Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK
That is not the tradeoff what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a floor that has less downforce has less tendency to porpoise.
My point is, you can only say that porpoising is "solved" when you have a floor that is better or equally good as the competition and doesn't show the effect (or at least not as much as to the point that the drivers or the car get upset by it). We all know that a floordesigh that generates very little downforce, the amount of porpoising effect it will cause will be less.
So without any real data to make a comparison how much downforce each floor actually generates we can't really say which floor has solved the porpoising the most. The amount of vertical G's is not a really good measure for that. Sure it shows the movement of the car, but if there's very little downforce coming from the floor, then what good do those low vertical g values do?
BTW referring to a video as an argument is called a fallacy.
And implying that I havent seen that video without inquiring is just plain stupid.
|
1) It is not true at all that a floor that has less downforce has less tendency to porpoise. It depends on the flow structures and characteristics, look at the back markers they still porpoise and yet they have no performance.
2) Nope that's your definition of solving porpoising, solving porpoising literally means fixing porpoising aka going from porpoising to not porpoising. Having the same performance as others is just performance related and has nothing to do with solving porpoising. You can solve porpoising by just jacking up ride height till there is no more bouncing, porpoising solved you just don't have performance. Is that a good fix? No but you still solved it, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.
You say there is no real data but that's just selective bias - there are plenty of meaningful data points out there that shows mercedes solved porpoising in a meaningful way. Mercedes solved their issue as shown by the vertical G force read outs and have increased the performance of their car relative to the mid field and the top teams, that's shows it is a good solution because it didn't regress their car but increased its performance relative to the top two and the midfield. That is a far better indicator than just comparing them directly to ferrari and redbull in terms of pace.
Also how do you know the mercedes floor doesn't generate the same downforce? How do you know it isn't mechanical grip, weight, drag, etc causing them to be slower overall. Mass could be the signifcant factor because the more mass you have the more centripetal forces the contact patch must face in the corner meaning you get less cornering speed vs. something lighter even with the same downforce. And mercedes have not reduced weight as much as ferrari and redbull. So saying mercedes didn't "Solve" porpoising because they are still a bit off is plain ignorant, especially since mercedes has little development on the w13 vs. redbull and ferrari.
3) Nope you can't judge downforce generation with the amount of porpoising it generates, that's about as stupid as saying you can tell which car is better by looking at its body shape, or saying you can see air flow. Sure higher porpoising might be an indicator of high downforce but it is no way guaranteed because the floor flow structures can be just extremely poorly designed. Look at redbull - almost no porpoising and they have alot of downforce and performance, then look at aston before the b spec package, zero performance but a crap ton of porpoising.