F1 2022 - Floor Comparison (Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes)
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2022
- Let's have a closer look at how the 2022 F1 floors work in general and compare the floors of Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes with each other.
Which different philosophies did they use?
What is so special about the Red Bull design?
And what did we learn from the Ferrari floor?
#F1
Pictures:
www.f1technical.net
www.auto-motor-und-sport.de
RB with their small rear wings tells us their CL (center of lift) of the floor is more forward than other teams. So when the floor stalls, a largerer part of the bouncing load is transferred to the front axle... making it more controllable.
Also, the sidepods give the teams a tool to reduce the pressure difference at the floor edge, resulting in less air leakage from high to low pressure zones, it's also becomes more controllable when required, as less force is required to control a smaller pressure difference.
@Bobb Grimley *larger, my bad.
@Bobb Grimley Are you still waiting?
@Bobb Grimley why?
This video clearly proves what has been known for years. Adrian Newey is a brilliant aerodynamicist and engineer.
Newly also worked in the first ground effect period, his Degree thesis was on ground effect racing cars so he was always at an advantage.
No question about that. Mastermind for sure.
@@fablewalls Newey will retire soon and this era will be a great send-off
@@theonlylolking Newey Is Awesome so i wanna know how Red Bull will do without him
@@theonlylolking I expect the 2026 regs to be Newey's last masterpiece
Amazing, I'd desperately wanted to see the floors but didn't think it would be possible let alone multiple floors. As a side point, multiple teams have now come out saying the floor stalling isn't the problem. Of course that would be a very easy problem to solve with bump stops. Other ground effect era ex-F1 guys have come out saying its the CP moving forwards and rearwards as the pitch of the car changes which leads to a rocking motion. That is what I theorised before we saw the porpoising happening and it falls in line with what teams are implying.
It looks as though the rear has far softer springs to the front, and so we are seeing the rear moving a lot more than the front making it appear like its a bouncing but in reality that wouldn't be the problem to solve. There's a few solutions I see, aero guys could work on a few things but the quicker fix would be suspension settings, progressive suspension, and a few ideas I'd thought of prior to the new cars. Ultimately though the FIA decided to remove by far the best solution this year with the suspension changes, I hope they revert that as teams could get stable and safe cars with little compromise. As it is teams are opting for speed over consistency for obvious reasons and I can't think of many ways to change that with the current rule set.
As for the floor themselves, Red Bull's strakes suggest a more rearwards CP which allows for far stronger underbody aero. This year the front wing is limited in what it can provide, so a rearwards CP means they can't run a bigger wing. Rear wing has always been incredibly inefficient so it makes for the low drag we see here. The Ferrari and Merc run a conventional setup which opts for more forwards CP which allows them to use a rear wing better for overall more downforce at the cost of drag. The Merc setup looks fairly underdeveloped and likely has tons to gain, I'd assume due to the lack of CFD time and the two sidepod designs both sucking up a lot of the remaining time. But the obvious design still works as expected so its a good use of time.
The Red Bull floor doesn't really have the suction peaks suggested, especially not where the discontinuities are. However by designing the floor using lateral expansion rather than vertical expansion they're able to have a far better control of CP with regards to pitch sensitivity which then mitigates the porpoising. Its not the low downforce which is helping that, its the underbody design we see there. It wouldn't affect the conventional theory of porpoising, but the teams have said the conventional theory is wrong. Newey had worked in the ground effect era so I'd assume he knew the risks and anticipated them with that design. It loses some downforce again (less area affected by low pressure) but it makes the car far more manageable. I'd wonder if that was why he opted for the strake configuration too, again it would reduce CP shift with that style.
Anyway amazing pictures and a great compilation of what we have thus far, this has to be one of the most exciting things this season for me (in an already amazing season).
What does CP stands for?
@@Screenhandle Center of pressure
Great analysis… Please go relay that to Merc they need all the help they can get! Would love to see the full potential of that car
@@Screenhandle Center of pressure. Its like the center of gravity - its the average of all pressures on the car (and thus the average of the forces). So if the CP is forward there is front downforce.
