Hi Kyle, I want to tell you that I like your videos so much and also I want to ask if you have a video explaining the aerodynamics of the "bridge wing" of the 2008 regulations and why FIA introduced a mandatory section later on. I really don't remember who made that cool video, I watched a couple of months ago but I haven't found it again, don't know if you made it and then delete it. I don't even remember if it was in Spanish. Cool you explained porposing thank you so much

hello kyle...a friend of mine states that "aero need to be loose or else it will break under pressure". What are you thoughts on this.

You are great ❤ Thanks

I love your videos Kyle. I’m not sure if this would be considered rude, I want to ask of you to please label the axis for us younger engineers here. Thank you 😊

Not to be critical (I hope you find it useful actually as a reminder) ... but pronouns (when we can't see what you're referencing - as I'm thinking you might ... have noticed during editing?) really should _never be used in your demonstrations._ Granted, sometimes the point is so obvious that you can use pronouns. but in that case, the sentence wasn't even necessary I think. Unlinked pronouns can only undermine an explanation's efficacy. I have a friend with _intermittent [eye cue] aptitude_ who'll say insightful things like, "I'm here" ... as if that's informative or as if I know where "here" is (which he didn't understand). I then asked, "when would ... or even _could it_ be false for you to say _I'm here_ ..?" I tried explaining that "here" is always the pronoun of where you define yourself to be. I think his Theory of Mind is the issue ... and, we don't choose our brains. We're just lucky or unlucky ... and if I understand something, it's not always because I deserve to, so I try to be patient ... and explain as best I can. But people who like racing (I'd assume) aren't people _known for their patience._ :-)

Lost respect for Peter Windsor several years ago

I recently graduated with an ME degree. And these past few months have really emphasised why my lecturers always instructed us to review multiple sources of information. I've heard multiple explanations about porpoising that really left me asking "Is that really it?" I've been patiently waiting and hoping for Kyle to drop this video cause I knew he would go into more depth. But what's the issue with Peter Windsor? I watch his debriefs and I've always found them digestible. Simple even.

@@Vamanos46 Why?

@@GeraldL8 USF1 team...

"the car just sucks down too much" Yes, the car is going wrong by doing what it's designed to do... Yeesh, I hadn't heard that one yet around my parts, the worst I'd heard was that the teams suffering the most from porpoising were trying too hard to optimize for absolute peak power near the ground (as opposed to not aiming as hard for peak and designing for a more stable "great" range).

Nice try mr. Binotto

I think it will be a waste of time. Teams have much more resources and probably used the solutions that Kyle will come up with.

@@nFINITELooP lol. the point is for people to be educated/entertained by his videos. F1 teams aren’t going to break down their solutions like these videos do, or take solutions from a UKposts channel. I would love to see a video about how certain solutions work

@@nFINITELooP Some of us would like to know.

@@thethirdman225 I think the problem is going to be a lack of detailed information. Its hard to draw possible solutions when he is working with a simplified model that has a lot of assumptions made in it. Combine that with the complexity of the transient effects, its just too difficult to offer any credible real world solutions.

It is harder to gather energy from turbulent flow because the fluid does not behave strictly as intended. And it also may disperse the fluid to a more static movement. i'm not an expert, tho

That car panders toward a particular niche market. If it aint broke, don't fix it.!

Love it. Kitchen sink fluid dynamics.