Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Daniel Ricciaro (31, Reserve)
That's weird though. The cameras must be at the same height when stationary right? The roll hoop is forward of the rear wheels so the rake must be being generated by lifting the rear of the car. How does that work? Is she not coming down of a bump so the rear suspension holds the car in the air? I don't know, seems weird to me, I'm not convinced we're getting a genuine comparison from those photos.Lindz wrote:Mchamilton wrote:http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7The rear wing and camera mount heights on the RB7 are higher than the McL, which if you go to any side view comparison, is because the RB7 has a lot more rake.
Agree on that. If you have a method to overcome flexibility rules, then you would aplly it in every place it gives you the advantage: front wing, tea tray, floor in front of rear wheels, maybe rear wing mountings also.Robbobnob wrote:thats Torro Rossa's Exhaust.
Thinking about RBR running more rake, that must mean that their splitter has a lil bit of flexing magic going on as well.
Another idea oh how the raise the rear is to have very stiff front suspension and very compliant rear suspension. Then the downforce of the front wing will cause the chassis to pivot about the front wheels lifting the rear and centre of the car. That's one short lever though!horse wrote:How does that work?
Well, since you can set up your car to run any ride height (front and rear) that you want, all regulated measurements are made relative to the reference plane. So if every car ran at the same ride height and rake angle, the regulation parts would all be in the same areas. Of course this isn't the case. With the RB7, it runs a quite high rear ride height. This pivots the car and tilts the front wing forward (and closer to the ground), but it also raises the rear (and, generally speaking, takes away downforce since the diffuser isn't as effective). Red Bull have done a very good job blowing the diffuser with their exhaust, so it helps recuperate some of that lost efficiency from the high rake.horse wrote:That's weird though. The cameras must be at the same height when stationary right? The roll hoop is forward of the rear wheels so the rake must be being generated by lifting the rear of the car. How does that work? Is she not coming down of a bump so the rear suspension holds the car in the air? I don't know, seems weird to me, I'm not convinced we're getting a genuine comparison from those photos.Lindz wrote:http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7The rear wing and camera mount heights on the RB7 are higher than the McL, which if you go to any side view comparison, is because the RB7 has a lot more rake.
I'll be interested in reading that. I've just read these two guides :bot6 wrote:I have a feeling my first article on the F1T wiki will be about how diffusers work.
Diffusers Mechanical issue with Webber’s RB7 Flexible wings 2011
I thought all equipment such as that had been banned since Williams had suspension like that in the 90s, albeit a more complicated systemdren wrote:I read somewhere, maybe it was here, that the Red Bull has been running some sort of hydraulic suspension coupling system front to back that levels the car. Is this true?
You're not getting a genuine comparison, look at the lines on the ground they run at different angles, so car is in a different position on the track. Also photos are taken from slightly different angles. I wouldn't be surprised if one was taken with the photographer stood up and the other kneeling down. So one's effectively looking down on the car, the other taken more at nose level.horse wrote:That's weird though. The cameras must be at the same height when stationary right? The roll hoop is forward of the rear wheels so the rake must be being generated by lifting the rear of the car. How does that work? Is she not coming down of a bump so the rear suspension holds the car in the air? I don't know, seems weird to me, I'm not convinced we're getting a genuine comparison from those photos.Lindz wrote:Mchamilton wrote:http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7The rear wing and camera mount heights on the RB7 are higher than the McL, which if you go to any side view comparison, is because the RB7 has a lot more rake.
The Williams system was an active system. I thought the one I read about was some sort of hydraulicly coupled system that leveled itself out.Ferraripilot wrote:I thought all equipment such as that had been banned since Williams had suspension like that in the 90s, albeit a more complicated systemdren wrote:I read somewhere, maybe it was here, that the Red Bull has been running some sort of hydraulic suspension coupling system front to back that levels the car. Is this true?
