in the slower corners. In the spectrum from slow to fast corners, we all know that the slowest corners are almost wholly mechanical grip dependent, and the dependence between mechanical and aero shifts gradually as the corners get faster such that the fastest corners are almost wholly aero dependent (assuming the mechanical side isn’t doing something strange to affect the aero platform). Red Bull approached the fundamental concept so that their concept ensures no major conflicts between slow corner design parameters versus fast corner design parameters. This includes such things as sensory inputs for the driver where their cockpit position is the most rearwards which increases the yaw lever arm from the front wheels and amplifies the driver’s perception and sensitivity to yaw. In contrast, Mercedes has the most forward cockpit position as they’ve prioritised their high speed aero. This philosophical difference has had an effect all through their respective designs.

Red Bull has a floor that likely produces less peak downforce but one that produces more downforce across a greater range of speeds and is also less sensitive to ride height and pitch changes. The venturi profile also suggests the centre of pressure is more rearwards. This likely couples quite well with their overall design and shape which doesn’t have too many lifting surfaces forward. Contrast this with Mercedes who has the SiS mid wing and other elements that are likely to produce lift and this has driven them towards compensating with a floor that has a further forward centre of pressure, which has consequential effects for corner entry instability in the rear. So contrasting these two teams, it seems that Mercedes have far prioritised the one goal of utilising their peak design and adjusted everything else around it with the end result that even with a relatively flawed concept, they’ve managed its weaknesses such that it is competitive with Aston Martin and quicker than all other teams bar Red Bull. Red Bull on the other hand have taken a holistic approach, firstly minimising the number of direct conflicts between competing goals and secondly where such conflicts cannot be avoided, then carefully balancing out the magnitudes of conflicting parameters to get the best compromise. A different approach to Mercedes which has accepted known (and some unknown) problems in order to achieve their one main goal, together with a series of bandaid fixes to solve those very problems. The end result for Mercedes is admirably close, but unfortunately for them that philosophical approach is exposed when put next to a car that has a sound fundamental concept.

[Vanja #66]

Rear wings for Baku 2023

Red Bull - Jeddah 2023
Ferrari - Baku 2022
Mercedes - Bahrain 2023 (for now, we know they have lower downforce wing from last year)
Alpine - Baku 2022
McLaren - Jeddah 2023
Sauber - Jeddah 2023
AMR - new spec
ATR - Spa/Monza 2022

[AR3-GP]

The Merc wing is huge.

Are you sure the Ferrari wing IS the 2022 wing? Are they identical?

[Vanja #66]

The Merc wing is huge.

Are you sure the Ferrari wing IS the 2022 wing? Are they identical?

Ferrari wing is identical to Baku 22. Merc can still use this wing from Miami 22, they used it last year here also...