A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
You are very correct on what you're seeing, I guess me and you have eagle eye vision that we notice the differences between the 2. Believe I would've said you're wrong if that was the case, and clearly you're not spreading misinformation.
Matt Somerfield spotted the same thing we did with the rear suspension, and is also confused as to why it was not a declared change. According to Mercedes, this is part of an effort to prevent rear-tire overheating.
You are very correct on what you're seeing, I guess me and you have eagle eye vision that we notice the differences between the 2. Believe I would've said you're wrong if that was the case, and clearly you're not spreading misinformation.
Matt Somerfield spotted the same thing we did with the rear suspension, and is also confused as to why it was not a declared change. According to Mercedes, this is part of an effort to prevent rear-tire overheating.
But, stiffer anything on the suspension means more Tyre wear because the suspension travel is more limited that puts more strain on the Tyre. So why would stiffening the suspension help in anyway sort of way when you know there is a fundamental problem at the rears?
But, stiffer anything on the suspension means more Tyre wear because the suspension travel is more limited that puts more strain on the Tyre. So why would stiffening the suspension help in anyway sort of way when you know there is a fundamental problem at the rears?
The article doesn't say anything about stiffness, just that the change is meant to help tire temp stability in the race at the expense of some tire warm-up during qualifying.
But, stiffer anything on the suspension means more Tyre wear because the suspension travel is more limited that puts more strain on the Tyre. So why would stiffening the suspension help in anyway sort of way when you know there is a fundamental problem at the rears?
The article doesn't say anything about stiffness, just that the change is meant to help tire temp stability in the race at the expense of some tire warm-up during qualifying.
Wait, I was maybe mistaken
I was about to say again the same thing until I realized something. If this allows Mercedes to run much softer setups with the anti-rolls bar, dampers, and springs then this was definitely a necessary change and the tyres could kept in a much better operating window until they change the airflow for the Venturi tunnel exits on the floor edge and maybe introduce brake cooling packages. Then hope maybe still alive.
The shape of the inlet plenum has changed compared to what was seen in Nobu’s photos from Suzuka. Notice the shape of the door (highlight by AR3) has changed, also the expansion angle downward, and the now-shorter height of the forward region, and the undercut as well. The shape of the inlet mouth itself doesn't seem to have changed though, it looks the same in all of the pictures I've seen of the W16 in Imola. Main shark-mouth inlet + full height vertical slit, same as all year. Which implies there is now a steep upward slope within the vertical slit section of the plenum, to meet this now shorter neck region of the plenum.
Let me ask a basic question :
What is the 'difference' achieved through the variety of geometric arrangements for the pickup points we have seen for the wishbone arms, both front and rear wheels ?
My novice level understanding about these double wishbones, apart from being used to adjust the camber, is :
Fundamentally these are 'control arms' for the wheel, and the objective is to 'control' the 'arc trace described by the centre of the wheel in 3D space' relative to the road, as the wheel moves :
1. up/down due to road undulations (the up and down need not be perpendicular to the plane of the road)
2. laterally in corners when tyre grips the tarmac, but the tyre sidewall flexes sideways
3. longitudinally in braking/acceleration situations when the body of the car moves forward&down (braking) and backward&down (acceleration) - somewhere in this is anti-dive/anti-squat chatter we hear in relation to the wishbone pickup point location.
Can someone tell me, in relation to 1,2,3 above, what advantage/disadvantage (at basic undergrad physics level) do all these different wishbone geometries aim to deliver ? I can picturize the 'wheel center moving arc in 3D space' having something to do with tyre wear, in the way it influences the changes in shape to the contact patch, as it presses and unpresses, in addition to the camber itself influencing the shape of the contact patch.
But beyond this 'utter basic' picture, I fail to imagine what 'diffrence' the teams are aiming to achieve, by shifting 1 out of 4 of the pickup points of the wishbones, by 5/10 mm from previous location. Someone please help.
