Mercedes AMG F1 W05

[bhall]

The CFD pics are great and very informative but I can't help but wonder why they don't have the tyres pointing at the correct angle for the rate of turn being simulated given their goal of doing such an exercise. What about tyre deformation?

Sauber released those pictures a couple of years ago. I used them to somewhat show the general flow characteristics of a car in yaw so you could see how flow changes over the front wing. If you look at the rear of the car in the second picture, you can tell they actually come from a steady-state simulation of diagonal air flow. I don't think any team would release anything more specific than that, though, because it would give away too much.

The car is in a simulated left turn. Note how the pressure drops on the right side of the front wing throughout the turn. That's right where you need it.

http://i.imgur.com/CVCP7hH.png

I have problems with this statement. I'd rather help unloaded wheel (inside = left). Maybe I'm not getting something.

Even though the right side of the wing gets more downforce, it's transmitted through the wing pylons to the nose/chassis of the car, and I'm afraid a more positive front-end in general is about as good as it gets. For now. Who knows what they'll do next?

A very nice insight into this (clearly I must have raddled the cages for you with that post in the voting system topic )!

[...]

Not at all. Just sharing what I've picked up around here over the years.

And everything you mentioned is why this is difficult to do. Ferrari, for one, has yet to make it work. The job was made even more difficult this year with the introduction of narrowed wings.

I think this all came out of research and development into outwash wings starting in 2009, of which Brawn GP, now Mercedes AMG Petronas, was a leading innovator. (While debatable, I actually believe the BGP 001's front wing was probably more instrumental to the car's success than was its double-diffuser.)

[turbof1]

I think this all came out of research and development into outwash wings starting in 2009, of which Brawn GP, now Mercedes AMG Petronas, was a leading innovator. (While debatable, I actually believe the BGP 001's front wing was probably more instrumental to the car's success than was its double-diffuser.)

IMO, they clearly are ahead in terms of controlling the wheel wake. Originally I wasn't intending on focussing so much attention to that in my article, but when I began to draw up the wing and burden myself in the details of the wing, I just came across one solution (to wheel wake) after another.

Currently I'm drawing up the ferrari wing. While they took enormously care to the details, they are using more elements and far more agressively have to bend the endplate. This tells me Ferrari has a lot more trouble with getting the airflow around the tyre, as ferrari handles the tyre wake more "en masse" compared to mercedes path of small details at the front wing.

[Per]

But don't you guys think the time you win on the straight due to drag reduction is lost due to longer braking distance, if you reduce the downforce using the tyre turbulence? I didn't do the math but this feels like a serious disadvantage for me.

I really like the theory in itself by the way, great effort.

[bhall]

You still have downforce from the floor/diffuser and the rear wing. I also think trail braking likely tends to preserve the effect as well. Additionally, the wheels' influence on the wing progressively diminishes as their rotation slows under braking.

These are all reasons why this is such a dynamic system that's difficult to master. I imagine research directed toward quickly re-attaching air flow to the rear wing after DRS deployment has been an immeasurable help here.

And to be fair, this concept is not exclusive to Mercedes. I just think they probably do it a bit better than most of the other teams.

[PlatinumZealot]

Steven got around posting my analysis of the mercedes front wing:
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19180

If I got anything wrong, please please let me know!

I was expecting to hear about vortices, and more flow visuals.Interaction with the nose etc.
The bit with end-plate less wing as you put it.... was a bit shady... a big claim too...

[dren]

I would think you'd want to minimize the change in DF during turns to keep the car as neutral as possible. I'd think you would thus want minimal changes from straight to turn. The FRIC system should help keep the attitude of the car stable at varioius speeds and possibly through turns, too.

The front tires will have less and less affect on the front wing when the front wing diverts more flow away from them.

[dren]

Steven got around posting my analysis of the mercedes front wing:
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19180

If I got anything wrong, please please let me know!

I was expecting to hear about vortices, and more flow visuals.Interaction with the nose etc.
The bit with end-plate less wing as you put it.... was a bit shady... a big claim too...

