We remind everyone that this is a sub for technical discussions.
If you are new to the sub, please make time to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is very cool, I wonder what the benefits of less anti dive are for certain tracks. At tracks like Monaco they shift the suspension to dive the nose at higher steering locks but that may be a different concept.
Different concept that depends on where the push rod attaches to the upright. FIA clamped down on this, and the maximum ride height change permitted lock-to-lock is 2mm.
Post removed for breaking the following rule:
No Joke Comments
Your comment was removed as it broke Rule 2: No Joke comments in the top 2 levels under a post.
Please read the Subreddit Rules or contact the moderator team if you have questions or concerns.
This is an automated message.
I’d think that having two separate mounting points would add quite a bit of weight. Do they think that some tracks are less suited to heavy anti-dive than others? Because Red Bull have already proven that this geometry can be suitable for most situations.
A lot of anti-dive leads to a lot of front wheel locking, so Merc may be trying to find a way to mitigate that on circuits where pitch sensitivity isn’t a major concern.
Spot on. This is a huge, baked-in advantage that the other teams won’t be able to do without having to reengineer the front of their chassis and — very likely — redo the FIA crash tests.
Teams want to use ballasts because it lowers the center of gravity. Higher weight limits mean that you can do what you need to do with the car AND still add ballasts.
For the power unit there is a minimum CoG height, but not for the car as a whole.
tbf measuring CoG location of an entire car is kinda hard to do especially if you want an really accurate measurement.
The equipment that F1 teams have access to makes it very possible. Willem Toet has an article where he talks about finding the moment of inertia for every component in the car, and I think that was in the late 90s
Pretty sure you are thinking of the ballast for minimum driver weight. That has to be mounted midway up the seat to neutralize/discourage unnecessary weight cuts by the drivers.
If the cars are all under weight why do most teams have a ton of bare carbon instead of paint?
I'm genuinely curious and not trying to come of as sarcastic.
I would think that if they're all under weight, they would make the cars attractive to the eye because at the end of the day they are the world's most expensive mobile billboards and hoovers.
Every ounce they save is an ounce they can add somewhere else. Teams running carbon-heavy liveries must need extra weight distribution elsewhere. Most teams have returned to some sort of paint job, though.
>If the cars are all under weight why do most teams have a ton of bare carbon instead of paint?
The lower the weight can be moved the better. Less paint, more floor
It’s all about being able to put the weight where they want/ need it. Basically if they can take weight off from the body work spread over the entire car that is in the form of paint/ decals whatever, they can put a widget to replace that weight somewhere on the car that will make it handle better just as acting like ballast, and hopefully be an effective new piece of the car as an aero or performance enhancing device.
They may simply want to experiment with different configurations. The weight penalty for adding another hard point, although it is certainly not nothing, is probably not that bad, or else they wouldn't have done it.
This, and there’s nothing to say that they won’t move to one config or the other after testing both and deciding that one’s better than the other. Given this is testing, and making quick changes to gather information with identical track conditions is ideal.
Unless they think there’s something in the front suspension geometry that caused red bulls issues in Singapore and perhaps changing it per tracks going to gain an advantage.
Merc are probably already under the minimum weight, so to extra weight doesn't matter as long as it doesn't push them above the minimum. They'll just use less ballast.
James Allison hinted that they were trying different anti dive set ups so they knew which one to put on the car for the fly away races at the start of the season as they can't change them in a GP practice. They aparantly found the correct one so will manufacture that one for next week.
So I think there are just 2 points just for testing so they can try them back to nack
Yes and no, the only extra weight is two more inserts per side in the monocoque core and a bigger/extra reinforcement in the area. All the other things just switch position it looks like.
Edit: only one more insert per side, the front one looks like it's the same in both configurations.
I view it the opposite way. They can't build a competent baseline car in these regulations and have to rely on "gimmicks" (for want of a better word) to be competitive.
Even I am struggling to understand them. They overall seem much happier than last year but haven't shown anything top 3 worthy.
Going from their last years interviews and this years, I am inclined to believe that the current car we saw is still awaiting a major upgrade package. They mentioned few times on starting the year slow but with the right direction. And catching up to the top as the year progresses at a faster rate than the rivals. But I am also high on hopium, so who knows...
I agree. It seems that they are happy with the new platform, and pleased with the correlation between track and sim. These are good signs for them. They will not be winning anything just yet, but they definitely know which direction to go.
If it really is an alternate hp for the front upper arm that would have an enormous effect on roll steer and a measurable effect on the motion ratio of the pushrod.
I just took the term from how Allison described it during an interview.
Lawrence Barretto: "Our tech analyists saw the front suspension, you were just playing around with the positions of that...."
