That's why I liked Portimão so much last year: sure there was the fact the teams had no previous data about the track which made it extra challenging but it is such a mixed circuit that you could potentially have 3 cars with different setups and all 3 end up in the podium with near-equal chances of winning. And who wouldn't want to see that?! :D
@Hot Rod con•jec•ture kən-jĕk′chər► n. Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork. n. An opinion or conclusion based on guesswork.
It is about mechnical grip, but at the same time you still put as much downforce as you can. Softer suspension will make the downforce a bit less effective but it's crucial anyway. Sainte Devote, Massenet or Tabac are definetely fast enough to take profits from downforce. Also, it's not only about cornering speed. Even before slow corners you have to hit the brakes and you can do it stronger if you have more downforce (so you're braking later). The same applies to traction zones (getting on power early).
Definitely more a mechanical grip circuit as the speeds they carry threw most of the turns is too low to generate a lot of downforce. But u still run max downforce because it just gives u that little bit more performance due to the absence of straights.
Also downforce causes more mechanical grip (generally for you engineers/physicists I know this breaks down in extremes) but generally pushing the car down effectively creates mechanical grip by pushing down more
Monaco is not a good example of a downforce track because it consists of low speeds corners where mechanical grip matters --> in order to have downforce you need high speed corners which is practically inexistant in Monaco. However a high downforce track with high speed corners is Hungary
You always need power, so maximising power is always needed, it’s lower downforce vs higher downforce, like Ferrari last year lacked the engine power so suffered at every track, while a car like the red bull which often have a strong understanding of high downforce set ups tend to do better at Monaco rather than at the low downforce tracks such as monza and spa.
I'm sorry but being competitive in barcelona and Monaco are not even close comparable. Mercedes is dominant in barcelona year after year but struggles in Monaco most of the years.
Those 3D shots of the cars are amazing? Did you use 3D software like Blender or did you get clips from somewhere else? This is a very well made video, kept me interested until the end. 🙌👏
Yeah, I find it very annoying. They highlighted a non-existent chicane and a little kink on the main straight to bolster their point about short straights and Imola therefore being a high downforce track (which is not true). The main straight is actually somewhere between 1.3 and 1.4 kilometres long. That's longer than the 1.2 km main straight at Monza. If you look at some of the better teams' cars now at Imola, you'll see that they're actually running very small rear wings. Not quite Monza spec but certainly not high downforce. This is really clear, especially with Aston Martin. Gaining two-tenths in the corners really doesn't matter if you're going to be slow as shit on the almost 1.5 km long main straight where all the overtakes at this track are made.
@@bigmaclexaI would categorize current Imola as a medium downforce track, with similar aero setup requirements to Silverstone, Suzuka, and COTA based on what I have seen. This is also reflected in Assetto Corsa, where the top trap speeds for world record/near world record hotlaps at Imola, Silverstone, Suzuka, and COTA are roughly the same assuming the same car (325-335 km/h for the Ferrari F2004, for example).
The rear spoiler could be partially controlled by the gear shift. When shifting down for a sharp corner ,2nd gear and spoiler interact .Then when shifting up for straightaway,again,the spoiler is adjusted accordingly. All done by sensor activations.
Yeah that would be cool but active wings already exist and aren't allowed in f1. For example the wing on the Bugatti Veyron, it starts off at a high angle from a standstill for grip, then gets flatter for top speed, and then when braking it goes vertical to work as an airbrake. But the closest thing that's allowed in f1 is drs sadly :(
Luis Sirmilton Valter Letpass Sir Joe Perez Maks Veshtappen Daniel Avocado Landor Nors Bastian Wettl Lawrence Stoll Fernandez Alonso Esteban Cono Charles Lekker Carlos Saint Pierre Grizzly Yuki Mitsuda Kimi Reykoman Mika Schukinnen Nikita Mazespin don't ask
The "physics" here is so misleading and wrong in the sense of what you guys mean. That power isn't the power of the engine, but rather the power behind the car. What you have interpetted from it (drag increases with velocity) is correct with just V^2, and you would be surprised how significant that ^2 is, you don't need a cubic function to make this any more significant.
You already read the book " alem de mim a jornada da deusa" - besides me the journey of the goddess is awesome this on Amazon...Law of attraction, high vibrations, inter-dimensional travel is fantastic!!! and VERY SPEED -It's a tribute to KIMI
What about if you had a really powerful car and trimmed it to the same top speed as everyone else but used that greater power to run steeper cambers and give higher cornering speeds. Sauber did this with their C11 Group C car. Martin Brundle, then driving for Jaguar, said that the car wasn’t notably faster on the straight (despite what the internet says) but ran much higher downforce setups which made them much quicker over the total lap.
Regarding Mexico, saying the thinner air means they can run as much downforce as they like without the drag consequences doesn’t make sense to me. Wouldn’t the downforce and drag be closely if not directly related when talking about wing angles? (Yes the floor is low drag, high downforce, relative to the wings) They run the high downforce kits to just get the downforce levels of something like a spa or monza aero package, no? So the trade-off is still there, just at a different level. Or am I missing a common knowledge law of physics lol
