Williams FW40 Mercedes

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
Juzh
196
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by Juzh » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:17 pm

j2004p wrote:
LookBackTime wrote:Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin
I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.
Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?

cramr
4
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:51 am

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by cramr » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:22 pm

Juzh wrote:
j2004p wrote:
LookBackTime wrote:Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin
I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.
Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?
This also means higher moments of inertia (more mass away from the CoG) which is maybe even worse than a higher CoG.

dren
163
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by dren » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:29 pm

Ferraripilot wrote:It looks like the beam wing is missing or only shown partially in certain rear photos.
That's the upper suspension links. With the lower rear wing, it looks like a beam wing in some pictures.
Honda!

Bonker T
1
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:23 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by Bonker T » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:01 pm

Juzh wrote:
j2004p wrote:
LookBackTime wrote:Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin
I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.
Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?
I wonder how much lower they can make the sidepods, because of the crash structure that is already visible at the top end of the sidepod. Is for example Mclaren L shaped side pod still within the crashrules of today?

Scuderia1967
5
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by Scuderia1967 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:21 pm

Bonker T wrote:
Juzh wrote:
j2004p wrote:
I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.
Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?
I wonder how much lower they can make the sidepods, because of the crash structure that is already visible at the top end of the sidepod. Is for example Mclaren L shaped side pod still within the crashrules of today?
I don't think so. In the past few years it wasn't, that's for sure

SectorOne
373
User avatar
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 8:51 am

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by SectorOne » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:00 pm

Is this rule still on? Flow conditioner in the middle of the image.

Image
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

Sevach
479
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by Sevach » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:45 pm

turbof1 wrote:
Ferraripilot wrote:It looks like the beam wing is missing or only shown partially in certain rear photos.
No beam wing allowed this year, so naturally the car is not going to feature one. More can be found and discussed here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =6&t=23606
More interestingly, at this point the car doesn't feature those extensions of bodywork shaped like wings like last years car, it's very clean and zero fuss down there.

tomazy
124
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:01 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by tomazy » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:05 pm

Did anyone here mentioned before the bump inside the cocpit? I dont remmember seeing it there before and I wonder what they are. Maybe they are ther for the drivers to rest there heads in more vertical position in corners becouse of the bigger G-forces this year?

LookBackTime
617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by LookBackTime » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:13 pm

tomazy wrote:Did anyone here mentioned before the bump inside the cocpit? I dont remmember seeing it there before and I wonder what they are. Maybe they are ther for the drivers to rest there heads in more vertical position in corners becouse of the bigger G-forces this year?
Correct! Nothing new. In Indy Car they used it for years. I think Sebastian Vetel had something similar at RB.

My guess: they done it for Lance Stroll. His experience with very high g forces is limited.
It is nice to see this kind of attention to details.

SR71
16
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:23 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by SR71 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:11 pm

New minimum radius rule already allowing massive floor leading edge foils.

Nice.

Image

frosty125
15
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:34 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by frosty125 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:15 pm

The floor looks like it has an unusual shape in certain areas.

Image

Formula Wrong
10
User avatar
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by Formula Wrong » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:48 pm

Thunders wrote: The Barge Board is suspiciously undeveloped. :roll:
Weren't they supposed to be bigger?
If you no longer go for the space someone always has to leave, you're no longer a racing driver

LookBackTime
617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by LookBackTime » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:51 pm

Image

LookBackTime
617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by LookBackTime » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:55 pm

Image

roon
100
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Williams FW40 Mercedes

Post by roon » Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:11 pm

tomazy wrote:There is a black line that almost looks like a slot above Randstad and behind T camera. It doesn't belong to the livery, I wonder what this could be. Testing cant come quick enough, I need pics of the real car hehe
It seems to be T-shaped in cross section. It may be a vortex generator of some sort.

Image

Image

Image


SR71, I think you are on the right track regarding the floor. The simplest way to explain the slope of the floor's leading edge is the new 100mm radius floor edge rule. Looks like its rising by about that amount.