You'd actually want to use the CP with the Cg (center of gravity) in the real world because the difference between the two is where front/rear downforce lies. Having tons of rearwards CP you can still have front downforce if the Cg is even further behind, for example. But in F1 the cars all have pretty much the same Cg so its a moot point in this case.
@@lucaslonghurst The car does have some great features. Its disappointing to see how it has been doing, the sidepod configuration is incredibly clever (only because the wing it allows, on its own its a net loss despite what people claim). But it does look like they're making good steps and I'd imagine that to continue. They're still a top team regardless of results and I'd expect them to be among Red Bull and Ferrari next year. This year however, from my understanding the gearbox is what has really limited them and that isn't changing all year.
I believe RedBull are dragging the car along those two metal strakes towards the rear on the floor. That's acting like a hard suspension bump stop, preventing them from porpoising as it stops the floor from getting too close to the ground.
Wouldn't it wear away quick quickly? Great point you've made.
@@johngreen8693 I thought that too, or damage the circuit even?
Harder metals would withstand it I guess
This is one of the best F1 videos I’ve ever seen! Keep up the good work man! Seriously Underrated 💯🙌🏽
The egg shape in the Ferrari plank area is good for creating imploding vortices. The kind that Victor Schauberger studied. In fact the center floor area also has 2 vortices traveling on either side, co-rotating with the strake vortices.
So you think RB sharp turn after BiB breaks this vortex along plank? i think said vortex could get combined with most inner strake. That would explain quite late curvature on those strakes.
@@alesksander I believe RBR has a pair of vortices on the central section as well. They also have the benefit of more surface area on the central section.
@@rolandotillit2867 hmm yes. Quite a setup from Rb. Agree.
I can never get enough of your channel i live this kind of stuff
Can you do a video on the problems of the W13 design compared to others?
Even a whole Merc team cannot find out
+1
M8 even mercedes don't know what the issue is how is he supposed to know?
@@its_only_karma7440 I bet Adrian Newey knows and he’s not with Mercedes…
We can still speculate right?. I think its their side-pod less design that’s the main issue. Other teams are using the side-pods to redirect airflow around and to the back of the car, acting like aerodynamic fairings for the back wheels. Mercedes side-pods are too small for that and the back wheels seems to be exposed directly which is very draggy. They also don’t have a lot of bodywork to hold the floor and it seems to lack the floor structural integrity compares to other teams.
A Cessna172 plane fly slower without the wheel fairings on the landing gear. Put the fairings back on, and it suddenly goes about 5 knots faster. Wheels are extremely draggy.
@@tonamg53 McLaren have small sidepods too
I only just realized how ground effects works - thanks to this video!
i find it interesting that the Red Bull doesnt use a kick point. it seems like mercedes’ double kick point is partly the reason for their aggressive porpoising like he said in the video.
Yeah Merc has a double kick point, Ferrari single kick point and RB none. Is this the reason the Merc porpoises so much???
@@LDTOK-zs8oz that's my impression based on what I see here. As the front end rebounds the Mercedes would appear to have a big increase in low pressure at the rear, making absolutely sure it slams that end to the ground and stalls it hard.
Awesome video! Thank you for the thorough analysis!
My fav F1 tech analysis channel! Awesome vid! 🙌
love the video, love the channel now. Its great when you discover these gems early in their growth!
Great. I enjoyed the simplistic diagrams and no nonsense explanation!
Been waiting for exactly this information about the floors. Thank you, well done.
To me it is surprising they've all chosen for convex saddle-shaped surfaces instead of concave saddle.
Wow your narration was so easy to follow
Very interesting presentation. Thank you for your posting
Great video! Really Informative.
Great video!
Ferrari has now adopted Red Bull's rear floor strakes onto their car as well, that's a smart move as they keep the floor from touching the ground, forming a seal and ramping up the low pressure exponentially. The larger side pod design also inherently adds more structure to the floor and minimizes the size of any needed strut while keeping it out of the airflow as well.
