Analysis: F1 Suspension Geometry

I’ve talked a lot about the aerodynamic and power unit components of a Formula 1 car on this blog, but rarely touched on the raw mechanical systems that are also critical to performance. There’s a reason for this, though – it’s all a bit voodoo. There are plenty of theories behind proper suspension geometry for a race car, however it becomes much more complex to analyse these mechanics at F1 level as downforce – the biggest performance differentiator in the sport – plays an important role in the design calculations.

For this blog post I am going to run over some of the important aspects of suspension geometry and the factors involved (e.g. centre of gravity, aerodynamic downforce).

Camber

Camber is the angle between the centreline of the tyre tread face and the vertical.

camber

For racing purposes we only really see negative camber, i.e. the tops of the tyres are pointing inwards. A generic setup in F1 shows higher angles of camber at the front and little-to-no camber at the rear.

There are two advantages to running camber, one being improved stability and two, more grip at high speed. As the speed of the car increases, the tyres are pressed further downward as downforce generated by the wings and underfloor rises. When the driver turns into a corner at speed, the car will lean over to the opposing direction of travel, which consequently shifts the position of the tyre’s contact patch. Running optimum camber allows for maximum contact between rubber and track during a corner on the outside tyre, increasing the grip available and thus the speed at which the car can take the turn.

By having little camber on the rear tyres, grip is consistent for right and left corners despite the inside front tyre picking up off the ground a little (in extreme cases). Overall stiffness of the suspension and anti-roll bars also play a part in how camber enhances grip, but that’s more experimental work than theory.

There are some key disadvantages of camber angle, though. The teams optimise the aerodynamics of the car around a specific camber angle in the wind tunnel and on CFD design software. Adjusting the camber too much either side of this reference can be detrimental to aerodynamic performance as the position of the tyre’s wake can play havoc on how airflow is manipulated over the car, as well as disrupt the properties of the front wing aero structures (e.g. the Y250 vortex).

It is for this reason that we tend to see higher levels of camber at circuits with longer straights. If top speed has a greater emphasis on laptime than downforce, low-drag wings and bodywork will be installed. However this takes away downforce, so grip is recovered in the corners by increasing camber. The new aero packages will also be designed to work with the resulting camber angle increase.

Typically you will see more camber at venues such as Monza (Italy) and Circuit Gilles Villeneuve (Canada).

However if the camber angle is too aggressive it can cause severe tyre wear problems on the inside shoulder, hence why Pirelli set a maximum limit for each track.

Toe

Toe is defined as the angle between the centreline of the tyre tread and the horizontal when viewing the car from above.toe

Toe-in is as above – the tyre’s leading edge is pointing in towards the centre of the car, whereas toe-out the tyre points away from the car.

Adjusting toe angle alters both the balance and responsiveness of the car. Toe-in is generally used to dial out oversteer as it makes the car less pointy, whilst also reducing the twitchy feeling of the car down the straights. Toe-out helps get the nose of the car into the corner as the inside tyre will already be angled towards the apex.

In general, an F1 car will have about 1 degree of toe-out on the front tyres and 1-2 degrees toe-in on the rear tyres.

Toe angle is often a last-resort setup change for single seater racing as doing so increases the scrubbing effect of the tyre against the track, worsening tyre wear. Wing angle and other mechanical changes will be made before more toe angle is applied, but for tracks such as Monaco I would imagine it’s an absolute must to experiment with.

Caster angle

Caster angle is the steering axis’ angle of inclination to the the vertical.

Caster

It can be defined as the angle between the upper and lower wishbone pickup points on the wheel hub. This can be relatively easy to spot on a single seater racing car as the push/pull rod is exposed. The angle at which it is leant back provides a rough indicator of how much caster angle the car has, as it has to squeeze through the gaps in the wishbones from the base of the hub to reach the chassis.

All F1 cars run with at least a few degrees of positive caster angle – as far as I am aware there is no need to use a negative angle – and in some cases it can be over 10 degrees. Positive caster is when the steering axis is in front of the tyre, so looking at where the contact patch of the tyre is we can see that the steering axis extends beyond it in the forward direction.

Although the mounting point of the wishbones are fixed at the chassis and cannot be changed, the caster angle can still be altered by adjusting the point at which the wishbones attach to the hub (I would presume offset bushings of some sort or, the more expensive route, entirely new hubs).

