Which results? Windtunnel? Telemetry?
Aston used RB's general sidepod design last year, then waited a year and added the RB floor and perhaps some other concepts they found using Merc's wind tunnel and increased CFD time... And they are still around .6 in single lap and almost a minute off race pace of RB. Thus, the Aston situation supports what Merc has been saying about it not being helpful to just copy RB's design, because you still end up behind them and a year further away from their understanding of the design. This means that RB will be dominant in the way Merc was between 2014-2020. If that's the case, the best AM, Ferrari and Merc can hope for is second best. This is why it makes sense that they didn't want to go in the same design direction as RB, but it definitely doesn't answer why they stuck with a design that they said would go at the front of the factory to remind them how bad it can get. Which leaves the key question: Is there either a fourth design philosophy that is faster than RB, or can they spot a modification to RB's design that RB have missed?
Correct, but at no point is that data in the possession of MGP.
So I take it they run their own software programs for the wind tunnel and get their own sets of data for it?
Start it after the SIPs wing. Simples.JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 06:47The sidepod has to go straight down to the floor or be convex (outwards) in order to legalise the SIPS wing. If there was an undercut (concave curve) to the sidepod, the SIPS wing is not legal.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 00:52I have an idea to add a sweeping undercut to the zero-pods.
It's not possible to have an undercut and keep the SIPS wing.
Little bit of rear downforce was they are saying. Means poor traction so less tyre life. Bahrain track exposed this more too.
You cant. The view from the front would contain 1 too many shapes. Your only allowed a maximum of 2.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 20:40Start it after the SIPs wing. Simples.JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 06:47The sidepod has to go straight down to the floor or be convex (outwards) in order to legalise the SIPS wing. If there was an undercut (concave curve) to the sidepod, the SIPS wing is not legal.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 00:52I have an idea to add a sweeping undercut to the zero-pods.
It's not possible to have an undercut and keep the SIPS wing.
It would not pass any more curves than RedBull or Ferrari.chrisc90 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 20:42You cant. The view from the front would contain 1 too many shapes. Your only allowed a maximum of 2.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 20:40Start it after the SIPs wing. Simples.JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 06:47
The sidepod has to go straight down to the floor or be convex (outwards) in order to legalise the SIPS wing. If there was an undercut (concave curve) to the sidepod, the SIPS wing is not legal.
It's not possible to have an undercut and keep the SIPS wing.
It would though. Go re-watch Kyle Engineers video and see the reason why.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 20:44It would not pass any more curves than RedBull or Aston uses.
Different legality box id imagine. I’m not even sure how it would work/look even if they could do it. If the legality box for the intake scoops is say 450mm from the front for example , then you have to include your SIS/mid wing into that.