Is that based off the new diffuser they trialled in Australia and are expected to continue to run permanently in Miami onwards?
@@kwl189 I don't know, but if the new diffuser proves to be more powerful then controlling excessive low pressure at top speed (and warding off porpoising) is a priority.
Thanks for sharing this. Gives me something to look at between race weekends.
Another brilliant video, thank you so much. Your explanations are very clear and concise. Please keep making these videos!
great work!
Super clear explanation pitched just right for tech curious non expert 😉
Awesome video as always! They should get you to be on the F1 show along with Sam Collins
Great stuff! the only technical f1 channel i do trust here on YT! thanks for keeping this up. hope you get the subs you deserve at one point!
do you know chain bear?
@@syntheovaldy5173 i know... thanks for the suggestion! but this channel here is just pure gold for technical analysis
Great Video 👍
Great job man.
Nice video. Was always currious how the floors looked underneath.
Top notch analysis!
Brilliant video
Brilliant as always
Great video.
Someone else who deserves a hell of a lot more subs!
Brilliant video, as always. Do you think there's still a lot of potential if the center section is slimmed down to get more underbody down force, making the cars even more "followable"?
As i understand then u will get same pressure differential than with "kick" design with bigger pressure peak. Also then u need to be careful not to choke diffuzor flow. I imagine teams are already with reasonable limmit of diffuzor crossections. That means A_entry vs A_center vs A_exit is carefully balanced. Tho, more relience on underbody could be solved with active suspention. Then i think racing could be even more on the edge.
Very nice!
The floor edge cutouts and underfloor dence features are not designed to combat porpoising but instead are a way of allowing high CpT feed originating from regions like the undercut to get intentionally ingested by the floor to allow for better quality flow to the diffuser.
Am surprised redbull mechs risked photographers getting good shots of their floor like this ... Could they have done it on purpose to send rivals down the wrong path
Not if they bolted the floor straight on the car.
@@joineralbert2493 or maybe the next revision is much different, but surprising still to show it off like that
Doubt it was intentional... but you are correct, that was quite a reveal.
At this point, it takes too long to copy
Jayson..you don't have to be a photographer to take a decent photograph anymore.
Merc's problem is not the under floor.....it's the side pods....
Thats awesome knowledge for someone that's making a flat floor for their own car, should still test and measure your specific car though
Top Video
Could you do an analysis of what McLaren has changed to get so much quicker over the course of just a few races?
+1
They lack downforce on slow sectors last few races haven't been slow corner riddled.
The rain also brought the other teams down rather than McLaren going up that much. Less downforce but far more balanced car.
So the combination of the track suiting them+slowing the others just made the jump seem drastic.
Because in terms of actual changes it was a just a gurney flap on the beam and further paint removal.
Awesome analysis, can you compare the other card when images become available?
Sure, as soon as we see pics of other floors. But usually it's hard to get them.
Finally some details around the design direction taken by the leading teams. no kick point is very little purposing, 1 kick point low purposing and double kick point means broken back. or is the aggressive view center floor the thing that causes the most purposing? because if that is the case, i dont think you can easily change that on the car as you would have to change a lot of the internals.
. gr8 vid ^
dude i swear yt hides these from me
Why do the strakes direct (what looks like) 80% of the airflow away from the underside of the floor?
Does many things. 1 pushes front tire wake away and protects floor edges from turbulent flows 2. creates front downforce 3. creates sharp vortexes at midpoint on those entry strakes. Created vortexes witch then travel along plank and trough tunnels. Provides energy and makes detachments less likely. Especially at pitch, yaws, and roll situations. Also speculatively makes less pourporsing or is created later. 4.also makes suction at entry much bigger - more air into tunnels 5. also reduces drag from rear tire because you steer atherwise messy flow infront rear tire.
Why all four guid vane's are directed outwards, let one or two for seal the skirt and balance direct more air towards the ventury hence create more suction.?
