godlameroso wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:09 pm
Alexf1 wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:46 am
Curbstone wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 02, 2021 7:40 am
A new chassis is not an upgrade. The specs of the new chassis must be the same as the old.
The replacement was done because there may have been something wrong with the old one, not because the new one was better.
Maybe they tested all chassis on flex and changed to the least flexing one(s)
The high rake philosophy may work wonderfully around places like Mexico and Brazil because the high rake promotes strong vorticity.
This wonderful and incredibly insightful article
mentions this in beautiful detailed CFD images.
https://f1tcdn.net/images/features/2021 ... angled.jpg
Perhaps the high rake setup with it's well defined vorticity is somewhat less sensitive to altitude changes for (in my caveman reasoning*) the same reason that turbocharged engines are somewhat less sensitive to altitude changes.
I always wondered what the real reason was. A huge compressor, and so less rpm than needed on the compressor-mgu-h-turbine assembly, having more spare to increases rpm on altitude. I thought Renault and later Honda were more on the large side, accepting a little bit more lag (or more energy to compensate for lag), and merc being more on the limit, so they do not have rpm spare for altitude. Pikes peak engineers know all about this. The rpm on the turbo will increase significantly when the turbo is compensating for high altitude.
But the rake is beyond me. The turbo is quite simple a waste gate that compensates, but the chassis?
If you see the pictures of that article one could imagine why a merc is especially limited when trying to pass a redbull.
But just suppose it weren't hypothetical.