Martin Keene wrote: ↑
Tue May 30, 2023 12:09 pm
Hoffman900 wrote: ↑
Fri May 26, 2023 1:59 pm
AR3-GP wrote: ↑
Fri May 26, 2023 1:51 pm
I think I mentioned this about the RB a long while ago. That the angle of the upper wishbone triangle was perfectly aligned with the floor leading edge as if they were using it like a fairing to turn air down towards the floor LE (the nosecone is generating some upwash)
The front wishbones treat the air for everything behind it, so it’s understandable they would have to change substantially with a big change of concept.
The anti-dive thing still blows my mind and makes my head hurt. I can open up racing chassis engineering books from the 1970s and it’s talked about in depth and they have understood aero pitch sensitivity from day 1 - most of the early aerodynamicists came from aerospace anyway, but Steve Nichols has talked about it on the 1980s cars, active suspension was obviously a solution, Willem Toet as mentioned earlier gave examples, etc. NASCAR and Indy Car (before the chassis became spec) used asymmetrical anti-dive to help the cars handle on the ovals, every production car for just about ever has an element of anti-dive. It’s rudimentary stuff and the implication that Mercedes forgot something that current engineer’s grandparent’s age knew is a bit silly. There is no silver bullet on any of this.
The problem is just about anyone can create a youtube or twitter channel and parrot something they just learned about but don’f fully understand, and the media just eats it up because they don’t know ant better and because it “kinda sorta sounds plausible / smart”.
Mercedes were regarded as the leader when it came to trick hydraulic suspension systems. When all of those were remove, I think they just forgot some the basics because they hadn't used them for so long.
I feel this is clouded by more recent iteration of MB F1 chassis. While I agree with Hoffman about anti dive geometry etc, the knowledge and use of, the extent to which they wish to build in this characteristic and all that entails in plus or minus attributes.
Prior to 2022 they were using significant skew in front geometry location, wishbone to upright mount, split/single wishbone, high and outboard top upright pivot point, adventurous pushrod outer location.... all of these to bring something of a drop (opposite to anti dive) in bringing the inner side of car lower with steering lock applied. Often to enhance ground effect of front wing plane accompanied by all the strakes they used to run underneath there along with it's lower proximity to ground starting point.
All of this was effectively written out of regulations with the shift to 2022 specification, also lifting the front wing away from that possibility.
Maybe a naive view, but with their excitement of "concept zero" aero apparent gains, did they lose sight of having a critical focus in this element of design? Were they assuming that all the teams would be on a level playing field with imposed relatively simple suspension systems across the whole of them ?
Sometimes a design that's been viewed as a negative in conventional terms has an interpretation brought into focus by application not previously considered, to then open everyone else's view on what can be achieved.