The reason why caster angle is always positive is that it has a self-centering effect on the steering as torque is applied. The higher the angle the more self-centering the steering feels. This is because the tyre is, if you like, leaning over on itself slightly as it is rotated, with the offset from the upper wishbone wanting to pull it back in.

Positive caster is beneficial for stability – think of it almost like the angle the forks are at on a bicycle. On downhill mountain bikes the forks are at a higher angle of recline, providing greater control at a cost of responsiveness.

Roll Centre

RC (roll centre) is pretty simple in theory but when applied to a real-world situation this subject can be a bit more complex. Its design is one of the most influential for mechanical setup as any amount of roll affects the car’s handling. There are devices that control roll (dampers, torsion bars, anti-roll bars etc.) but they require a certain amount of movement from the car before their effect occurs.

The RC of the car is defined from a number of steps. First, draw and extend lines running in parallel with the upper and lower wishbone arms from the vertical centreline of the tyre until they meet at a point. Secondly, construct a line from the centre of contact between the tyre and ground, to the intersection point from step one. Finally, mark the point where the vertical centreline of the car and the previous line meet – this is your RC.

This is the point the car rolls around during weight transfer from side to side, i.e. when cornering. This is because all centrifugal forces are directed through the CoG (centre of gravity), which is directly above the RC, therefore the car’s mass will push away from the direction the car is travelling in and rotate around the RC point.

Suspension

The RC is marked as a black and white checkered circle above, whilst the CoG is a checkered yellow and black. Remember that the roll centre is always below the CoG.

The CoG appears relatively high for a car that has virtually all of its weight sat just a few millimeters above the ground, but we have to consider CoG when the driver is in the car. Considering that the driver is sat at an incline (their toes are in line with their upper chest) and their head (a fairly large region of mass relative to the rest of the human body) is positioned quite high up relative to the rest of the car, the CoG is raised by some margin.

rollcentreside

The height of the RC will change with both the angle of the wishbones and also camber. Generally speaking, a higher wishbone angle will create a higher RC. Flatter wishbones will have the reverse effect.

The front and rear roll centres often differ from eachother, as you can see in the illustration above. The roll axis is the line between the front and rear roll centres. Note that both the RCs and CoG are three dimensional coordinates.

The application of roll centre in F1 varies significantly from road cars. Whilst more roll translates into extra weight on the outside tyre and therefore more grip, this knowledge does not translate too well due to the high speeds F1 cars are going.

Lowering the CoG of the car increases the speed at which the car can take a high speed corner, as the tyres are less likely to slip as weight is transferred from one side to the other. As the RC and CoG are brought closer together, the car will roll less as there is less leverage for the CoG to rotate.

As the CoG is barely adjustable during the season (this is a set design characteristic of the car from conception), the only way of adjusting the RC is to play with the camber and wishbone angles. The height of the front and real roll centres have independent advantages and disadvantages to eachother, as the former is orientated around the responsiveness of the car and the latter related to traction under acceleration – F1 cars are rear wheel drive.

The higher the RC is at the front (i.e. moving it towards the CoG), the more responsive the car is and the less steering input required for a corner. This also reduces the overall roll of the car, which is important from an aerodynamic perspective – too much roll can disturb how the air passes over the car during a corner.

On the contrary, the RC is often much lower at the rear of the car. The tell-tale sign of this is that the top rear wishbone in particular is often angled slightly down towards the floor, and the lower wishbone at a little-to-no angle at all. Positioning the RC lower at the rear allows for more roll and squat – the transfer of weight heading towards the back of the car due to accelerative force. The lower RC will therefore improve traction as the driver picks up the throttle on corner exit.

Although there is only a small difference in height between the front and rear RCs, you can clearly see how the car’s roll axis is at an angle from the side of the track.

Lewis_Hamilton_2014_Singapore_FP1

The picture above is of Lewis Hamilton in his Mercedes W05 from the 2014 Singapore GP. Notice how, as he is taking a fairly tight right-hander, the car is perching on the left-rear corner slightly. The small inclination of the roll axis favours weight transfer towards the rear of the car, and, in this case, onto the left side, too.

With the amount of torque the current power units are producing, it is no wonder that there is an emphasis on gaining as much traction as possible in order to preserve the rear tyres and keep them within their best operating temperature window. As long as the car is producing sufficient downforce from the front end of the car, this roll axis setup should make for lovely driveability and excellent responsive handling.

Video: Are the 2017 rule changes really that good afterall?

It’s been a while (exams have got in the way), but I’ve finally managed to put some new content together! In the following video I discuss why the 2017 regulation changes may not be as good as we first thought.