I think the front of the floor where the air enters is the problem... the cars that are porpoising the most seem to have an aggressive high pitched entrance similar to that of the front end of a boat... I believe that design flaw is creating lift... while cars that aren’t porpoising as much have a more gentle entrance at the front of the floor, less boat like... just a theory... I could be completely wrong
Question. Are the new f1 cars actually using ground effect or creating a vacuum and using suction?
Thank u much this is a technology that sport cars prototype s currently use so its should be better understood then its seems to be...but I know the teams have relyed on the upper aero for so long it tuf to break away from that approach....an the car only weight 1300 pounds so it's sensitive to Half a pound of weight in the wrong place...I have a 175 TAG senior kart an in one series I had to put 10 pounds on the seat I couldn't drive it it over steered so bad I didn't make time to test it first my bad...thanks guy great video
The way F1 is going with under car air flow, I can only imagine how big the wings are going to have to become to recover down force 😱👌👍 exciting- rocket racers 🚀
Can someone send this to James Allison, Mike Elliot and Andrew Shovlin, like YESTERDAY.
Would some sort of pressure relief valve be possible to regulate undertray pressure and help combat the porpoises issue? Or would somthing like that be considered illegal? 🤔
That is basically a good idea, but openings in the floor are not allowed with a few exceptions.
Like always F1 engineers are good in thinking around the corner and to legalize things that shouldn't be legal.
Furthermore, the floor is an area people rarely see...
So I wouldn't be surprised if teams are trying something in this direction...
It's so interesting that Ferrari can maintain performance and remain at a low ride height even with the bouncing while merc have to jack up ride height to combat the bouncing and lose out on top speed
That’s because the oscillations of the Ferrari start at a higher speed meaning they’ve only happened on straights so far, where it has minimal impact. It won’t be so benign at tracks with high speed curves. The Mercedes also bounces through mid-speed corners so they have to raise the ride-height to keep the car on track and throw away straight-line speed as a result.
@@MsZeeZed SPA, Suzuka, Monza, Turkey (proly)...
@@MsZeeZed ahh, that makes sense now .. thanks !
I think the Merc’s top speed is furthermore hampered by the lack of sidepod outwash relative to RB and Ferrari… it makes the care more draggy
Now i know why w14b have the same floor like rb18
Brilliant work super interesting detailed analysis. See this makes me think even more that F1 dropped the ball a bit in the way they implemented this mass of rules changes. By this I mean they wanted close racing which we have to some degree but potentially we could have a run away RB team if it wasnt for the DNFs in first 2 races. We will see. Why i think F1 may have dropped the ball on this was the lack of time and testing before the series started. It basically was throw the dice and run what you have for a few tests . they should of had more test time not sure about wind tunnels as they peak out at less than top speeds and proposing effect is hidden So if they had simply put extra time rather than reduced time all teams could of got a better idea in the real world BEFORE they started racing. I want close racing as F1 does time will tell but it looks like it could be a I horse I mean bull race with a big lead due to their ace of Adrien in there that no other team has as he is the only guy in the teams with the ground effects practical experience from all those years ago and hes brilliant at it. everyone else well all those changes in 1 year is a massive amount to get right with alot in a reduced test time and reduced cost caps. Hopefully my fears are wrong.
Is it possible and or legal to connect the floor to an unsprung part of the car?
I know formula sae has had wings attached to the wheels, and formula 1 did at some point or another. I'm not sure how this would be implemented, but it could be a solution for porpoising
I don't for one minute claim to understand aerodynamics but I'm struggling to see what benefit the strakes at the tunnel entrances provide. It looks like they send the majority of the air in that area out through the side of the floor and only leave a very small aperture for air with an unobstructed path into the tunnels. Is it the case that vortices are created from the tips of the strakes that actually flow under neighbouring strakes and into the tunnels or would that only occur from the innermost strake with the rest being sent outboard?
