Mercedes AMG F1 W05

[tok-tokkie]

No he means less cooling for the brakes themselves so they can add aero stuff at the rear brakes area.

[dans79]

No he means less cooling for the brakes themselves so they can add aero stuff at the rear brakes area.

That's a lot more important than people think, as the down-force is applied directly to the wheels. It allows the suspension to stay "soft" (relatively speaking).

[heimana]

Updates for china?

[flmkane]

No he means less cooling for the brakes themselves so they can add aero stuff at the rear brakes area.

That's a lot more important than people think, as the down-force is applied directly to the wheels. It allows the suspension to stay "soft" (relatively speaking).

Isn't that unsprung aero, ie illegal?

[Holm86]

No he means less cooling for the brakes themselves so they can add aero stuff at the rear brakes area.

That's a lot more important than people think, as the down-force is applied directly to the wheels. It allows the suspension to stay "soft" (relatively speaking).

Isn't that unsprung aero, ie illegal?

Technically yes. But there is a loop hole around the brake ducts which makes it possible to create some aero bits in that area.

[basti313]

That's a lot more important than people think, as the down-force is applied directly to the wheels. It allows the suspension to stay "soft" (relatively speaking).

Isn't that unsprung aero, ie illegal?

Technically yes. But there is a loop hole around the brake ducts which makes it possible to create some aero bits in that area.

Basically you are right, but I would not call it a loop hole. In the paragraph where the movable aero and the rigidly securing of the parts on the sprung part of the car is defined, there is a clear exception for the DRS and the brake air ducts from this whole paragraph.

[Holm86]

Isn't that unsprung aero, ie illegal?

Technically yes. But there is a loop hole around the brake ducts which makes it possible to create some aero bits in that area.

Basically you are right, but I would not call it a loop hole. In the paragraph where the movable aero and the rigidly securing of the parts on the sprung part of the car is defined, there is a clear exception for the DRS and the brake air ducts from this whole paragraph.

I call it a loop hole because as you say it allows brake air ducts. But many of the winglets on the hubs of F1 cars has nothing to do with brake air ducts. They are just exploiting those areas for aero benefit.

[aleks_ader]

No he means less cooling for the brakes themselves so they can add aero stuff at the rear brakes area.

Ohh sorry my bad. I just look those qouted text out of contex and that make now sense for me. Now is clear what they mean.

But that had all teams (bigger ERS-K braking). So i belive there is no magic "bullet" in here. But as we now one point the and there adds together bigger number. So yeah kudos for Merc package.

Interesting thougts from article:

1. Engine software bug have (just for now at initial stage of PU development) bigger influence on reducing fuel consumption than drag penalty
2. In hight speed curves was RB better, but in rest part of tracks Merc edge Ferrari
3. Merc W05 had 5-10% less downforce as W04

EDIT: 1st point corrected grammar

[NewtonMeter]

Interesting thougts from article:

1. Engine software bug are for now more valuable for reducing fuel consumption
2. Hight speed curves was RB better, but in rest part of tracks Merc edge Ferrari
3. Merc W05 had 5-10% less downforce as W04

What does this mean? Is an engine software bug valuable for fuel consumption?

[CBeck113]

Interesting thougts from article:

1. Engine software bug are for now more valuable for reducing fuel consumption
2. Hight speed curves was RB better, but in rest part of tracks Merc edge Ferrari
3. Merc W05 had 5-10% less downforce as W04

What does this mean? Is an engine software bug valuable for fuel consumption?

He means that an engine SW bu´g has a larger influence on the fuel consumption than an aero design which has a slightly higher wind resistance.

[NewtonMeter]

Interesting thougts from article:

1. Engine software bug are for now more valuable for reducing fuel consumption
2. Hight speed curves was RB better, but in rest part of tracks Merc edge Ferrari
3. Merc W05 had 5-10% less downforce as W04

What does this mean? Is an engine software bug valuable for fuel consumption?

He means that an engine SW bu´g has a larger influence on the fuel consumption than an aero design which has a slightly higher wind resistance.

Grammar and readability really are the true victims here today.

(I know this makes me seem like an arrogant cock, but I just couldn't resist)

[aleks_ader]

Grammar and readability really are the true victims here today.

(I know this makes me seem like an arrogant cock, but I just couldn't resist)

Sorry my mistake. I edit my original post. i hope it s now more understandable and readable.

[MacX]

mercedes have update for China GP?

[wesley123]

Nope, not a twin tusk.
http://sky.pd.ak.o.brightcove.com/16501 ... =165012893
http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2014/Merced ... -Jerez.jpg

From Ham's crash in Jerez. The nose tip is exactly where the rules dictate.

Mercedes uses a part of the Front Wing pillars as crash structure to meet the minimum area rule. This would be a twin tusk, but not in the sense like LRGP is doing it for example

[turbof1]

Mercedes bent the nose in into a u shape. The mathmatical middle point of that nose floats on the maximum 185mm height point. So this isn't a twin tusk as the whole of the crash structure is involved.

When the nose came out I was thinking it was it was a twin tusk combined with clever use of the vanity panel. Then hamilton crashed and it turned out to be a structural normal nose.