This is only my second proper video so I’m really keen for your thoughts on whether I should do more (or not), or any topics you might what to know about in the future. Please let me know in the comments on this post, or on YouTube or tweet me!

Analysis: 2016 predictions

It’s that time of the year (well, the end of the year…) when we look ahead to what lies in store ahead. For the past two years I have made an illustration as to what I think the next season’s cars will generally look like, and I’d like to say I’ve done a decent job at highlighting what will be different (2014 prediction here, 2015 prediction here). So here’s what I think 2016 will hold…

2016 side & plan

As you can probably tell already, there are no major technical changes being made for next season so my prediction is simply an evolution of what we have seen in 2015. Before we move further, it is worth noting that the camera pods mounted by the stalks on the nose will be allowed for 2016, but banned from 2017 onwards.

Starting with the nose, it was clear that the grid was divided between long and wide, short and stumpy, and short with a thumb tip extension. The latter design was the most popular choice as it allowed the neutral section of the wing (in the centre) to remain completely exposed to oncoming airflow whilst increasing the volume beneath the nose for which flow could pass into.

In 2016 I believe this will again be the most common solution, although I do not expect every team to rush to it. As we saw with Ferrari, the car is built around one particular design so it may not be beneficiary to change it. The process of designing the car for the next season starts very early on, so we could see some cars optimised around the longer or stumpy shapes.

The front wing is an expensive region of development for everyone at the moment, and Mercedes changed the game once again in 2015 by creating two clear segments of the wing with an aggressive arched profile at the outboard section. I expect most of the teams to migrate towards this – the likes of Ferrari and Williams have already made some strides to keep up but I predict some very intricate craftsmanship here.

Further back, I think the biggest area of progression will be the sidepods and engine cover bodywork. The teams have become increasingly more confident in running smaller bodywork as the power units are less and less reliant on large cooling apertures, so with further gains in the thermal efficiency of the engines over the winter we could be seeing some lovely shapes next year. I anticipate a lot more shrink-wrapping around the internals, which we started to see this year as blisters were made into the engine covers to clear the back of the engine/gearbox oil cooler. This could result in a reduced sized airbox inlet, too, yet possibly accompanied by the return of smaller ‘ear’ inlets eitherside of the roll hoop as these are less aero critical than the profile of the sidepods.

There should be further improvements made around the floor ahead of the rear tyre, with a variety of arranged slots diverting the turbulence that normally impinges on the diffuser away from such an aerodynamically sensitive region. This, alongside the development of vortex alignment along the sides of the splitter (Y250 vortex projected from the front wing) and the floor, should also equate to higher rake angles and thus more rear downforce.

The biggest visual change for next year will be the addition of at least one (maximum of two) secondary exhaust pipe. These redirect the wastegate gases away from those passing through the turbine of the turbocharger in an attempt to increase sound levels. It is unclear whether their orientation at the back of the car – which can either be to the side or above the main exhaust exit – will have any performance benefits, particularly when considering the design of the Y100 (or Monkey Seat) winglet immediately behind/above.

These alterations will have an impact on the design of the rear wing and its endplates, too. In my design I have opted for an advanced version of what Mercedes (and occasionally Red Bull) were using for 2015, with three tall vertical slots made into the base of the ‘plate and heavy sculpting to manipulate the airflow, forcing it upwards. It will also be interesting to see if the succession of horizontal slots made into Ferrari’s endplates just above the floor will carry over into 2016 as they were not seen on any other car.

Finally, the diffuser may not see too much attention as the 2017 regulations will be hugely different in this area, but we shall assume that further flick-ups and Gurney flap arrangements will pop up here throughout next year to fine tune the up/outwash of the air as it expands out from beneath the car.

Edit: Just remembered about S-ducts! I left this out of my design prediction because it is not a silver bullet in terms of performance, i.e. copying it will not necessary give you laptime. Like the design of the nose, it has to be integrated with the rest of the car and how airflow is managed around the front of the chassis. A well designed S-duct has great benefits in managing boundary layer flow both above and below the front bulkhead, however the nose, front wing and internal suspension components must be considered as they affect how it performs.

Red Bull have been a consistent user for the past few years, but others have jumped onto it over the last 12 months in particular. McLaren and Force India had race-worthy versions by mid-season, whilst Mercedes appeared to be testing some bodywork for it (albeit a potential disguise for their 2016 front suspension concept) in Brazil. If the only way to catch Mercedes is to go to extreme measures and hope it pays off, maybe we could see the full emergence of the S-duct after all.

