Mechanical Grip 2

[axle]

2nd question about mechanical grip but I didn't want to ruin the other thread.

Do teams ever test without wings to see what level of mechcanical grip they really have? As surely, you need to know how well the suspension works??

Or is it only a case of the whole packages works that's important?

Just a thought that knowing your mechanical grip levels help in the rain etc...

Edit!!!
"Ultra low to zero downforce levels" not just wings off

[modbaraban]

Do teams ever test without wings to see what level of mechcanical grip they really have? As surely, you need to know how well the suspension works??

Or is it only a case of the whole packages works that's important?

The suspention is tested at the factory, but on the track the performance of the whole package is what matters. Bear in mind that suspension+tyres performance is influenced by aero load too!

[FLC]

The suspention is tested at the factory, but on the track the performance of the whole package is what matters. Bear in mind that suspension+tyres performance is influenced by aero load too!

Not necessarily so. IIRC in the last test at Jerez, before the Japanese GP, Ferrari were testing the F2007 without many of its front aerodynamic devices, including the knife-like wings, wheel rims and camera mountings.
Some reckoned they were doing exactly that, i.e testing the mechanical grip, and there were even a few reports about some breakthrough.
On the other hand, it could be a lot of other things. Maybe someone else could enlighten us more.

[modbaraban]

I got your point but knife-fins, podvanes or rimshields don't create significant downforce (if any). I can't remember seing a modern F1 car on the track w/o front and rear wings or diffuser

[FLC]

Without wings?!

[modbaraban]

Do teams ever test without wings to see what level of mechcanical grip they really have? As surely, you need to know how well the suspension works??

[FLC]

Yeah, I guess I didn't think he meant that literally.

[axle]

Ok I'll rephrase as I don't want people taking it too literally

"Ultra low to zero downforce levels"

....ie at a track they'd need high downforce to be properly fast...but at which they have the odd go without any real downforce levels.

To me it seems like something obvious to test...get a real world base line for the car and try to get it to work better.

I'm interested to hear and importantly see more about the Ferrari tests.

[Militia Est Vita]

Well the car's chasis is designed as a whole, including the wings so every single adjustemnt to the wings will have a significant consecuence on the behaviour of the whole car, so IMO, if you take off the wings to perform some kind of test I think the car would be awfuly unstable and It would be very hard to control it passing the 100 mph or even less I think.

[Scuderia_Russ]

Williams tested an ultra low drag rear wing for Monza in 96/97 I think.

[axle]

Well the car's chasis is designed as a whole, including the wings so every single adjustemnt to the wings will have a significant consecuence on the behaviour of the whole car, so IMO, if you take off the wings to perform some kind of test I think the car would be awfuly unstable and It would be very hard to control it passing the 100 mph or even less I think.

I don't doubt it would be a handful...but how can you really know if the geo etc is optimised without it??

Williams etc couldn't get enough heat into the tyres at China...compared to the McLaren that seems to have amazing mechanical grip. Now wouldn't this mean that Williams' geo etc hasn't been tested enough to make the tyres work properly.

[Ciro Pabón]

AFAIK, many teams do static tests. Besides helping to solve world poverty they try to answer axle's question, or so I think.

Here is a picture taken from Automotive Testing (quite old, November 2005, Michelins on board, sigh) showing a static test (static from the point of view of the air) on suspension alone. This's Instron. Notice the red thingies, that can (or cannot) simulate the effect of the wings. So, there you go: you can do it with or without it.

Is using this or using extremely small wings, like the ones Red Bull gives you. I imagine they open the roof when it's raining, to check for wet conditions. Ha, ha.



There are rigs where the tires rock, roll, yaw, turn, shake and twist, before somebody points out that the wheels don't roll.

For some gratuitous self-promotion, I have a webpage (more like a "notepad" instead of a page) with some driving simulators, which you can browse in awe at http://www.ciropabon.co.nr/ (go to links and then driving simulators). No congrats, I blush easily.

Now, it's just me or does "checking the rigidity of your structural member by shaking the whole thing on the wet with low downforce" sound like soft porn?

[MrT]

Straight line testing allows the teams to create an aero map which they can use to esitimate the influence of this factor and therefore estimate mechanical grip. As already pointed out the suspension is tested on 7 posters. One must also remember its not just the wings, the underfloor diffuser is probably one of the biggest contributors to the downforce.

[bizadfar]

I got your point but knife-fins, podvanes or rimshields don't create significant downforce (if any). I can't remember seing a modern F1 car on the track w/o front and rear wings or diffuser

How can you be so sure. I remember a Williams guy said whoever talks like this (eg above) doesn't know what their talking about. ANd his proof was a brake duct design can effect downforce by as much as 5% at the rear.

[modbaraban]

How can you be so sure. I remember a Williams guy said whoever talks like this (eg above) doesn't know what their talking about. ANd his proof was a brake duct design can effect downforce by as much as 5% at the rear.

OK, let's wait for the Williams guy to come and clear things up for the guys on this furum who don't know what they are talking about.