I've calculated the time in which both of the cars would travel these 600m and the use of ARW would give the 0,145 s advance which is about 12 meters at 300km/h.csponton wrote:
I've calculated the time in which both of the cars would travel these 600m and the use of ARW would give the 0,145 s advance which is about 12 meters at 300km/h.csponton wrote:
Not quite sure about this.hollus wrote:Everybody should have those 750rpm available in 7th gear, come the moment. That is, if they choose the track straight with the highest speeds as the activation zone.
That is the whole point of allowing the teams to use it in quali, IMHO. To take advantage of it in quali, they have to gear for it, so come the race, all cars are expected to be geared long enough to take advantage of the movable wing. If they were not allowed to use it in quali, they would probably set the longest gear for the maximum speed in quali instead of for a slipstream, and hit the limiter come the moment during the race.
As a side effect, if teams really gear long enough for this to work, slipstreaming should benefit in general. Last year there were many instances where cars slipstreamed only to stop accelerating in the very end, which I attribute to hitting the rev limit.
No.marekk wrote:You gain max speed, but you loose acceleration compared to "normal" gear ratios.
Last few years, with very durable and predictable bridgestone tyres, it was all about track position.hollus wrote:Gearing should be done mostly with quali in mind. In quali you can use the adjustable wing in many places: in every straight, and in not grip limited corners, meaning the car spends much more time at higher speeds all around the circuit.
One can gear the car (not only 7th) for this magic lap and suffer lower acceleration all race, or gear for the race, largely done with heavy fuel loads, partly on worn tires and mostly without the adjustable wing.
I guess it will depend on how efficient the wing proves to be for overtaking, but I see little point in gearing for the race if that leads to qualifying 5 positions lower.
It sure will make for some interesting gambling. How do you gear on saturday when a wet race is predicted on sunday???
Did they choose gear ratio on saturday? i thought the ratios is to be compromise to suit at least 5 tracks as the gearbox has to last for 5 consecutive race weekends. So, whether it's raining or not it shouldn't be an issue.hollus wrote:
.......
It sure will make for some interesting gambling. How do you gear on saturday when a wet race is predicted on sunday???
Is this purely a hypothetical question? The ARW is only allowed on one straight per track and only within 1 second of a car in front.timbo wrote:I had this idea from looking at the new Ferrari RW.
Maybe I'm wrong with this, so I would like to discuss.
Do you think it can be beneficial to sacrifice some of ARW drag reduction effect to retain a bit more DF and have better stability, which in effect would allow to use ARW in fast corners?
Maybe we would see track-dependent ARW setup?
Yes.hud wrote:i assume he's talking about benefit in qualifying pace.right timbo?
I'm not quite sure I get the logic of what you are saying? Put more downforce on the car so that you don't need to use the flap at all? Then why bother with the flap? Or are you talking about trimming the flap, or not allowing it to open fully so you have a "half downforce" mode?timbo wrote:Do you think it can be beneficial to sacrifice some of ARW drag reduction effect to retain a bit more DF and have better stability, which in effect would allow to use ARW in fast corners?
I was thinking that this sort of element might have better aerodynamic properties when open, as there is not as much camber. The larger flaps with higher camber may have been stalling a bit (in a bad way) when in the open position.volarchico wrote:It seems from recent pictures that a lot of teams are going for small chord second element wings...so maybe they are focused on using them throughout qualifying and not as much at the race?