2015 Abu Dhabi GP Tech Highlights

Note: This is predominantly my tech article I posted on Richland F1 last week, as I’ve had university assignments due in left, right and centre! I am back home this weekend so you should see some ‘What can we expect in F1 2016?’ posts very soon and, YES, there will be more YouTube videos. :)

F1 as we know it in 2015 may well be done and dusted, but being the relentless sport that it is it was hardly surprising to see small changes and tweaks during free practice on Friday, most with a firm suggestion of 2016 about them. In this final Tech Highlights post of the year, we will explore what McLaren, Lotus and Mercedes could be developing over the winter period.

McLaren

The final grand prix of the season was arguably the most competitive McLaren have been all year, despite the two huge back straights. The car came alive in sector three and the on-track data lined the MP4-30 as the third quickest chassis on circuit. For Jenson Button to be disappointed not to make Q3 – a feat they failed to achieve this year – underlines the progress they have made in recent races.

Whilst Fernando Alonso may have been quoted saying half the car in Abu Dhabi was 2016 specification, this is most likely an exaggeration. However there were some significant changes made to the chassis which point towards their ideas they are developing over the winter.

Although it is not a complete overhaul, the rear suspension geometry has been modified to a more conventional setup in comparison to the rest of the grid, shifting them away from the offset lower wishbone placement that was used for aerodynamic purposes. The lower wishbone’s trailing arm remained attached to the rear crash structure, but the leading arm now reaches much further forward rather than the previous horizontal position.

It was clear that the development was in prototype stage, as the metal wishbone was exposed to the airflow passing over it when traditionally a carbon fibre aerofoil embodies it. However it must have required some substantial work to implement it with the current sidepod design and gearbox.

Traditionally the external suspension components mount to the gearbox, so any geometry changes must require a gearbox change as well. Both McLarens were not penalised for such a change, so I presume that the team have copied Mercedes in using a ‘cartridge’ style gearbox: a modifiable (and lighter weight) case surrounding the actual gearbox that is inserted separately.

Mercedes

With both championships sewn up long ago, it is clear that their attentions have diverted towards next year with a number of recent modifications around the front suspension being the most eye-catching. These changes have coincided with an apparent switch in development philosophy that began after their off-colour Singapore weekend at the end of September.

With tyre pressures now slightly higher than normal to counter any safety concerns, the W06 appears to be a bit more sensitive to setup changes and tyre temperature. Since Singapore they have adopted a new strategy to keep the tyre temperatures and pressures where they want them to be before heading on track, surrounding the hubs with an electrically heated jacket before putting the wheels on. This helps the tyre maintain core temperature and prevent a drop in pressure as they are measured when stationary, allowing the team to run the absolute minimum pressure.

Heaveelement

Mercedes have been playing around with the heave element (highlighted) of the front suspension throughout the latter stages of the season

However, the detailed work that has gone on around the front suspension has also got us asking further questions as to how they are approaching 2016. Above you can see just tucked inside the chassis is a spring that connects each pushrod together – this is the heave element.

Throughout this year Mercedes have run a hydraulically damped coil spring as their third element but in Brazil and Abu Dhabi the team trialed what appears to be a fully hydraulic device to control dive, i.e. when the car pitches forward under braking, which can be easily identified as a gold coloured cylinder.

This setup allows the engineers to finetune the heave element’s compression and rebound characteristics alongside the individual dampers, which could help the driver trail brake into corners later. This is something Nico Rosberg tends to do more than Lewis Hamilton, which is perhaps why the Briton has not been happy with some of the apparent developments that have come through recently.

However there is also the suggestion that Mercedes are attempting to recreate the effects of FRIC (front-rear-interconnected) suspension, a passive way of stabilising the car through high loading corners whilst maintaining a supple kerb-riding nature which was banned in mid-2014. This was done by connecting dual chambered dampers to eachother to keep the car’s roll to a minimum.

Along with the new heave element, there were also rumoured changes to the dampers and rockers to create an entirely new mechanical philosophy at the front end of the car – I am very much looking forward to the first pictures of the exposed front bulkhead of the W07 in Melbourne next year!

Mechanical adjustments aside, the Silver Arrows carried out some intriguing aerodynamic tests, too. On Friday the underside of the rear wing’s top flap featured a horizontal zig-zag strip of tape, with the tip of each ‘tooth’ facing the leading edge. In the aerospace industry this is known as a turbulator tape, generating tiny vortices to reduce the size of the boundary layer at such a high angle of attack.

