I don't think that is necessarily the case. Could it be for different circuits? Bumpy vs smooth?
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Could it be for different circuits? Bumpy vs smooth?
we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous pagemendis wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:14Different mounting points for front suspension!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900
I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.AR3-GP wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:16we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous pagemendis wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:14Different mounting points for front suspension!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900
Okay I see. For some reason your image doesn't appear for me. Does it show for you?mendis wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:18I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.AR3-GP wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:16we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous pagemendis wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:14Different mounting points for front suspension!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900
My thoughts exactly. Very curious because they already have experience with the RB-style inclined wishbones on their previous car(s) so they should have a good understanding of the impact of this on the anti-dive effect, and so should have been able to model it.CaribouBread wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 18:55The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.
It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.Zynerji wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:01I expect the adjustable part would be replaced after FP3 with a "solid" part that weighs less. Like a 3d printed bushing.CaribouBread wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 18:55The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.
They could have the a primary "plate" with interface to monocoque being e.g. four peripheral and structural mounting points....then with different plate having various wishbone locations.ing. wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 20:16It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.Zynerji wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 19:01I expect the adjustable part would be replaced after FP3 with a "solid" part that weighs less. Like a 3d printed bushing.CaribouBread wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 18:55
The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.
Probably not much weight but still, besides and plate or attachment fittings, the bulkhead—that reacts the loads from the wishbone rear legs (upper and lower)—needs to be beefed up from top to bottom, instead of just locally.Farnborough wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 20:48They could have the a primary "plate" with interface to monocoque being e.g. four peripheral and structural mounting points....then with different plate having various wishbone locations.ing. wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 20:16It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.
Swap the plate to move the geometry....facilitate with longer/shorter arm to maintain upright location.
It wouldn't even weigh that much in difference...and leaving the monocoque structure completely in tact with accompanying crash testing etc.
There was difference of opinion (and possibly the feel it generated) between drivers last year if I remembered GR v LW acceptance of Monaco update....with GR season, perhaps, not reaching his own targets after that.
Could be to experiment and even the two drivers preference of opposed demands to give static setting but at different locations.