W06 Front Wing Discussion

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

This concept isn't targetting or adressing ground effect or running the wing too close to the ground. Rather it handles tyre wake, on the inside of the tyre to be precise. Trinidefender explained a lot of this airflow goes to the brake ducts, and sidepods. The cleaner the airflow is, the more efficient cooling is. Better cooling means less brake ducts area needs to be used for cooling, means more can be used for aero. Same with sidepod inlets.

However, and I think this is perhaps the main objective, the better control over the tyre wake means the wing is less prone to stalling. It makes the wing work more consistent. Less tyre wake also means less wheel drag. Wheel drag amounts for 40% of the total car drag, so teams are constantly looking at nipping away at this.
#AeroFrodo

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

For those who know fluid dynamics.... A Square shaped duct on curved path does one thing and that thing it does very gooooood...

guess!
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

User avatar
cirrusflyer
3
Joined: 18 Feb 2011, 19:17

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:For those who know fluid dynamics.... A Square shaped duct on curved path does one thing and that thing it does very gooooood...

guess!
Does what?
I know nothing about fluid dynamics. :roll: Pleas tell.
You are better than Aghata Christie!
If flying were the language of man, soaring would be its poetry.
It's all about technology!
When you go fast, do not hesitate to go faster!

Matt Somers
179
Joined: 19 Mar 2009, 11:33

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
F1.com only comment on what is confirmed so they won't put any tech interpretations in there. I would rate them at 90% credibility. They get most things right most of the time. They were wrong on the Honda Engine layout for example.

Speaking of that... Matt Sommerfield seems to have landed himself a job with Planet F1. No haterade for breakfast today, I have my views on his interpretations, but congrats to him nonetheless on his achievement.
I freelance for many sites, PlanetF1 is now but one of them.. Like everyone I get things wrong from time to time and yes I'll interpret things differently to others. Writing views in a forum is one thing, creating concise articles that a broad audience can understand is another (again something I fail on from time to time). I started this journey trying to expand the amount of people that get tech coverage expands, if I make a few mistakes along the way but inspire people to follow the stuff we all love, so be it. I can't make it pay as a full time endevour (yet) and until I can I only have one foot in the door but please if you have some constructive criticism to offer I'm all ears.

BTW on the F1.com front I have spoken to Giorgio in the past and he finds it highly frustrating but he is only allowed to write so much. He does get things wrong from time to time and probably would openly admit as much too.
Catch me on Twitter https://twitter.com/SomersF1 or the blog http://www.SomersF1.co.uk
I tweet tech images for Sutton Images

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Matt Somers wrote:
PlatinumZealot wrote:
F1.com only comment on what is confirmed so they won't put any tech interpretations in there. I would rate them at 90% credibility. They get most things right most of the time. They were wrong on the Honda Engine layout for example.

Speaking of that... Matt Sommerfield seems to have landed himself a job with Planet F1. No haterade for breakfast today, I have my views on his interpretations, but congrats to him nonetheless on his achievement.
I freelance for many sites, PlanetF1 is now but one of them.. Like everyone I get things wrong from time to time and yes I'll interpret things differently to others. Writing views in a forum is one thing, creating concise articles that a broad audience can understand is another (again something I fail on from time to time). I started this journey trying to expand the amount of people that get tech coverage expands, if I make a few mistakes along the way but inspire people to follow the stuff we all love, so be it. I can't make it pay as a full time endevour (yet) and until I can I only have one foot in the door but please if you have some constructive criticism to offer I'm all ears.

BTW on the F1.com front I have spoken to Giorgio in the past and he finds it highly frustrating but he is only allowed to write so much. He does get things wrong from time to time and probably would openly admit as much too.
Hi Matt, thanks for stopping by.

I don't believe that the risk of getting something wrong should be a reason to stay away from something dary, or to not to write about specific details. I'm compared to you, or Scarbs or Will Tyson relative new to this, but I always felt if you never get to be wrong, you can never learn something in the first place.

There are some people out there who do make a habit of being wrong. Gary Anderson is probably the prime example of a guy who clings on to his beliefs and does not want to see the errors of his opinions. Luckily, I don't spot any of that in your articles, and the fact you are still checking this forums means you are interested enough in other their opinions. Definitely keep that up!

You don't have loads of mistakes. I think I only recently spotted one in your article (planetf1) about this same new front wing, but frankly only about the amount of elements (or as you called them "tiers"). The essence still was correct in my eyes.

F1.com however seems more to be concerned with not making mistakes at all. Maybe the fact they are the official site they can't allow themselves to do that, but I deeply wished they could just allow Giorgio to expand more on the matter. His drawings are too beautiful to be just wasted on a few lines of text. Right, expanding on the matter means more text and a bigger risk to be wrong, but on the hand: why bother if the "analyses" often are limited to "this part changed; it's now more curvy or is differently shaped".
#AeroFrodo

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Matt Somers wrote:
PlatinumZealot wrote:
F1.com only comment on what is confirmed so they won't put any tech interpretations in there. I would rate them at 90% credibility. They get most things right most of the time. They were wrong on the Honda Engine layout for example.

Speaking of that... Matt Sommerfield seems to have landed himself a job with Planet F1. No haterade for breakfast today, I have my views on his interpretations, but congrats to him nonetheless on his achievement.
I freelance for many sites, PlanetF1 is now but one of them.. .....
It's cool. No need for humble explanations to little old me...The work is till good quality. Do your thang.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Matt Somers
179
Joined: 19 Mar 2009, 11:33

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Turbo I won't quote as we're already off topic and taking up forum space but I do pass by from time to time and will comment when I can. I try not to be too controversial as in honesty I don't want to that reputation but occasionally I'll post something that is speculative such as the RBR Mass damped T-Tray etc.

You're quite right on the W06 FW piece btw, I assumed the second section of the mainplane was split into two at the outer edge, rather than checking multiple images.

In terms of F1.com we must remember that English isn't Giorgio's first language but his remit from them is to show what has changed and not why (although he ventures into that territory occasionally). He gets things wrong too and I noted he's has the W06 nose piece removed from the site for that very reason. We must also remember that the site has just changed layout so he may get some more space now the pages have extended. As an aside I'm often editorialised in terms of space too, that's why I started doing the bite size pieces to stay on point and appeal to a broader audience.

Keep up the good work Turbo and let me know if I can help in anyway.
Catch me on Twitter https://twitter.com/SomersF1 or the blog http://www.SomersF1.co.uk
I tweet tech images for Sutton Images

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Matt Somers wrote: You're quite right on the W06 FW piece btw, I assumed the second section of the mainplane was split into two at the outer edge, rather than checking multiple images.
Yes I figured as much. That second section is almost always partially hidden behind other bodywork, being either the endplate, main cascade, or turning vane cascade. The second section is also the broadest, almost twice as broad as any other element. It's quite easy to believe that section too was split up, just like the section right above it.

Does not matter anyway; you were still very much correct on the function of the new wing.
#AeroFrodo

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

cirrusflyer wrote:
PlatinumZealot wrote:For those who know fluid dynamics.... A Square shaped duct on curved path does one thing and that thing it does very gooooood...

guess!
Does what?
I know nothing about fluid dynamics. :roll: Pleas tell.
You are better than Aghata Christie!
A duct of a cross section with squared corners, that is swept on a curved path, has a tendency to creates very strong vortices in the corners as fluid passes through it. It causes more drag though. The wing is not a duct in the strict sense of it, but the fluid will behave similarly.

This is not the ideal diagram, but this is the best I could find.. Ok.. to translate this to the front wing.. The inner radius of the curve would be the curvature of the wing elements so we are ignoring the pink coloured pars..You can see the sharp cornered duct allows a larger cross section.. and it also has a stronger vortex. Engine makers like BMW use square intake runners to aid fuel air mixing in the intake ducts, similar effect.

Image
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

User avatar
cirrusflyer
3
Joined: 18 Feb 2011, 19:17

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

PlatinumZealot thank you!
In picture you posted the tunnel is of the same diameter. What effect will have expanding of a tunnel as on the Merc FW?
Will it lover the pressure and speed up the flow in the tunnel and producing even stronger vortices?
Last edited by cirrusflyer on 15 Apr 2015, 15:57, edited 2 times in total.
If flying were the language of man, soaring would be its poetry.
It's all about technology!
When you go fast, do not hesitate to go faster!

