Report This Message
Are you sure you want to report this post?

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Mikef1
Date: 24/05/2019 22:30
[quote WilliamsF1Fan][quote Mikef1][quote WilliamsF1Fan][quote Mehryar]In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.[/quote]

I think the low downforce direction was a reaction to failing to get to grips with exhaust blown diffusers, and blown front stub axles etc. Someone (Symonds?) probably realised that the tools weren't effective so simplified the aero strategy to make a car effective on low downforce circuits. Money was probably tight as well coming off the back of losing most of the sponsors.

I'm guessing, but I suspect we don't have great aero competency in the team, poor aero "tools" (I'm thinking CFD), and poor or inconsistent technical leadership because of the constant change in technical leader.

I can understand the car being slow on normal circuits, but Monaco isn't a circuit where aero is that influential so this may suggest a mechanical issue(s) as well, albeit ones that date back to 2014. Could this be gearbox related? I'm assuming weight distribution, fixed suspension locations etc all play a valuable part, and perhaps someone thought they could work round the issues to save money.

I should caveat my comments by saying I'm no expert, its all pure guess work![/quote]

I think you're somewhat over analysing it. The change to the 2014 engines meant moving to the single exhaust which meant there was no longer any way to blow the floor. Other changes such as the lack of a beam wing upset the aerodynamic balance of the car so the team did the best possible job they could. The 2014 car did not actually lack downforce compared to anyone but the top 3 based on some of the podiums it achieved. Its bigger issue was mechanical grip which showed throughout every wet session and at tracks like Monaco.

The lack of downforce only bred as the team was conservative with its design and clearly lacks the capability to understand complex aero structures. They just stayed comfortably in their bubble and did what they could, meanwhile other teams were gaining downforce every day and the engines were catching up too.[/quote]

That's a pretty deep rooted question and I'm sadly too long gone from the industry now to hazard a true idea, but my belief is as you say. The complexity of the cars has evolved rapidly and is ever dependant on CFD. It seems to he a race of computers rather than engineers at present and the car is only a byproduct of an obsession with CFD. That in itself is fine because there are teams who clearly get it right and teams who clearly get it wrong

You may optionally give an explanation for why this post was reported, which will be sent to the moderators along with the report. This can help the moderator to understand why you reported the post.
Name:
Email:

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net