Mercedes AMG F1 W03

[Coefficient]

Looks like you were wrong after all Rikhart. Better get some new glasses!! [/quote]




Look, if you think those two pics show the same thing, not sure what to say. Not to mention that if you actually understand how the supposed system works, you´d know that (hydraulic actuator?) hole has nothing to do with it... It has to be all along the wing, to stall it... Not a hole that would blow zero air on the wing, because of the forward velocity of the car.

Something like this:

[/quote]

They aren't trying to stall the main plain with those holes Rikhart. They are trying to force air into them and channel it through the end plates down into the beam wing which is then either being stalled or used as a tunnel to send air flow into the tube above the crash structure and forward towards the front wing. It is unclear which.

I think we all know that those holes in the end plates that are covered by the flap when closed can't stall the main plane of the rear wing. Anyway, why would they need to because the short cord flap can stall the main plane pretty well when open.

The hole in the endplates have been visible in photos for days now and if you can't agree you're just being pig headed.

[retpog55]

What is that black area about a foot below the peak of the fin and directly above the AMG logo? Not noticed it before although it looks like some sort of a sensor. Also the bodywork looks much more sculpted than we saw in testing.

[Coefficient]

What is that black area about a foot below the peak of the fin? Not noticed it before but it looks like some sort of opening or exit.

If someone could point to the area i mean that would be great, if its old news then apologies and just ignore.

Do you mean the secondary inlet behind the T camera? If so, this is to cool gearbox oil radiator I believe.

[bonjon1979]

I find it hilarious so many people are adamant on whether it's the hole or the shadow, "I'm sure", "You're just plain wrong", etc.!

Really? 100% sure? Wow. I hope you are not engineers.

Yes - there are times that you can be a 100% sure. This was one of them.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98085

[retpog55]

No it sits on top of the AMG logo on the bodywork. It looks more like something sticking out of the side of the car. I think its just a sensor now that i have looked a bit closer.

[issues4]

No it sits on top of the AMG logo on the bodywork. It looks more like something sticking out of the side of the car. I think its just a sensor now that i have looked a bit closer.

it is a camera

[elf341]

I find it hilarious so many people are adamant on whether it's the hole or the shadow, "I'm sure", "You're just plain wrong", etc.!

Really? 100% sure? Wow. I hope you are not engineers.

Yes - there are times that you can be a 100% sure. This was one of them.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98085

No it wasn't. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. The point is that from that initial blurry image it just wasn't clear whether it was a hole or not. With the higher resolution image that came out afterwards it became more clear.

The guy implied he was 100% sure from a blurry image, do you think he would have bet his family's life on him being correct? Probably not. So he's not 100% sure.

I'm making this point to help people. You will be more successful in life if you question your assumptions. Things are rarely 100% clear in the moment, and even after the moment - and there are very very few truly obvious things. At university, one of my mathematics lecturers had a mantra: "something is obvious if a proof springs immediately to mind".

History is littered with catastrophic failures both from engineering, and otherwise, caused by men who could not suppose that their gut feeling hypothesis was anything but the truth.

[Med4224]

[quote="elf341"][/quote]


I see a mod crusade coming soon...

[shelly]

Something like this:

[/quote]

Reading scarbs' twitter reminded me of the existence of a minimum radius rule on rear wing cross section ( the one that caught out Sauber in Oz last year).

Wouldn't this rule ban any shape like that?

[siskue2005]

Something like this:

Reading scarbs' twitter reminded me of the existence of a minimum radius rule on rear wing cross section ( the one that caught out Sauber in Oz last year).

Wouldn't this rule ban any shape like that?[/quote]
Yes, this kinda shape of the wing is banned IMHO
I think autosport has got it wrong again

[bosanac1]

other then slight boost in qualifying this seems to be overblown in media

during p1 when f1 live timing was sorta working mercedes weren't setting crazy fast speed traps as some were reporting they would

[Pup]

I think autosport has got it wrong again

And they obviously need a new staff artist.

[siskue2005]

other then slight boost in qualifying this seems to be overblown in media

during p1 when f1 live timing was sorta working mercedes weren't setting crazy fast speed traps as some were reporting they would

Or they could be trading top speed for more downforce
Just like what mclaren did in 2010

[___]

Something like this:

Reading scarbs' twitter reminded me of the existence of a minimum radius rule on rear wing cross section ( the one that caught out Sauber in Oz last year).

Wouldn't this rule ban any shape like that?

Interesting...

FIA Technical Regulations Article 3.10.2:

With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section in accordance with Article 3.18 :
- when viewed from the side of the car, no longitudinal vertical cross section may have more than two sections in this area, each of which must be closed.
- 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 think you could successfully argue that the concave radii in a void like that are not in contact with the external flow. If that was rejected, it would be impossible for the section to both be closed and to have concave radii that aren't exposed to the external flow, so the second part of the article would be redundant.

[onewingedangel]

Or they could be trading top speed for more downforce
Just like what mclaren did in 2010

That would leave them down on straight line speed in the race when DRS cannot be used - In 2010, use of the F-Duct was unrestricted.