And driveability is not solely linked to the engine alone. Chassis and aero play a role here, as does the engine map which is more or less the silver bullet, as these cars have low down torque in spades.bhall II wrote:- The Hungaroring, with its slow, sweeping corners, is also a circuit that rewards driveability. (This aspect of the comparison is almost a chicken-egg thing.)
I won't get involved in second guessing who is correct, I'm learning as I go.bhall II wrote:- It doesn't matter what generates the downforce. Any drag-reduction measure that relies on reduced ride height for activation will defeat itself upon activation.
Further, if RB12 has the sort of floor efficiency that could affect such a change without the rear wing, then it wouldn't a need a rear wing at all.
What made Red Bull's flexible front wings work is that they were anisotropic, meaning they were activated by neither downforce nor drag force independently of the other. They required the influence of both, and I don't know how you do that with an entire chassis.
- Unless the rear wing is somehow rotated forward against the force of drag, rotation will reduce AoA. That means its highly unlikely the wing will stall, because the rotation will minimize the impact of the adverse pressure gradient that causes wings to stall.
(Seriously, whoever wrote that bit for motorsport.con really --- the bed.).
But it makes sense to me that if there is higher AoA or greater surface area, there will be an accompanying drag penalty.
As to when and how this penalty is shed though, is debatable. But first, the wing needs to be overloaded = drag.
Given that a wing "switches off"after it's overloaded, will this effect take place in cars sans rake? Or is rake the raison d'etre?