Mercedes AMG F1 W03

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.
Post Reply
Tatsu333
0
Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 18:32

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Nickel wrote:
forty-two wrote: I was merely saying that if the system works as I and Pup suspect, when the DRS opens, it allows air to bleed out via the endplate(s), but normally would be higher pressure.

This means that under normal (i.e. DRS not active) conditons, the air would have to go somewhere else, so I asked the question, where could you send relatively high pressure air to AID downforce rather than reduce downforce (drag).
I've been following yours and Pup's idea and thinking about it and am having trouble understanding how the holes exposed by drs activation could allow air to bleed out. The slots in the endplate are to allow vortices created by the rear wing to bleed out the endplates. This leads me to the assumption that just inboard of the endplates, air tries to move outwards (through the endplate) rather violently. Air coming out of the hole exposed by drs would need to have quite a bit of force to it no?

Just trying to keep up with an interesting train of thought.
HA - I had completely forgotten about that (the slots being used to prevent vortices, and the implication that may have about direction of flow along/towards the endplate)! One thought though, looking at the images of the W03's rear wing - the endplate slots are quite high above the main plane, which suggests that maybe they are helping to bleeding out excess air volume ABOVE the stream that is flowing directly over the surface of the wing, rather than flow spilling laterally off the wing surface itself.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

___ wrote:Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.
1) With my use of facets, I am not making a claim of infinite precision to satisfy the rule. It is you challenging my interpretation that is calling for the use of infinite precision. I assume you are not the ones trying to circumvent the rules, correct?

2) Now the for the stewards point of view: While you are correct to bring up the radius requirement, the stewards know that the radius rule is concerned with the exterior wing shape. If the rules want to restrict openings in the wing then it would simply state that. They are going to view the use of facets as a reasonable way to accomplish a activity not banned outright in the rules.

Brian

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Harding. A "manufacturable edge" or "manufacturable corner" has a radius. Even if it is a corner. To be theoritcal corner is considered zero radius. Even if the angle between the facets is 179 degrees.. and that would still turn into an arc of a circle.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

'No part of these longitudinal cross sections in contact with the external air stream may
have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.'

I just noted this, the rule states concave radius. Why can I not construct the duct with convex surface? Say a round tube, I access the wing surface with parallel walled slot.

Brian

Crucial_Xtreme
404
Joined: 16 Oct 2011, 00:13
Location: Charlotte

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

FW. right click>view image Is it the slots or the covered up taped parts

Image



RW
Image

under floor
Image

kenny5
0
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:54

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Is the double diffuser gone??

--or just not visible from this angle ??
Last edited by Steven on 17 Mar 2012, 10:59, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed quoted post right above

skgoa
3
Joined: 19 Feb 2012, 14:20

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

It's visible below the crash structure... what are you on about? :D

___
___
5
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 01:51

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:'No part of these longitudinal cross sections in contact with the external air stream may
have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.'

I just noted this, the rule states concave radius. Why can I not construct the duct with convex surface? Say a round tube, I access the wing surface with parallel walled slot.

Brian
The inside of a tube is concave... if you "access" it then it's part of the section.

Tatsu333
0
Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 18:32

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Lotus and Red Bull are apparently both asking the FIA for clarification on the legality of the W03's F-duct (however it works!), and Lotus is protesting the qualifying results - not at all unexpected, really. McLaren have apparently said that they agree with the ruling that Mercedes' interpretation is legal (again, not really unexpected, considering their relationship with Mercedes). However the system(s) work, the W03 looked absolutely planted in corners!

The top flap of the rear wing looked taller to me than last year, or at least it didn't seem to "disappear" as much as it did with the DRS activated as on the W02. If true, that would suggest it may be the top flap that they are seeing the additional drag reduction on with the F-duct, meaning the wing holes are exits that serve an active aero purpose - E.G. creating turbulence at the outer edges of the flap plane to reduce drag, rather than just acting as a switch.

The other thing I found interesting is looking at that shot of the rear wing in Crucial's post above, look at the outer ends of the trailing edge of the beam wing - they almost look perforated. Could that be how they are blowing it? I can't imagine how that would work though in terms of aero benefit.

EDIT: Having zoomed in on the rear wing image, the "perforation" is just an optical illusion from the carbon weave - never mind!

Anyone else have any other ideas or feedback, having now seen the cars run in anger?

nacho
6
Joined: 04 Sep 2009, 08:38

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Are those two tubes going inside to the crash structure?

Tatsu333
0
Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 18:32

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Also from Crucial's front wing image above, I see no evidence of slots in the bottom of the front wing. The tape is likely just tape covering the bolt heads that secure the wing to the mounting posts, and the cascades, etc. to the wing - based on the location of all of them, that would make sense to me.

This suggests that if they are indeed doing anything with the front wing, it is not stalling it using the traditional F-duct style of a blown slot on the bottom of the wing.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

___ wrote:The inside of a tube is concave... if you "access" it then it's part of the section.
Yes, that is correct.

Then I propose that the channel be made of two shallow concave walls )( connected at the top and/or bottom by a straight line. This guaranties a point is formed at the junction satisfying your every corner has a radius. Or does every point have a radius now?

Brian

PhillipM
385
Joined: 16 May 2011, 15:18
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

Every manufacturable point does, yes.

Or are you racing an imaginary car?

Tatsu333
0
Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 18:32

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:'No part of these longitudinal cross sections in contact with the external air stream may
have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.'

I just noted this, the rule states concave radius. Why can I not construct the duct with convex surface? Say a round tube, I access the wing surface with parallel walled slot.

Brian
I think the argument is that regardless of the shape of the opening itself, the fact that there is an opening at all makes all the interior surfaces of a hollow wing structure technically "in contact with the external air stream", and you couldn't manufacture a wing of small enough construction to be practical that would satisfy the concave radius requirement.

Tatsu333
0
Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 18:32

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03

Post

This would then also rule out any type of opening in the rear wing planes outside of the central 15 cm of width. A hole of any size or shape, never mind a slot, would expose the internal surfaces of the wing to the external airstream if you interpreted the rule that way.

The rule basically limits the functionality of using the internal volume of the rear wing planes (including the beam wing) for any purpose other than structure or...connecting to spaces in the endplates or mounting points - like maybe a duct or two! :)
Last edited by Tatsu333 on 17 Mar 2012, 10:30, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply