Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Locked
User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

trinidefender wrote:
Turbo I'm sorry to say but your analysis here is far to simplistic to judge which nose works better in which conditions. The problems are:
A. You don't know the yaw angles involved.
B. You can't tell how airflow moves around the finger and the pylons and any turbulence/vortices that are given off intentionally or unintentionally by them.
C. You are looking at the simple space provided underneath the nose and between the nose pylons.
D.you can't tell how the rest of the nose effects airflow going underneath and around it.
E. Here is the major one, you completely ignored the mass of airflow that flows inside of the front wing over the neutral portion. Basically between the inside edge of the front wing and the outside of the pylons.

Something I have noticed that started for 2014 with the trend of lowering the noses. The front wing pylon design has become a far more integral part of the general design of the front of the car. As you can see last year Williams ran wing pylons that had a significant bend inwards in them. At first glance in would seem it reduces the airflow going under the nose but what is not looked at is how those inwards portions help to direct flow from either side of the front wing pylons to then flow underneath the wing.

It is my humble suggestion that these types of analyses be more biased to towards figuring out how different parts of a car works and what parts do as opposed to which is a better design. I say this because without hard data it is almost I possible for us to say which is a better design, especially when you introduce variables like yaw into the equation.
Mate, I never claimed it worked better. I fully underline there are more factors at play, like how the nose works on the neutral section and vortex generation. The point at hand was the frontal view of a f1 nose does not ultimately determine by itself how much air can fit underneath.

I tried to make sure that it got across that more air volume in yaw does not determines the performance just on its own, in the last paragraph. Maybe I should underline such a thing next time? Like this:

I have no issues with criticism, but before you do that, make sure you properly readed the article so that we can skip the obvious, skip the points I already made and just skip any unnecessary repeating.

For the record, here is that very last paragraph:
Note that while this does highlight one design aspect of nose cones, it does not mean the Force India nose is better overall. Other parameters like influence on the neutral section and airflow structures are just as important as well.
Some points I do like to adress:
-yaw angles change all the time during cornering, and determined by how sharp the turn is. The yaw angle I took was a sharp one, but merely was used as an example. Yes indeed, the trick is to have a wide window which is the best compromise for the biggest range of yaw angles.
-Your point about the airflow going over the neutral section is valid, however: ask yourself the question, how much of this is due to the front wing and the pylons, and how much with the nose itself? It'll have its impact, you don't have to tell me that, but how much is a guess work without cfd and probabmy still with cfd since you'll have to correct for the steady state.
It would also make it very tedious and complex, while the point trying to be made is much simpler:

The article simply made the point yaw angle is a big influence on the amount of air volume underneath the nose. Omitting variables as influence of airflow coming over the neutral section on the outsides of the pylons, on the airflow underneath the nose on the inside of the pylons, is a concious choice not to overcomplicate the point.

I'm willing to discuss that point further though. I'll mock something up so we can have a proper discussion about that.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

Trinidefender (and anybody else who is interested in this discussion), would you draw us with airflow arrows (blue is low pressure, red is high pressure) what you envision, on the image I provided below (if airflow behind body work, try something like a dotted line)? Also if possible add vortices (I added a vortex image, you only need to copy paste it and put it at right place and angle, and remove some white of it).

Front Wing plus nose (I redetailed the nose so that it comes closer to what is in reality):
Image
Vortex:
Image
#AeroFrodo

tomazy
205
Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 13:01

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

When Pat was talkig abouth rear suspension, and how they muved the lower wishbone higher in the line of the driveshaft, (a solution many cars had last year) I took a closer view of the suspention. I noticed just how far from the wheel the pull rod is connected to the upper wishbone and I don't recall this solution before on any car (please correct me if I am wrong)? I would imagine that aero gain from this would be that there will be much less disturbed air coming to the flip ups on the rear brake ducts. This could be how Williams is going to fight the problem they had last year, witch was the lack of read downforce.

Here, I made a quick draving what I mean:

Image

Green is the pullrod, red are other suspension elements, pink is the driveshaft and the blue is the undisturbed area I am talking about.

I hope that some of you know what I am talking about, it isn't easy to write what you think xD

Here is the image before my talented modification.
Image

And here is a clear view of the suspension, but at an angle that the big hole for the clean air is not apperent without some imagination
http://f1.f-e-n.net/images/f1/2015/2015 ... FW37_2.jpg

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

tomazy wrote:When Pat was talkig abouth rear suspension, and how they muved the lower wishbone higher in the line of the driveshaft, (a solution many cars had last year) I took a closer view of the suspention. I noticed just how far from the wheel the pull rod is connected to the upper wishbone and I don't recall this solution before on any car (please correct me if I am wrong)? I would imagine that aero gain from this would be that there will be much less disturbed air coming to the flip ups on the rear brake ducts. This could be how Williams is going to fight the problem they had last year, witch was the lack of read downforce.

Here, I made a quick draving what I mean:

http://s21.postimg.org/tec8tmaqf/image.jpg

Green is the pullrod, red are other suspension elements, pink is the driveshaft and the blue is the undisturbed area I am talking about.

I hope that some of you know what I am talking about, it isn't easy to write what you think xD

Here is the image before my talented modification.
http://s18.postimg.org/b07bne7cp/1_1.jpg

And here is a clear view of the suspension, but at an angle that the big hole for the clean air is not apperent without some imagination
http://f1.f-e-n.net/images/f1/2015/2015 ... FW37_2.jpg

The first Pull rod merceds had the pull rod waay out from the upright. It has been around. The same for the force india of 2013. This Williams one is the most extreme though.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

mikhak
11
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 02:25
Location: Stockholm

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

tomazy wrote:When Pat was talkig abouth rear suspension, and how they muved the lower wishbone higher in the line of the driveshaft, (a solution many cars had last year) I took a closer view of the suspention. I noticed just how far from the wheel the pull rod is connected to the upper wishbone and I don't recall this solution before on any car (please correct me if I am wrong)? I would imagine that aero gain from this would be that there will be much less disturbed air coming to the flip ups on the rear brake ducts. This could be how Williams is going to fight the problem they had last year, witch was the lack of read downforce.

