ing. wrote: ↑10 Mar 2025, 19:27
mwillems wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025, 22:02
There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc
But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.
What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.
Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?
How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?
Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.
Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.
As has been discussed and demonstrated quite conclusively in the various threads, the arrangement of deeply angled upper and LOWER front wishbones started by RBR in 2022 was for predominantly aero benefit reasons and while this does provide some anti-dive effect, this is relatively small and definitely not even close to what can be achieved by angling the lower wishbones upward at the rear, for example.
In other words, the wishbone pick-ups were sited to benefit aero while (possibly) maintaining a typical (based on team standard practices) anti-dive effect, whatever that may be, considering CG location, etc.
In the case of MCL39 and Wache’s comments, the fact that the upper wishbones’ aft leg pick-up points were dropped as much as they were—and with, presumably, the lower WB angle remaining the same for lack of possibility to drop these further, i.e. they’re at the lower edges of the chassis—this will have in effect increased the anti-dive effect due to the increase in height of instant center point. It could be that, in Wache’s opinion, this increased amount of anti-dive is too much or beyond what he thinks is acceptable.
Also, because Wache mentioned ‘kinematics’ as a concern, this could be an allusion to the fact that with such an extreme angle to the pivot axis of the upper WB,
the arc prescribed by the WB outer point (top of the upright) is akin to that of a ‘leading arm’ suspension link, causing the top of the upright to lean aft on compression and so increasing caster angle and kingpin inclination, and possibly steer angle. How much this is an issue will only be borne out by the car’s results.
This element was intriguing me, and seeing your view on it too then gave more reason to consider what COULD be used here.
This "Rob explains: “It’s important to have an open-minded approach to everything because cars are always different. They evolve, and your understanding of what you need to do to make the car go quicker changes. Most ideas aren't new, they're a kind of regurgitation of a previous one. " from recent McL interview adds to this view, in my opinion.
Specifically that arrangement of the two rear legs of front wishbones and their convergence. Ultimately the closer the two chassis points come to each other the more it acts as the leading link you've described.
With that top one at such inclination, the side view of wheel spindle will move backwards in arc through travel from maximum extension to maximum compression. Unless somehow corrected. OR made use of as attribute.
With the steering arm "planar" in pair with the lower of the two wishbones, the steering trackrod passing both nominal kingpin position to ultimately sit outside AND passing the same nominal kingpin in going from rear to in front of it, then that movement you've noted of top kingpin moving backwards as the assembly rises, that SHOULD bring a change of toe geometry increasing as the suspension drops (chassis lifts) that's if left uncorrected OR designed in to do so.
IF the toe in was set to an absolute minimum at maximum suspension setting (full aero load at terminal velocity, or in that region) the accumulated more toe in as front of chassis came up, then it would provide such toe change as DAS was designed to facilitate, but under load conditions. Obviously reducing scrub at near zero, to increasing response at anything less than full compression via raising that toe influence.
How could that be used in real driving scenario ? That leading link type /like geometry should have some element of chassis lifting (by brake torque rotating the assembly downward) as its loosing it's ability over two "conventional " equal and parallel type wishbone arrangement thats more typical.
With the car running flat out, at maximum suspension compression, you'd get v-low toe in, scrub and "softened" steering response to command, all desirable in that scenario. Hard brake application, decaying aero load and lift from brake torque would bring a increased toe in "graduation " to bring much more agility to chassis turn in response.
This is something in the way of independent from "pure" anti dive geometry and kinetics.
With something of a vernier adjustment facility on outer track rod end, it could also be finitely adjusted for accumulation characteristics from track to track, based on target setup and further driver feel.
Effectively DAS by another thinking and implementation, needing no bespoke input and control system to be designed.