I am no expert either but I think they do that so the strakes that go out to the side create vortices and help seal the actual Venturi tunnel part of the floor. (I think I´ve heard some aerodynamics expert say that but take my comment with a pinch of salt :))
This in an open wheel thing. They create a pocket that grabs airflow in a zone where the wheel wakes can flux into and dumps that turbulent air outward and upward, which in turn, creates a buffered high energy channel nearer to the centerline of the car to pull into the main tunnels. They're essentially turning vanes that end in a diffuser kick on the outside leading edge of the floor.
The interesting thing is, when they could get away with it, full-bodywork (Group C, GTP) cars worked the exact opposite way: That is, feeding airflow INTO the underbody from the outside just behind the front wheels, and the main tunnel area pulling in with a bellmouth shape in plan view. There were usually one or two slightly curved turning vanes on each side managing the flows.
@@DapperHesher ahh right that's interesting. Thanks for the reply. So the wheel wake causes a massive disturbance then when comparing what's left of the tunnel opening to the amount dedicated to outwashing. I guess the outwashing effect also causes its own suction to further energise what goes into the main tunnel.
@@simonbyrne1182 Yeah, if you look up some CFD plots, you can see how much of a disturbance they make. Wide, rotating cylinders pinching off onto the ground plane are a REALLY bad shape aerodynamically, and the fact that they steer and yaw into the airflow make them even worse. Depending on the aero configuration, the four exposed wheels on an F1 (or similar) car can be responsible for well over half the total vehicle drag. That's mainly what the pre-2022 barge boards were doing: Picking up that messy air and splitting it up into more controllable vortices and conditioning the flow as it goes outward or downstream (like over the diffuser, for example). That's an exclusion zone now (no bodywork can be placed there), so managing wheel wakes has moved to the VG pocket in the floor and onto the leading edges of the sidepods.
Very interesting! But the big question is whether the answer to Mercedes big problem is somewhere in this video. The latest news about Merc suggests that they won't be able to fix it any time soon. Which suggests 2 things: it's deeply structural and can't be fixed easily (within the current budget rules). There's even suggestions that mercedes should try to make the best of things with small fixes and start concentrating on 2023 soon. The good news for Merc would be that they know what the problem is.
2023 has currently same rules. Nothing has been banned yet, so really their best bet is to bring improvements to what they can actually test. Remember that their problems started with exactly what they couldn't test like porpoising, and their floor flexing too much
could you explain why Z-section expansion is safer than Y-section ones ?
p.s : Brilliant video as always, very unique knowledge you are providing here.
My guess is that because Y expansions are dependent on the car's setup and condition (ride height, rake etc) while lateral or Z expansions are fixed by the geometry in the floor.
@@varza7921 oh wow, yes that makes so much sense. Thank You.
@@varza7921 just to expand on this topic a bit,
Does increasing expansion in Z-section lowers the roll sensitivity of aero ?
@@RB26N Given the extremely low amounts of roll in an F1 car, although I think you're right and it would be less sensitive to roll, I'm not sure that you could consider this an advantage worth considering if you were a team deciding on a concept
@@varza7921 yea the roll angle is pretty low indeed, but in high aero cars every mm makes big difference, so even a 5-10mm left to ride height difference might be noticeable.
Are the strakes used as mini venturi tunnels giving the car more central downforce balance?
Yes, the VG pocket has a localized suction peak that makes some amount of downforce, and basically it diffuses outboard. The bulk of it still comes from the main tunnel section, with the suction peak just ahead of where the floor kick starts.
One reason it mite be safe to expose the floor to anyone an public view is the budget cap...teams have very specialized spending now...wann guess how much time an man hours went into designing that floor on any team.....I don't an it's not like they could throw it out an start over...that looks like one solid mold to me not very cheap...
I'm guessing thanks again the problem with seeing the floor is it's matched to the upper aero numbers an effect...so changing ur floor is mixing apples and oranges if u don't have the balance of the 2...the pourpoising is showing thru the tires an area the car have almost no control or adjustments on...the tires squat and rebound a shock absorbers mite help excess but not the tires themselves from giving an pressing...I'm really impressed with Ferrari anyone else...
