Red Bull RB16B

[NathanOlder]

If they have understeer in the front that means they have too much rear downforce for the front wing they're using. That would naturally prompt them to move away from the highest downforce rear wing in order to balance the car properly. They don't need to go crazy with the rear wing because the rest of the rear end is so efficient, the Silverstone wing should be plenty at Zandvoort.

But if the rear downforce is there without huge amounts of drag, then you would want to keep it for sure. The rear is the weak end so you balance it out with more front end grip. Downforce is king. They would take front wing out to balance a car, but surely not rear wing ? You balance that with a better front end. Downforce at the front is much easier to come by than the rear. Especially after the reg changes we just had.

[godlameroso]

If they have understeer in the front that means they have too much rear downforce for the front wing they're using. That would naturally prompt them to move away from the highest downforce rear wing in order to balance the car properly. They don't need to go crazy with the rear wing because the rest of the rear end is so efficient, the Silverstone wing should be plenty at Zandvoort.

But if the rear downforce is there without huge amounts of drag, then you would want to keep it for sure. The rear is the weak end so you balance it out with more front end grip. Downforce is king. They would take front wing out to balance a car, but surely not rear wing ? You balance that with a better front end. Downforce at the front is much easier to come by than the rear. Especially after the reg changes we just had.

If you add downforce at the front you can reduce it at the rear by accident. The downforce is made by the whole car, so changing things at the front affect how air travels to the back of the car. The opposite is also true, what you do at the rear of the car affects airflow upstream.

Regardless, I still think the Silverstone rear wing is enough for this track. By RB's own admission that wing was probably OP for Silverstone.

[SiLo]

If they have understeer in the front that means they have too much rear downforce for the front wing they're using. That would naturally prompt them to move away from the highest downforce rear wing in order to balance the car properly. They don't need to go crazy with the rear wing because the rest of the rear end is so efficient, the Silverstone wing should be plenty at Zandvoort.

But if the rear downforce is there without huge amounts of drag, then you would want to keep it for sure. The rear is the weak end so you balance it out with more front end grip. Downforce is king. They would take front wing out to balance a car, but surely not rear wing ? You balance that with a better front end. Downforce at the front is much easier to come by than the rear. Especially after the reg changes we just had.

If you add downforce at the front you can reduce it at the rear by accident. The downforce is made by the whole car, so changing things at the front affect how air travels to the back of the car. The opposite is also true, what you do at the rear of the car affects airflow upstream.

Regardless, I still think the Silverstone rear wing is enough for this track. By RB's own admission that wing was probably OP for Silverstone.

Generally it is easier to add front downforce, but if their flow structures are quite sensitive, it could be a real challenge to balance the car. Adding rear downforce, is more difficult, but at least it has less effect on your overall flow structures.

Both present different challenges, so will be interesting to see if Red Bull make further front wing changes or we are far enough into the season that they just trim the rear wing and deal with it.

[Bandit1216]

How does that work, the squat?

Fuel is turned into speed and then the car hits some air. Then x% is turned into downforce. I don't grasp how energy that is used partly to let a car squat, can then reduce the drag because the angle of attack is changed. Will then also the downforce increase less than exponential after that point?

Somehow my brain assumes the downforce will increase to the power of x with speed. So a squating car will result in the (mathematical) power to reduce when speed increases?

[Jolle]

How does that work, the squat?

Fuel is turned into speed and then the car hits some air. Then x% is turned into downforce. I don't grasp how energy that is used partly to let a car squat, can then reduce the drag because the angle of attack is changed. Will then also the downforce increase less than exponential after that point?

Somehow my brain assumes the downforce will increase to the power of x with speed. So a squating car will result in the (mathematical) power to reduce when speed increases?

Relative soft rear suspension will, if the downforce increases on the rear, it will “squad” the rear, reducing drag and downforce. On most circuits high speed downforce isn’t that important (if, for instance there are no high speed corners). With well tuned springs you’ll be able to find a good balance between a good squad and mechanical grip due to tweaking of the suspension. “In the good old days” with active suspension drivers had a squad button on the steering wheel.

[godlameroso]

How does that work, the squat?

Fuel is turned into speed and then the car hits some air. Then x% is turned into downforce. I don't grasp how energy that is used partly to let a car squat, can then reduce the drag because the angle of attack is changed. Will then also the downforce increase less than exponential after that point?

Somehow my brain assumes the downforce will increase to the power of x with speed. So a squating car will result in the (mathematical) power to reduce when speed increases?

Downforce and drag are exponential functions not linear ones. Remember that downforce squares at speed, so as speed increases downforce also increases, the squatting of the car is a kind of self limiting system. The drag or downforce lost due to rake change at speed is NOT a huge amount, however the cars are so close that small changes can get magnified.

[dans79]

Downforce and drag are exponential functions not linear ones. Remember that downforce squares at speed, so as speed increases downforce also increases, the squatting of the car is a kind of self limiting system.

An exponential function and a function of a variable squared are nothing alike!

[godlameroso]

Downforce and drag are exponential functions not linear ones. Remember that downforce squares at speed, so as speed increases downforce also increases, the squatting of the car is a kind of self limiting system.

An exponential function and a function of a variable squared are nothing alike!

Exactly, which is why squatting works the way it does.

[Bandit1216]

Downforce and drag are exponential functions not linear ones. Remember that downforce squares at speed, so as speed increases downforce also increases, the squatting of the car is a kind of self limiting system.

