Emag wrote: ↑19 Oct 2024, 22:03
Farnborough wrote: ↑19 Oct 2024, 21:59
Emag wrote: ↑19 Oct 2024, 21:08
Would love to know how changing a rear wing so that it is aerodynamically and physically the same, with the only exception being that it no longer flexes at high-speed to open a gap that increased straight line speed slightly with DRS closed, can make a car stiff, increase tire wear and (probably) mess up tire temps.
Likey to maintain top speed with flap closed (important here for defence of position) the rear would now encompass less load/drag if that is primary setup target.
That reduction has to be matched by front flap reduction too, else it becomes too nervous in oversteer risk.
Ultimately proves the gain available from rear, when flex was observed, was real inspite of team protestations
they all say that when forced to make a change though.
Here it seemed to push them into "at the limit" uncertainty for the driver in dragging one lap,pace from it.
It'll be interesting to see if they fundamentally alter that balance now, trading peak speed, to approach qualli with more emphasis on total load. Perhaps with a different aim in tire life for race stints. Maybe that tradeoff will bring more ease to that end of stint tire life.
So in order to get the benefit of 2-3 kmh they decide to mess up the entire car balance? And it's not like they don't have the data of how the car performs at different DF levels, the gimmicky rear wing was introduced at Spa and all subsequent new rear wings were variations of that concept for different DF levels.
You're saying that even though they have run most of the season without that rear wing, now that they were forced to revert they don't know how to setup the car?
Interesting theory, but I don't think it holds up.
As for setup changes going forward, they will probably be mostly mechanical. I would start by going for a softer ride instead of this stiff jumpy boat of a platform they went for.
No, not at all. The whole paddock of teams know exactly what benefit a flexing rear wing will bring, a notably wider performance envelope, with less compromise in setup choices. That's why its desirable, for any team.
Removing that facility will always bring a harder choice in setting levels, they know exactly what they are doing. They wouldn't have made a flexing structure in the first place. I'm not critical of that previous wing structure (and made views clear in here that the rules were lacking in this aspect, rather than the team doing something wrong) but see it as naive that removing that distribution of load would not now bring compromise.
Emphasise that they clearly do know what they are doing, but just have less choices now in how they trade one performance criteria against another.
We'll see what choices they make now for qualli.