So what do you think which design on paper creates more downforce?
It looks to me as if the Redbull expands the area just after the inlet which would slow the air down.
The mercs design is very weird… I mean, with their floor already structurally compromised with the zero side pod design, why did they go for two downforce points…??
Got it. More kink points, more bouncing!
Bravo Red Bull aero department
Can anyone explain why it looks like there are wooden planks on the bottom of some of these cars? Or is that just a different type of composite?
they are all titanium planks, also those that creates all the sparks that you see when they drive, pretty sure that they might also get some discoloration from heating up and whatnot, dont know all that much about them but i would guess that they should all have the same material composition, from what i understand there are rules on how much you can wear that plank down during a race
It’s a regulation to force minimum ride height. Not allowed to wear down the plank.
It is a wooden plank with flush mounted titanium skids embedded in it. It was meant to stop teams from running the car too low to increase ground effect.
@@ASJC27 Thank you for your response! Why couldn't they have used another material and still mounted the titanium skids? I assume wood would add a lot of extra weight wouldn't it?
@@arthur.vdv1425 It has to be able to wear down predictably would be my guess. Wood will wear down smoothly at a constant rate, like when you sand down wood, while something like carbon fibre or plastic will shatter and break off in larger pieces unpredictably, and metal would be far heavier than the wood. There might be slightly better alternatives, but I imagine it's an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Been using wood for decades and it does it's job perfectly for all that time.
And the titanium was then added just to replicate the cool sparks that cars had before the wood was introduced and their undersides were just metal, because people missed how cool the sparks look at night races.
Mercedes should really watch this video 😭
...could the air be slightly foiled as it begins to flow under the car...?
Somewhat. VGs eat up energy and cause drag, but the benefit to getting clean, stable airflow under the centerline of the car and into the tunnels is very much worth it.
The 'correct' solution is to completely shroud the front wheels in aerodynamic pods and get rid of the wheel wakes all but entirely.
@@DapperHesher ...I suggested it to them on Twitter...
There's far less going on under there than I thought.
It's essentially the "underside" (i.e. the more sensitive) of a wing (or topside if you're trying to make lift). You want to avoid flow separation as much as possible so elements are carefully designed and employed.
I don't know where they teach this "more speed = more downforce", that leaves about 80% of what is going on there unsaid, which is wrong for an explanatory sort of video
If air goes up - car goes down. 😅
i am surprised ; we have desingned racing cars (lola , march , ardex etc) first in 1975 and have founded purposing solution !
i do not undrestant why they do not use that knowlege !!!!
I find it interesting that the Red Bull floor has that much detail and the Ferrari is till that close. That means Ferrari is most likely enjoying a nice HP advantage which makes sense. They are better on the straights and certain high speed corners. Red Bull are great on all corners. But for Merc to have more downforce than moth of these teams is crazy. I know they are a great team but man, Goes to show that the air flow above the floor is just as important as the flow below. I know why James said that most teams will most likely get the main design philosophy wrong.
Most or the only team? ha!
so why is the bouncing so hard to fix then?
Because you cannot replicate it in a wind tunnel as you cannot touch the rolling road or accurately simulate it in CFD. It sounds easy to smooth out the kicks, but above that point in the floor is the gearbox & rear suspension. You could completely change the geometry & drivability of the car by retro-fitting such a radical change. Also the kicks will have been deliberately built in to generate rear downforce. Mercedes will keep with their current design hoping they can minimise their issues & unlock their speed, as McLaren have done recently. Any redesign coming in the second-half of 2022 will be aimed at next year’s car.
is it really this easy to explain?
Yeah but the flows under these cars is FAR more complex. He is just picking out big points. There is so much going on there with sealing the floors and kicking out tire wake. Voteces everywhere
Rb intentionally showed an outdated floor.
@mercedes
Mercedes engineers taking notes…
Was that the real body they used in a race I wonder?
Red Bull aren't complete idiots.