It is actually illegal to use the tape under race circumstances, so it’s interesting to see the team use it so late in the season. Perhaps they are assessing the effects of narrowing the boundary layer with a future development in mind, maybe something along the lines of McLaren’s ‘tubercles’ flap from last year.

Lotus

E23noseAD

Given that so much fuss was made at the start of the season about noses, it was of complete surprise to see that Lotus had brought a brand new one to Abu Dhabi. The new version features the thumb tip extension we have got used to seeing from the likes of Williams and Red Bull, although not to quite the same aggression.

It is slightly higher than the original, however, freeing up room eitherside of the extension for more airflow to pass underneath and onto the splitter region. The team – in probably their last outing in the guise of Lotus before rebranding as Renault – only assessed the new nose on Friday before reverting back to the lower specification for the rest of the weekend. The regulations around the design of the nose remain static for next year, so this was undoubtedly a data gathering exercise to provide a better understanding of the development of their 2016 car.

A small guide vane was also evident at the top of the nose, perhaps providing a hint of a Brawn-style vane lining the sides of the front bulkhead/nose box.

There were also some subtle tweaks to the front wing, such as the reprofiled cascade winglet flaps and extending the last element of the wing down to the footplate rather than undercutting itself.

2015 Brazilian GP Tech Highlights

With changes made to the Interlagos circuit’s kerbs (now 50mm higher in places) and the track conditions affected by the weather conditions last year, Pirelli’s pre-race assessment suggested a substantial drop in laptime. This laptime deficit turned out to be over a second over 2014, with Nico Rosberg’s average speed through turns one and two being 15kph slower on his pole lap than the previous year emphasising the alterations on track.

Whilst this will have required some rethinking on the mechanical side of the setup, aero also has a key role in Brazil. Although the altitude of roughly 800m above sea level is a far cry from that of Mexico a few weeks’ ago, it still has a significant impact on the aerodynamic levels of the car and the performance of the power units.

This has meant that the teams have changed a few items on the car despite it being the latter stages of the season. We also got to see the performance of Renault’s “upgraded” power unit (you will understand why I quote that later) and Mercedes had an intriguing test device on show. Let’s find out more on this now…

Mercedes

As the season begins to draw to a close, it becomes more obvious that the teams’ attentions have been diverted to 2016. Whilst this means that there are fewer developments added to the current cars, there are often experimental components that are run to assess how the design of next year’s car is coming along.

Mercedes are the first to provide clues as to what is in store on the W07, by trialing what appeared to be an S-duct during free practice on Friday.

The S-duct was pioneered by Sauber in 2013 when stepped noses were in use and has since been copied by Red Bull, McLaren and Force India. Toro Rosso have also briefly used a version of their own, too.

Its purpose is to channel airflow from beneath the chassis up to the top side and over the top of the front bulkhead through an ‘s’ shaped duct. It makes use of slightly slower boundary layer flow beneath the car, exiting into generally untidy air and keeping flow attached to the top of the car. The device allows for more extreme nose designs, which is why they are not necessarily a bolt-on performance part – they act as a link between different aero structures around the centreline at the front of the car.

W06Sduct

On closer inspection, however, it appears as if Mercedes were testing a dummy of the duct’s exit on top of the car, rather than a full duct assembly. As you can see in the illustration above, they have simply replaced the conventional panel that covers the inboard front suspension elements for one with an rearward facing duct and two interesting bulges eitherside.

Both drivers used the panel on Friday, with Rosberg’s duct taped up and Lewis Hamilton’s open.

There are a few intriguing details about this test that leave us questioning the direction they are taking with the device.

The bulges are positioned right above where the heave spring peeps out above the monocoque but, on the W06, the spring is sunk far enough into the chassis to not require any blisters in the bodywork above. This suggests that Mercedes are considering changing the suspension geometry for 2016 which would require a higher heave element position.

There was rumour that Hamilton ran a revised suspension layout in FP1, but these are not confirmed reports, so the team may have wanted to test the aero effect of a new suspension design.

Mercedes did indeed use flo-vis paint along the nose and the top of the chassis to investigate but considering that the duct wasn’t a fully operating assembly, we are left wondering as to what the purpose of doing it was.

My guess is that they are isolating the duct from the rest of the car to make sure that its introduction will not have a negative influence on the overall aerodynamics.