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

cirrusflyer wrote:PlatinumZealot thank you!
In picture you posted the tunnel is of the same diameter. What effect will have expanding of a tunnel as on the Merc FW?
Will it lover the pressure and speed up the flow in the tunnel and producing even stronger vortices?

I am not the best person to ask but I know a little fluid dynamics but It is not my specialty. Formula cars move really fast so the air only spends a short time across the wings unlike inside an Air conditioning duct.

The expansion is reduce the effects of boundary layer growth. (the boundary layer is a result of surface friction), an possible because the elements have to follow the shape of the rest of the wing.

The pressure should increase with the expansion.. but this flow structure is a vortex so the core of the vortex will always be of a lower pressure. Because the elements are so close to the front wheel I have no Idea whether the vortex is deflected to the side to serve some further purpose or merely destroyed against the front wheel.. A CFD would have to be done to really see.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Won't those vortexes not really exist since the wing has so many flaps?
Honda!

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

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

dren wrote:Won't those vortexes not really exist since the wing has so many flaps?
Every edge, curve, channel, or just two flows beside each other, any pressure gradient normal to the flow a vortex will try to form. Just that some vortexes are deliberately made. A huge vortex will be there. It looks like it deflects to the inside of the tyre from the camera angle in the photo.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

Some of the recent analysis of the W06's new front wing doesn't make sense to me. To be fair, though, that may not necessarily be a bad omen for the veracity of the content I've read, quite I'm because nuts frequently.

Nevertheless, a few of my (potentially unfounded) concerns...
GPR-A wrote:Here is what Gary Anderson's take on it.
[...]

As I always say, peak downforce is all very well and good but if it's not consistent, it's no good. The driver can only drive to the troughs of the downforce, because that's what they know is there.

Looking more closely at the front wing, when the car is under braking and turning into the corner, the outer end of it gets very close to the ground. That is why, on many occasions, we see sparks coming from the front-wing endplate.

This can do one of two things to the aerodynamics of the car. This area of the front wing can stall because it just can't get enough airflow to keep the airflow attached to the aerodynamic surfaces and you will lose downforce.

The alternative is that it will increase the downforce by working harder what is called ground effect.

Either of these is not good for aerodynamic consistency, but the latter is the most difficult to work with.

[...]
Maybe on Gary Anderson's home planet actions that could be termed "inconsistent" and "variable" are also considered synonymous. But, here on planet Earth, there's a significant difference, as it's relatively simple for variation to be consistent and advantageous.

For instance, a car that produces more downforce through turns than it does along straights can be driven more quickly around a circuit than a car whose relationship with downforce is a linear one, based solely on airspeed, expressly because such variation in downforce levels will inherently reduce drag where downforce is unnecessary for performance. The difference in downforce levels can be stark, and I mean huge, but it shouldn't be a real concern for the driver if the variation is nonetheless consistent.

Though I ultimately agree with his conclusion that the new wing seeks to address consistency issues, I feel his analysis unfairly colors the rationale behind the change, which makes it poor analysis in my view. It's not about variations in front wing ride height (aka, pitch-sensitivity); it's about the front wheels. (We'll get to that later.)

That brings us to a more homegrown take on the matter, one bit of it in particular.
Image

Looking at the large vortex generator tunnel (1) at the leading edge of the outer portion of the wing, one can notice it almost has a groove like character travelling up the wing and at the top there is an incision/notch (2). The notch looks similar to the notch you see in the rear wing. Note that this notch lines up with the inside of the wheel. It looks as if it is designed to either create a vortex or create a high velocity "wall" of air going up the inside of the tyre along the front brake duct. It is suspected that this is why Mercedes has placed their front brake duct intake right on top of the carbon fiber plate running along the inside of the tyre.
For the current generation of front wings, I think it's probably helpful if everything that's not constructed in a manner typically associated with "traditional" main planes to be considered part of the end plate. The reason why I think this is important is because it will help us better visualize vortex formation.

The following is excerpted from a paper entitled Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars written, in part, by the most recent head of aerodynamics at Sauber, Willem Toet. (The full paper can be found here.)

Image

Based upon Toet's research and an understanding that "vortex generator tunnels" are functionally part of the end plate, we can see that vortices shed by the front wing will not flow from the trailing edge as suggested by the analysis. Instead, they'll flow from a point on the end plate that intersects with the suction peak on the main plane. That point is well ahead of the trailing edge of the wing, as seen in the following CFD image. Point 2 of the analysis seems to correspond with vortex B.