Here, I made a quick draving what I mean:

http://s21.postimg.org/tec8tmaqf/image.jpg

Green is the pullrod, red are other suspension elements, pink is the driveshaft and the blue is the undisturbed area I am talking about.

I hope that some of you know what I am talking about, it isn't easy to write what you think xD

Here is the image before my talented modification.
http://s18.postimg.org/b07bne7cp/1_1.jpg

And here is a clear view of the suspension, but at an angle that the big hole for the clean air is not apperent without some imagination
http://f1.f-e-n.net/images/f1/2015/2015 ... FW37_2.jpg

I think the rear suspension upper legs are quite similar to last year, see pic below. If you take away the winglets and brake ducting which are missing in the render then it would appear you have more space here. The winglets on the rear brake ducts would generate downforce so removing them I think would harm the rear downforce. They work also in conditioning the flow around the top wishbone, pullrod, upright connection. The connection can be quite bulky so having a winglet ahead of it can condition the flow to better flow around it and so help the winglets sitting behind the wishbone. I think the winglets are just omitted from the FW37 model.

Image

Below is a good picture of the Lotus E22 to show that the solution of connecting the pullrod to the upper wishbone and then transferring the load to the upright is not new.
http://i.imgur.com/NbiK3OV.jpg

tomazy
205
Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 13:01

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

I didn't think that removing the winglets will make more downforce, I thought that removing the bulky connection of the pullrod to the wishbone from the area of the winglets will make them more efficient.

FW36 pullrod connected to the wishbone is in the middle of the flip up area, look here:

Image

Image

but you are right abaouth the Lotus, they went in that direction last year so it is not as novel of a solution as I thought, but Williams did take it a bit further this year.

Image

The thing is, we need more pictures of the new car, and they are still more than a week away :cry:

User avatar
dren
226
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 14:14

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

Thoughts on if they retain the low beam wing right above the diffuser?
Honda!

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

dren wrote:Thoughts on if they retain the low beam wing right above the diffuser?
Possible. The thing with the low beam wing is that it needs to have diffuser area sacrificed for it. If they are able to recreate its benefits with the suspension, I see no reason why they want to keep it as removing allows a slightly higher diffuser.
#AeroFrodo

LookBackTime
472
Joined: 19 Feb 2013, 20:33

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
· 2h 2 hours ago

#F1 Lotus & Force India to run 2014-spec Mercedes engine at Jerez. Merc AMG & Williams test 2015 upgrade parts. AMuS: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 77520.html

ParkerArt
1
Joined: 14 Jul 2014, 17:16

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

LookBackTime wrote:Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
· 2h 2 hours ago

#F1 Lotus & Force India to run 2014-spec Mercedes engine at Jerez. Merc AMG & Williams test 2015 upgrade parts. AMuS: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 77520.html
Do you think Williams paid more or that Lotus and Force India were offered a discount from Mercedes HPP? I can't see Mercedes needing to 2014 engines as a baseline so I am thinking that either Lotus and FI didn't want to spend the cash for a power unit that likely isn't going to be the 2015 engine used at Melbourne or that Mercedes didn't want to built more that a few pre-2015 development engines and offered Lotus and Force India a deal 2014-spec units.

LookBackTime
472
Joined: 19 Feb 2013, 20:33

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

My guess:

Mercedes did not have enough time to build 2015 components for all 4 engines!

So, they had to choose.

bonjon1979
30
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 17:16

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

LookBackTime wrote:My guess:

Mercedes did not have enough time to build 2015 components for all 4 engines!

So, they had to choose.
I imagine they'll be doing back to back testing. Comparing new engines versus the old, getting all the data they can to see what differences there are in the real world to base a decision on whether or not to go with the upgraded parts from the start of the season or whether to have more development time.

User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: 25 May 2010, 17:41
Location: European Union

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

LookBackTime wrote:My guess:

Mercedes did not have enough time to build 2015 components for all 4 engines!

So, they had to choose.
especially when they changed their plan because of the "FIA unused token ruling for Honda"
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

User avatar
Cuky
65
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 19:41
Location: Rab, Croatia

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

ParkerArt wrote:
LookBackTime wrote:Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
· 2h 2 hours ago

#F1 Lotus & Force India to run 2014-spec Mercedes engine at Jerez. Merc AMG & Williams test 2015 upgrade parts. AMuS: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 77520.html
Do you think Williams paid more or that Lotus and Force India were offered a discount from Mercedes HPP? I can't see Mercedes needing to 2014 engines as a baseline so I am thinking that either Lotus and FI didn't want to spend the cash for a power unit that likely isn't going to be the 2015 engine used at Melbourne or that Mercedes didn't want to built more that a few pre-2015 development engines and offered Lotus and Force India a deal 2014-spec units.

Well, Force India will run VJM07 at first test. It is easier to just use 2014 PU in 2014 car than to modify 2014 car for 2015 PU for one test. And if you consider that there were rumors that Force India was in financial problems last year it makes sense. As for Lotus, I don't have a clue why they would be running with 2014 PU

User avatar
Intego
10
Joined: 01 Apr 2010, 16:35

Re: Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

Post

Maybe to compare last year's Merc PU with Renault's PU, then compare last year's with this year's Merc PU ...
"Posts targeted only at expressing favouritism or dislike towards people are treated as spam. They can hence be deleted without notice and could invoke a warning to the poster." f1technical forum rules

Locked