Apparently in the front of the Ferrari floor (that cylinder area) is a weighted coiled spring, if true they're effectively cheating and have redesigned "the mass damper". Difference being is a mass damper is tunable with weights to dial out porpoising completely as necessary per track. The Ferrari idea is non tunable so can't add or remove weight but will still help settle down porpoising quicker.
You should really name your source , otherwise it's probably not true.
@@joineralbert2493 czcams.com/video/xMjbPj8gEFU/video.html about 4.45 he starts speaking about the front leading edge of the floor being hinged and attached with a coiled spring so it flexes. If that's a couple of kg attached to a coiled spring it's effectively a "mass damper" . When the weight of the car goes upwards the weight on the spring goes downwards and when the car goes downwards the spring goes upwards which settles the car quicker. Only difference is this idea isn't tunable by adding or subtracting weight they'll find the optimum weight and make that part of the floor as heavy as necessary for best all round use so at one track it'll be hardly any porpoising and at another it'll be worse but drivable. Ferrari have been clever there and read between the lines and designed something that isn't a mass damper but has a minor effect like one. I believe.
@@jayhow997 He doesn't say that. he only says that it is sprung, the own chassis could be the spring on the situation, like a c5-7 corvette front spring.
@@joaovitorsilvagohl682 he says the leading edge of floor is attached to a coiled spring with a hinge.
The leading edge of the floor up to that hinge is the weight. Which is fixed at the hinge to floor and suspended from a coiled spring attached to the chassis. What his explaining is the device and what it's designed for ,what I'm saying is hold up that design sounds like what the effects of a mass damper would provide. A mass damper, a weight held between 2 springs which oscillates in the opposite direction to what the car bounces to which it smooths out porpoising. Ferrari's leading edge floor thing will move in exactly the same way , when the car starts bouncing violently that leading edge (the weight suspended between hinge and spring) will bounce very much like a mass damper weight, creating the very same forces on a smaller scale and that could be enough just to take the violence out of the bouncing. It's either a clever design with a bonus side effect or its been deliberately designed like that to not arise suspicion because a weight attached to a spring creates exactly the same forces wheatear it's suspended between 2 springs or hanging from 1 with the hinge as the other mounting point. And please tell me you hate the word porpoising as much as I do , it's a proper irritating word 🤢🤣.
Please send this video to Mercedes. They should be humble enough to look at your observations.
How this man gonna cook Ferrari for not keeping they’re car in the race when it was literally Ricciardo’s fault the Sainz got DNF
I still believe Mercedes has the most potential. The amount of downforce that car is pulling is incredible, and RB is nowhere near that. I will keep my hopes up for Barcelona and I would not be surprised if all 3 manufacturers make significant performance jump. Mercedes to make biggest of them all. Unless they switch to another concept, but Totto and team show they have a lot of confidence and are up to "something" not willing to give up just because they do not understand every single thing about the car.
With a 1 sec deficit I wouldn’t put my money on that the Merc creates much more downforce than the RB. The Ferrari is also bouncing badly but is fastest.
Who knows, maybe the potential is slightly higher of high speed suction for the Merc, but the RB and Ferrari create lower drag than the Merc because of seemingly much better outwash from the side pods and even the RB floor supports the low drag design.
Another downside for the Merc is the highly positioned radiators to make those weird sidepods… that does not help with lowering the center of gravity of the car.
The car did not crash dude get that part right it span out no damage to to the car
why doe we put mercedes in comparision again? they are not the top 3 team by the way.. they are the back end team. should compare ferrari, redbull & mclaren
1. I only had floor pics of Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull
2. It's a good comparison of a floor that works and one that doesn't.
@@BSport320 Well now that make sense... The content is still good and informative .. Keep it up. Cheers.
LOSER MERC CAN SOLVE FLOOR PROBLEM WITH NOT ILLEGAL ACTIVE SUSPENSION IN MIAMI GP.
:0
It's allways the same story and let's not forget when NIGEL STEPNEY stole Ferrari's drawing in 2007 and handed them to McLaren...
Great video!!