Mercedes GP MGP W01

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

JohnsonsEvilTwin, why would anyone choose any part with more drag unless it gives a load more downforce?

You honestly don't have any idea what you're on about. A high nose like other teams can be analysed in a few minutes in the wind-tunnel so if it was better, it would have been implemented.
What is people's obsession with the nose design?

Why do you suggest the Merc nose creates more drag?
How about the McLaren front? What about the area under their nose that tries to replicate the effect of the Merc nose?

F1 ENG

Thanks for the understanding you demonstrated in your post.

I was being sarcastic F1 ENG,

But of course, I will blow your little bubble down. How is it that the Mercedes W01 has the same top speed as that of the RB6 yet has a more powerful engine?

Additionally how is it that the RB6 has massive levels of downforce compared to the W01?

Drag does not equal downforce! You saying I dont have a clue what Im on about is testament to you not having the slightest inkling of aero.
It boilds down to efficiency. I wont bore you with math, but the first thing about getting downforce at speed is to try get it with as low a drag profile as POSSIBLE.

Can you tell me what works on the W01's nose? It appears to have a drag profile that isnt doing anything to help with the bakance of the car. I was discussing this with Marcush until you decided to lambast me, and I was bouncing an idea/opinion/thought.

Thanks for nothing

[F1_eng]

Please,do bore me with the math. After all, its what I've liked to use most of my working life.
You never know, I might learn something.

Aero is not purely about raw numbers, it also involves the change in the forces relative to the attitude of the car.
You know damn well i can't discuss the workings of specific components.
Give me any evidence that the nose is causing any problems.

There are numerous reasons why the speeds could be the same with different engines. If you have more power its possible to run more rear wing, equalzing straight speed whilst gaining overall downforce relatively.

[autogyro]

Oh dear F1_eng, egos seem to have taken over this thread again.
I wonder if this common habit within F1 is the one thing that will be the end of the sport.
I still think the springs are to hard.
Guess what I dont need any clues as to whether I am right or wrong either.
Matters not a jot to me, I dont need a job.

If DF was seriously limited and aero relegated to the dusbin of history where it belongs, I am sure there would be far less bullsh-- in F1 and perhaps more relevent engineering.

[F1_eng]

agree,that is the kind i enjoy the most.

[marcush.]

please guys we agree that we don´t agree ..

to me the merc nose looks different to what is on the fastest cars and if anything this shape might produce a bit of downforce on its own ,compared with the flat shape we see on the redbull.
If the redbull is able to create a cleaner path of airflow to the sidepods and undertray ...who knows ? but obviously the merc has something not working as intended at the front.
With the strakes or gurneys they attached and repositioned already it seems likely
that Mercedes sees an aero theme .
I say their problem is not only aero they got a weight distribution /CG height issue which is hurting them even more.This is in my view also reflected by the hard springs they use..

I´m looking forward to see if we will see a new and different nose shape this year and of course if the merc will be able to close the gap with or without this.

[bugref]

I agree with you. marcus, among the top four it seems merc have a design flaw, look at redbull ferrari and maclaren their nose concepts seems to have similar approach. and only merc is different and only merc is the slowest of them all. and only merc has a lot of problem in terms of its driveability.
The only factor that save them to be at the top four is that they have a strong engine that give them speed.

[ringo]

Driver's backside is basically on the splitter, weight a little too forward? and transition from the nose to splitter is very low to the ground. Whereas red bull has less bodywork on the splitter with the driver's legs higher and body back more into the car.



I think basically the Mercedes has too much bulk in that region ahead of the cockpit. Could be an overcompensation by the designers to lower COG and shift weight to the front or to keep wheelbase short as possible.

Compare to this as well.

Nose seems much thinner on the redbull and splitter has a narrow bow compared to the bulky one on the merc.

I say If you can't beat them, join them to beat them.

photshoped nose:

[marcush.]

I always had the idea that you want to avoid converging airflows between front tyres
and this is achieved by raising the tub .
So with the short wheelbase car Merc effectively might have moved the keel area into
this area causing convergence instead of freeflow conditions?
Astheir car is so short a move of the front tyres forward by say 50mm should help

[djones]

To blame the nose is a silly mistake IMO.

For all we know that nose is better than the rest of them and by some considerable margin.

It could be suspension, driver location or loads of things causing the issues.

[horse]

To blame the nose is a silly mistake IMO.

For all we know that nose is better than the rest of them and by some considerable margin.

It could be suspension, driver location or loads of things causing the issues.

+1

I agree with you here. I remember last year some people were going on about how the low brawn nose was so draggy that there was no way they could win on low downforce tracks. Then both cars cream the field at Monza.

I'm afraid it's very hard to infer aero performance from aesthetics alone.

[raymondu999]

photshoped nose:

Looks more like a Macca nose to me that way though

Also, I'm not sure if this was already discussed here (couldn't find it in the thread) but there never was that super diffuser was there? And it looks like the front/rear wings are just almost exactly taken off last year's car.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

F1 ENG

I floated the idea. I was in discussion with marcush about camber and contact patches at the time and gave my thoughts on the nose. You came in way over the top with your "you dont know what your talking about" line.
I was respomding as much to that as the rest of your post.

Also how is it Red Bull has MORE DOWNFORCE and LESS POWER but the SAME TOP SPEED?
AERO EFFIECENCY.
For every gram of down force pressure applied there is a drag signature. But, theere are varying degrees of of this. This brings me to my point with the W01 nose.

I readily admit I dont know the numbers, but when you see a Red Bull go 1.8 seconds a lap(based on fastest time) quicker at Bahrain with similar downforce setups, you have to pose the question no?

[autogyro]

Not if it is spring rate you dont.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Autogyro

So its the spring rate then?

[Raptor22]

speed through the trap could be a result of more than just aero efficiency.

ever though about gearing?

traction?

perhaps they have a chassis stiffness issue.

Theres so much that could influence how the car is able to gets its engines torque and power down to enable a speed through the trap. perhaps the red bull gets its power down earlier, perhaps its power delivery is smoother then the Merc's

also, all this conclusive talk about the Renault being under powered, you sure about that and by how much? Ok so Monza last year was something of a talk generating point but has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps the Renault was de-tuned for that race because they have a reliability issue? Long running at full throttle would expose that issue. Perhaps its cam shaft wear related.

Back to the Merc.

I would hazard a guess they don;t have their front suspension geometry optimised for the narrower front tyre. I doubt the nose cone has anything to do with their alleged handling problem