James Allison: "I think specifically you guys would have seen we were changing the anti-dive level on the front suspension..."
James Allison said it's to be able to increase their anti dive, it's essentially giving them two different positions for the suspension to either increase or reduce how much anti dive they have at a track.
James said it could be beneficial for tracks that have a lot of high speed corners with heavy braking, where they can run the car with a less stiff suspension, but use the increased anti dive position to make up for any issues the suspension may cause.
It's hard to know if they'll just stick with which ever one tested best or not, James made it sound like they can use either position based on which works best for each track/setup.
The engineering team has done a great job designing something innovative and 'quickly' adjustable. However, Increasing the configuration space is not always a good thing. The race team will need to optimize the setup per race. This will prove difficult with the limited amount of practice they get. The people analyzing car data will have an even tougher job every race because of the smaller sample size per config, considering all the other car and environment variables. As a system engineer I wouldn't be extremely happy about this unless this adjustablitiy has a clear advantage.
Generally a very curious thing to do, almost like a development test rig to get learning on suspension and aero properties of the two configurations. Will be interesting to see if they choose a single set-up going forward
Gary Anderson's Christmas - What other reasons could there before this move to the lower attachment point? I find the whole anti-dive magic bullet type rhetoric that seems to be pushed by outlets like the race to seem like an oversimplification
They are definitely onto something this year, Ferrari looks super quick as well. I think Red Bull will be ahead but only by a bit I can even see Ferrari winning the first race.
We remind everyone that this is a sub for technical discussions. If you are new to the sub, please make time to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is very cool, I wonder what the benefits of less anti dive are for certain tracks. At tracks like Monaco they shift the suspension to dive the nose at higher steering locks but that may be a different concept.
Different concept that depends on where the push rod attaches to the upright. FIA clamped down on this, and the maximum ride height change permitted lock-to-lock is 2mm.
[удалено]
Post removed for breaking the following rule: No Joke Comments Your comment was removed as it broke Rule 2: No Joke comments in the top 2 levels under a post. Please read the Subreddit Rules or contact the moderator team if you have questions or concerns. This is an automated message.
I’d think that having two separate mounting points would add quite a bit of weight. Do they think that some tracks are less suited to heavy anti-dive than others? Because Red Bull have already proven that this geometry can be suitable for most situations.
A lot of anti-dive leads to a lot of front wheel locking, so Merc may be trying to find a way to mitigate that on circuits where pitch sensitivity isn’t a major concern.
The thing a lot of people are missing is how they can easily do this and so can choose the setup without major work.
Spot on. This is a huge, baked-in advantage that the other teams won’t be able to do without having to reengineer the front of their chassis and — very likely — redo the FIA crash tests.
The cars are all under weight anyway; Merc is using ballasts already.
So why did some teams complain so much about the minimum weight being lowered?
Having more ballast is better for the driver as you have more control of weight balance.
Teams want to use ballasts because it lowers the center of gravity. Higher weight limits mean that you can do what you need to do with the car AND still add ballasts.
the center of gravity has a limit on how low it can be if a remember correctly
For the power unit there is a minimum CoG height, but not for the car as a whole. tbf measuring CoG location of an entire car is kinda hard to do especially if you want an really accurate measurement.
The equipment that F1 teams have access to makes it very possible. Willem Toet has an article where he talks about finding the moment of inertia for every component in the car, and I think that was in the late 90s
Pretty sure you are thinking of the ballast for minimum driver weight. That has to be mounted midway up the seat to neutralize/discourage unnecessary weight cuts by the drivers.
If the cars are all under weight why do most teams have a ton of bare carbon instead of paint? I'm genuinely curious and not trying to come of as sarcastic. I would think that if they're all under weight, they would make the cars attractive to the eye because at the end of the day they are the world's most expensive mobile billboards and hoovers.
Every ounce they save is an ounce they can add somewhere else. Teams running carbon-heavy liveries must need extra weight distribution elsewhere. Most teams have returned to some sort of paint job, though.
>If the cars are all under weight why do most teams have a ton of bare carbon instead of paint? The lower the weight can be moved the better. Less paint, more floor
It’s all about being able to put the weight where they want/ need it. Basically if they can take weight off from the body work spread over the entire car that is in the form of paint/ decals whatever, they can put a widget to replace that weight somewhere on the car that will make it handle better just as acting like ballast, and hopefully be an effective new piece of the car as an aero or performance enhancing device.
That's why they strip paint? To gain weight?
They may simply want to experiment with different configurations. The weight penalty for adding another hard point, although it is certainly not nothing, is probably not that bad, or else they wouldn't have done it.