The end plate looks to do something similar to the bleed flaps on the rear wing where it bleeds boundry layer on the edges to allow full use of the rear wing length. The end of the front wing curls creating sidewash along with the upwash to force the air around the front tires. You bleed air on top of the wing outside of the endplates to allow you use of the full length of the wing without hindrance from endplate boundry layers. That is all a guess on my part.

[turbof1]

Steven got around posting my analysis of the mercedes front wing:
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19180

If I got anything wrong, please please let me know!

I was expecting to hear about vortices, and more flow visuals.Interaction with the nose etc.
The bit with end-plate less wing as you put it.... was a bit shady... a big claim too...

What's shady about it? This is fairly common knowledge; I believe the term dates back from 2010 and the concept since then has been evolved. It certainly does NOT mean teams don't use an endplate, they would not conform with the rules if they intentionally left it out, but it's what the article said: the wing does most of the work, diverting air away from the tyre. There's nothing shady about that: I explained in detail throughout the article why that is

I can't do more about vortices. If I was going to claim a vortex on every sharp edge, now that would be wild guessing. I don't have access to cfd. I did cover the basics.

n-smikle, I can take critical response, as long as its structured and has content. Just saying it's "shady" and "big claim" is more of an attack then trying to actually help making the whole better.

I did ask a few people to check the article for things that might be defying the truth or that might come across as big claims, before the article got posted.

[smlbstcbr]

But don't you guys think the time you win on the straight due to drag reduction is lost due to longer braking distance, if you reduce the downforce using the tyre turbulence? I didn't do the math but this feels like a serious disadvantage for me.

I really like the theory in itself by the way, great effort.

I think the braking power has been increased. The ERS acts like a brake in parallel with the carbon discs, hence the need to use a brake-by-wire to allow the computer to calculate the braking pressure and the energy that will be harvested from the wheels in a particular setup.

[Tim.Wright]

Braking power is limited by the tyres, so its going to be about the same as its always been.

[Owen.C93]

Braking power is limited by the tyres, so its going to be about the same as its always been.

Below are certain speed.

[The_Mauler]

Braking power is limited by the tyres, so its going to be about the same as its always been.

The tyres does not limit braking power, it limits braking distance!

[Just_a_fan]

The tyres does not limit braking power, it limits braking distance!

Power is the rate of doing work. If you can't brake as quickly then you can not generate the same braking power. Thus the tyres limit the braking power. Simple.

[smlbstcbr]

The tyres does not limit braking power, it limits braking distance!

Power is the rate of doing work. If you can't brake as quickly then you can not generate the same braking power. Thus the tyres limit the braking power. Simple.

I think it is a too simple assumption. For example, what if the tyres are good but the track is made of ice? The friction coefficient between the track and the contact patch of the tyre is what limits the brake distance a priori. Then you have to consider that the friction coefficient may or may not change with the normal force the tyre is putting on the track and then there's the applied force to the brakes by the drivers: too much and the wheels will lock:


Now, we haven't heard anything related to the tyres being the problem with the new brakes. The problem is the brake-by-wire, which seems to be too tough.

[PlatinumZealot]

Steven got around posting my analysis of the mercedes front wing:
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19180

If I got anything wrong, please please let me know!

I was expecting to hear about vortices, and more flow visuals.Interaction with the nose etc.
The bit with end-plate less wing as you put it.... was a bit shady... a big claim too...

What's shady about it? This is fairly common knowledge; I believe the term dates back from 2010 and the concept since then has been evolved. It certainly does NOT mean teams don't use an endplate, they would not conform with the rules if they intentionally left it out, but it's what the article said: the wing does most of the work, diverting air away from the tyre. There's nothing shady about that: I explained in detail throughout the article why that is

I can't do more about vortices. If I was going to claim a vortex on every sharp edge, now that would be wild guessing. I don't have access to cfd. I did cover the basics.

n-smikle, I can take critical response, as long as its structured and has content. Just saying it's "shady" and "big claim" is more of an attack then trying to actually help making the whole better.

I did ask a few people to check the article for things that might be defying the truth or that might come across as big claims, before the article got posted.

I meant to say cloudy not shady. One some cars, each of the of the upper flaps have their own end plates. So saying end-plate design got me puzzled.