An exponential function and a function of a variable squared are nothing alike!

Exactly, which is why squatting works the way it does.

Long time since I’ve been to school, and English isn’t my native L. But isn’t exponential something times something to the power of anything? I get it’s not linear. Just not as exponential as it would be without squat. Until the spring compression is complete that is.

[godlameroso]

An exponential function and a function of a variable squared are nothing alike!

Exactly, which is why squatting works the way it does.

Long time since I’ve been to school, and English isn’t my native L. But isn’t exponential something times something to the power of anything? I get it’s not lenear. Just not as exponential as it would be without squat. Until the spring compression is complete that is.

Exactly! You grok in fullness. People underestimate themselves often. I mean this sincerely because the way the car builds downforce and the way that downforce is affected by the rake is not linear, they are functions of velocity. The interesting question would be where the cross over of the two happens, because then you could tune it to get the best of both worlds. Which leads us back to the original question, and with your understanding you can take a shot at answering for yourself.

[Bandit1216]

Exactly, which is why squatting works the way it does.

Long time since I’ve been to school, and English isn’t my native L. But isn’t exponential something times something to the power of anything? I get it’s not lenear. Just not as exponential as it would be without squat. Until the spring compression is complete that is.

Exactly! You grok in fullness. People underestimate themselves often. I mean this sincerely because the way the car builds downforce and the way that downforce is affected by the rake is not linear, they are functions of velocity. The interesting question would be where the cross over of the two happens, because then you could tune it to get the best of both worlds. Which leads us back to the original question, and with your understanding you can take a shot at answering for yourself.

I always had a knot in my head with that one. Fooling myself that exponential to a slightly lesser power is the same as reducing. If the squat results in the power to be 1,95 instead of 2, it's a gain. And we didn't even consider non linear spring rates yet "grok in fullness" - had to google that one.

[marcel171281]

Long time since I’ve been to school, and English isn’t my native L. But isn’t exponential something times something to the power of anything? I get it’s not lenear. Just not as exponential as it would be without squat. Until the spring compression is complete that is.

Exactly! You grok in fullness. People underestimate themselves often. I mean this sincerely because the way the car builds downforce and the way that downforce is affected by the rake is not linear, they are functions of velocity. The interesting question would be where the cross over of the two happens, because then you could tune it to get the best of both worlds. Which leads us back to the original question, and with your understanding you can take a shot at answering for yourself.

I always had a knot in my head with that one. Fooling myself that exponential to a slightly lesser power is the same as reducing. If the squat results in the power to be 1,95 instead of 2, it's a gain. And we didn't even consider non linear spring rates yet "grok in fullness" - had to google that one.

And to make it even more complex, the spring rate is also different when only one side is compressed (cornering) compared to both sides being compressed at the same time (squatting in straight lines under high DF).

[Jolle]

Exactly! You grok in fullness. People underestimate themselves often. I mean this sincerely because the way the car builds downforce and the way that downforce is affected by the rake is not linear, they are functions of velocity. The interesting question would be where the cross over of the two happens, because then you could tune it to get the best of both worlds. Which leads us back to the original question, and with your understanding you can take a shot at answering for yourself.

I always had a knot in my head with that one. Fooling myself that exponential to a slightly lesser power is the same as reducing. If the squat results in the power to be 1,95 instead of 2, it's a gain. And we didn't even consider non linear spring rates yet "grok in fullness" - had to google that one.

And to make it even more complex, the spring rate is also different when only one side is compressed (cornering) compared to both sides being compressed at the same time (squatting in straight lines under high DF).

That’s why the linkage between the suspension left and right is so important. To have soft suspension for corner exit grip and squating down the straight vs stiff to prevent rol when cornering.

[Juzh]

If they have understeer in the front that means they have too much rear downforce for the front wing they're using. That would naturally prompt them to move away from the highest downforce rear wing in order to balance the car properly. They don't need to go crazy with the rear wing because the rest of the rear end is so efficient, the Silverstone wing should be plenty at Zandvoort.

But if the rear downforce is there without huge amounts of drag, then you would want to keep it for sure. The rear is the weak end so you balance it out with more front end grip. Downforce is king. They would take front wing out to balance a car, but surely not rear wing ? You balance that with a better front end. Downforce at the front is much easier to come by than the rear. Especially after the reg changes we just had.

That's what they did in hungary after FP2 when the car just wouldn't turn. Front was too weak compared to rear and they had to reduce rear wing angle because front was already maxed out.

[NathanOlder]

If they have understeer in the front that means they have too much rear downforce for the front wing they're using. That would naturally prompt them to move away from the highest downforce rear wing in order to balance the car properly. They don't need to go crazy with the rear wing because the rest of the rear end is so efficient, the Silverstone wing should be plenty at Zandvoort.

But if the rear downforce is there without huge amounts of drag, then you would want to keep it for sure. The rear is the weak end so you balance it out with more front end grip. Downforce is king. They would take front wing out to balance a car, but surely not rear wing ? You balance that with a better front end. Downforce at the front is much easier to come by than the rear. Especially after the reg changes we just had.

That's what they did in hungary after FP2 when the car just wouldn't turn. Front was too weak compared to rear and they had to reduce rear wing angle because front was already maxed out.

Interesting, was the front wing not performing in high speed or low speed corners ? I'm guessing high speed.