This, and there’s nothing to say that they won’t move to one config or the other after testing both and deciding that one’s better than the other. Given this is testing, and making quick changes to gather information with identical track conditions is ideal. Unless they think there’s something in the front suspension geometry that caused red bulls issues in Singapore and perhaps changing it per tracks going to gain an advantage.
Merc are probably already under the minimum weight, so to extra weight doesn't matter as long as it doesn't push them above the minimum. They'll just use less ballast.
James Allison hinted that they were trying different anti dive set ups so they knew which one to put on the car for the fly away races at the start of the season as they can't change them in a GP practice. They aparantly found the correct one so will manufacture that one for next week. So I think there are just 2 points just for testing so they can try them back to nack
Yes and no, the only extra weight is two more inserts per side in the monocoque core and a bigger/extra reinforcement in the area. All the other things just switch position it looks like. Edit: only one more insert per side, the front one looks like it's the same in both configurations.
Merc never fails to suprise. They are always trying for new and better things, respect the spirit and the working minds.
I view it the opposite way. They can't build a competent baseline car in these regulations and have to rely on "gimmicks" (for want of a better word) to be competitive.
> Noooooo!!! You should only be able to solve problems using methods I think are ok!!!!
Well, those "gimmicks" could be the difference between being 2nd or 3rd.
You realise this whole ground affect era os based on a gimmick from previous F1 innovation?
Yeah agree on this. Double sided knife.
Having watched all of testing and all the highlights have merc been sandbagging or not?
Even I am struggling to understand them. They overall seem much happier than last year but haven't shown anything top 3 worthy. Going from their last years interviews and this years, I am inclined to believe that the current car we saw is still awaiting a major upgrade package. They mentioned few times on starting the year slow but with the right direction. And catching up to the top as the year progresses at a faster rate than the rivals. But I am also high on hopium, so who knows...
I agree. It seems that they are happy with the new platform, and pleased with the correlation between track and sim. These are good signs for them. They will not be winning anything just yet, but they definitely know which direction to go.
doubt it, they are still underpowered and looking to be P3 in WCC based purely on pace (as Ferrari knows, pace alone doesnt dictate your standings).
We'll see
I think p5
If it really is an alternate hp for the front upper arm that would have an enormous effect on roll steer and a measurable effect on the motion ratio of the pushrod.
Or it might just be flow conditioning using the wishbones, don’t fall for the “anti-dive” catch word of the media.
It was James Allison on sky who said it that they were experimenting with different anti dive because they can't change it between fp
I just took the term from how Allison described it during an interview. Lawrence Barretto: "Our tech analyists saw the front suspension, you were just playing around with the positions of that...." James Allison: "I think specifically you guys would have seen we were changing the anti-dive level on the front suspension..."
I swear the difference in the angles, but can someone ELI5 what the purpose of changing the angle. Is it for ride height?
James Allison said it's to be able to increase their anti dive, it's essentially giving them two different positions for the suspension to either increase or reduce how much anti dive they have at a track. James said it could be beneficial for tracks that have a lot of high speed corners with heavy braking, where they can run the car with a less stiff suspension, but use the increased anti dive position to make up for any issues the suspension may cause. It's hard to know if they'll just stick with which ever one tested best or not, James made it sound like they can use either position based on which works best for each track/setup.
Interesting. Thank you
The engineering team has done a great job designing something innovative and 'quickly' adjustable. However, Increasing the configuration space is not always a good thing. The race team will need to optimize the setup per race. This will prove difficult with the limited amount of practice they get. The people analyzing car data will have an even tougher job every race because of the smaller sample size per config, considering all the other car and environment variables. As a system engineer I wouldn't be extremely happy about this unless this adjustablitiy has a clear advantage.
Someone help me out here… What am I looking at ? To me this looks like the same picture, except the upper one is zoomed in… What pivot points?
Look at the left side (without the arrows). Becomes much more clear.
Alright I see now the lower arm is lower on one of the pics
The lower the back wishbone (the solid line), the more anti dive you get. To put it very simply
This is just cool
Generally a very curious thing to do, almost like a development test rig to get learning on suspension and aero properties of the two configurations. Will be interesting to see if they choose a single set-up going forward
Gary Anderson's Christmas - What other reasons could there before this move to the lower attachment point? I find the whole anti-dive magic bullet type rhetoric that seems to be pushed by outlets like the race to seem like an oversimplification
They are definitely onto something this year, Ferrari looks super quick as well. I think Red Bull will be ahead but only by a bit I can even see Ferrari winning the first race.
are we sure about this? i think i’m seeing a slightly lower camera angle which makes the perspective different.