nacho wrote:Is anyone having a thought that perhaps F-duct would not be as significant on these low downforce tracks as it has less drag to take away?
Surely the complete opposite. No?
Tracks aren't called low-downforce because they don't need to run wing, it's because they can't afford to run wing. You always want downforce, they would all want more wing, but can't.
So that is the point of the f-duct.
Bolt on big wing angle for any corners you meet, while everyone else slides and scrabbles, and switch off that extra wing down the long, long straights, the long straights that necessarily mean the circuit is called low-downforce.
(Or fly past anyone that had no choice but to put wing on just to sensibly get round those corners, either way, you're laughing.)
High downforce tracks by defintion, have lots of wing, which usually tells us there is less in the way of straights.
So you have lots of wing in Monaco, not much straight for an f-duct to get up to speed and make a significant difference. (You need long gears and high speeds to best see the effect, drag squares to velocity).
McLaren didn't look that great in Monaco. Canada is the opposite. We'll see what the watch says, but I'd guess the f-duct works best in low-wing tracks, not worse.