Image
Aerodynamic interaction of an inverted wing with a rotating wheel, van den Berg, 2007

This is germane, because it contradicts the suggestion that the new wing seeks to create a "wall of air" along the inside of the wheel. Such flow tends to be indicative of all wings with an end plate that's more or less directly in front of a spinning wheel, and the assertion that this is somehow unique to the W06 seems to flavor the rest of the analysis. (At least, that's how I've read it, but I might be wrong.)

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say vortex formation probably occurs somewhere in the vicinity of the area I've denoted with a purple dot below. That assumption is based on the presence of the small slot-gap (yellow dot), which suggests separation might occur earlier if not for the energized flow supplied by that gap.

Image

What does all of this mean? Hell, I'm not even sure if I remember anymore.

Oh...

The 2009 aero formula was meant to create a significant reduction in downforce. That effort failed, in part, because the long wingspan afforded by the rules allowed designers to "dump" everything from the wing outside the wheels and away from the leading edge of the floor, an area where uncontrolled air flow is a serious impediment to underbody aerodynamic efficiency. In fact, I think a reasonable argument could be made that the outwash front wing had a bigger impact on performance than the double-diffuser.

To redress this issue, the FIA redrew the regulations for 2014 in order to place the front wing end plates directly in front of the wheels. Said Adrian Newey on the change...
King Fragility wrote:What sounds like quite a small change, a 75mm reduction in the width of the front wing on each side, has had a big aerodynamic effect.

Previously, the front wing end plate allowed us to put the flow off the tip of the wing outside of the front wheel, but now the front wing end is right in front of the wheel – about the worst possible place. It's not inside or outside, so that means the majority of the flow now stagnates in front of the front wheel. A little bit finds its way outside and the rest comes inside, and in doing so makes quite a mess. The front wheel wake becomes much bigger and that causes all sorts of problems downstream as you approach the side pod and diffuser.
Two development approaches have emerged to solve this problem. I'm only gonna focus on Mercedes' philosophy, because I'm tired of writing, and I'm sure you're tired of reading. (Briefly, Red Bull seems to favor solutions biased toward peak downforce; Mercedes favors consistency.)

The Mercedes solution is actually a continuation of James Allison's work at Lotus in 2012 with the older wings.

Image

The idea seems to be one that attempts to take advantage of the fact that the high-pressure blockage caused by the front wheels is dynamic based upon steering angle. In other words, it moves, and if you shape the wing just right, you can reclaim some of the lost downforce when the wheels are steered out of the way. If so, the functionally-enlarged end plate, or "vortex generator tunnel," dictates the efficacy of the design: the larger the device, the less steering angle required to harness the functionality. I think the new W06 front wing is a further step in that direction.

Image
Image

The cost - oh, there's always a cost - is a reduction in peak downforce potential, because any increase in end plate area is, by necessity, a reduction in effective wingspan. (This is probably why the wing was introduced at a circuit where downforce isn't especially critical.) It also seems to have maybe reduced the area of the inner wing typically devoted to Y250 vortex-generation. If so, I don't necessarily think it will result in a big performance hit, because the "batwing" performs much the same function on this car.

In general, this approach also requires teams to use the areas of relatively low-pressure inside the wheels, which they'd ordinarily prefer to leave alone, because, as we've already discussed, air flow between the wheels tends to screw up underbody efficiency. To combat any potential losses in this area, brake duct winglets can be used to attempt to redirect that air flow outward, behind the wheel.

Image

Williams used similar devices on the FW14.

Image

I have no ending, because I honestly can't remember why I started writing this 18 years ago. :shock:

kooleracer
24
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 16:07

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W06

Post

bhall II wrote:...
Mark Elliot was the head of Aero at LotusF1 in 2012. That same Mark Elliot is now head of Aero for Mercedes. Allison was Technical Director, they manage the resources and make a plan for the year ahead. I'm not sure that Allison would be personally responsible for that concept. But other then that great piece.
Irvine:"If you don't have a good car you can't win it, unless you are Michael or Senna. Lots of guys won in Adrian Newey's cars, big deal. Adrian is the real genius out there, there is Senna, there is Michael and there is Newey.They were the three great talents."

Post Reply