It is also worth noting that there was no obvious inlet at the bottom of car to provide air to any potential system they could be producing. However there is a very good explanation for this as Matt (SomersF1) has highlighted brilliantly in his blog post on the subject.

Unlike most teams on the grid, there are no visual signs that Mercedes have a driver cooling slot at the front of the car. There are, though, a few clues that suggest they do have an inlet hole in the underside of the nose, although sometimes an additional inlet is added on top of the car for hotter locations. This hole leads to a thin slot along the bottom of the front bulkhead which is visible when the nose of the car is off, before passing into the footwell of the cockpit.

Conventional S-ducts involve using a duct that covers over some of the internals in the front bulkhead, including things like the brake fluid reservoirs. This compromises the position of the duct’s exit point, which is often well ahead of the top flat surface of the chassis and instead along the upward curve from the nose backwards (defined by the regulations).

Mercedes could utilise their current driver cooling inlet by manufacturing an internal duct that exits through the aperture made for the heave spring, which coincidentally appears to be where the test panel’s duct exit begins. This allows the exit of the duct to sit nicely on top of the car, with air exiting in parallel to the chassis’ surface.

A drawback in doing such would be that air is passing around the heave spring and creating some turbulence, although it is difficult to judge how that would affect the duct’s performance.

I am sure we will get more details on it if it reappears before the year closes.

Renault

Although it has been ready since the US grand prix, it is only until now that Red Bull have opted to debut Renault’s new power unit in Brazil. It turns out the original token expenditure of 11 out of 12 is incorrect, instead the a partial upgrade of just 7 tokens was used. These were used solely on the combustion section of the engine, focusing on power output, driveability and fuel efficiency.

The remaining four are expected to be aimed at the turbocharger. This upgrade could not be introduced because of part availability and further changes needed to the exhaust system to make the upgrade work in unison. It is unclear whether Red Bull will want to use the full upgrade in Abu Dhabi, but considering that their ‘partnership’ with Renault is set to continue into 2016 I wouldn’t see a reason not to. Renault will also be quite keen to see how it performs on track, too.

Initially there was talk of a 0.1-0.2s laptime gain, but Daniel Ricciardo was in fact 7kph slower down the main straight than teammate Daniil Kvyat (who used the older spec unit). Whilst this seems a bit shocking at first, it would be unfair to say the upgrade has been a failure (yet). The final developments need to come through and the data analysed to fine-tune them in order to obtain a full assessment of Renault’s progress, but for now it doesn’t look great!

Toro Rosso

The Faenza-based team fancy their chances of grabbing sixth in the Constructors’ championship ahead of Lotus, as they sit just 9 points behind. Both drivers – Max Verstappen in particular – have hit good form and the STR10 certainly has the pace to match (barring straightline speed, of course).

To counter this deficit, Toro Rosso introduced yet another iteration of their rear wing by modifying the top flaps to reduce drag. Like Mercedes have done in the previous few seasons, the outer edges have been rounded down as they meet the endplate, reducing the angle of attack of the flap and decreasing the size of the wingtip vortices formed as result.

It’s been a bit quiet on here lately…

Just wanted to update you on why I haven’t been so active in recent weeks. I sent out a tweet this evening to explain, but it’s literally just a matter of not finding that much time at the moment.

I did start some work on a Mexican GP Tech Highlights piece, however I don’t feel as if it’s very relevant now. It’ll be business as usual from Brazil this weekend on, though.

As always at this time of the season the developments are few and far between, but I’ve got a game plan heading into winter which involves heavily pushing YouTube videos. After the first video on front wings (which you can find here) I gained over 100 subscribers and over 1,000 views, which isn’t bad at all to be honest! I’m always using YouTube and I can see it being a popular resource for learning more about the technical side of F1, which I hope to exploit in the future.

Finally, if you don’t already follow me on Twitter then please do, as I’m nearly at 2,600 followers!

2015 US GP Tech Highlights

In all honesty I didn’t expect to be writing this piece at all, but thankfully the teams provided us this week! Even though we are heading into the latter stages of the season, and despite the distance between Europe – where all of the teams are based – and the US, the developments keep on coming through. Most of the paddock will be looking ahead to 2016 and the upgrades seen in Texas provide a few clues to what we could see next year.

However with no proper dry running (aside from the latter stages of the race, which wasn’t exactly bone dry) it would have been difficult to evaluate the these components, so expect those who brought developments to fully utilise any dry running in Mexico this weekend. Continue reading