Mercedes W13

[pierrre]

People earlier were posting pics of Mercs floor and comparing it to Red Bull's. Can someone post a pic of Red Bull's floor for the side by side comparison?

Here you go:



Merc on the left, Red Bull on the right.

Edit: Right click and open in new tab to see full image resolution. The Merc image was rather low res compared to the Red Bull's photo, but I did enlarge the Merc's to the Bull's resolution.

your images?

[atanatizante]

In this regard, Ferrari success may be misleading. Ferrari has porpoising, but their concave sidepods (and underbody) is less susceptible to porpoising ups and downs as it might absorb some of the detached flow better, thus creating less drag. Something that is exacerbated in the Mercedes by the excess of suspension work and the center of gravity being placed further down, rather than the sidepods themselves.

I do not think that Mercedes has a lower center of gravity than Ferrari. On the contrary, Ferrari has way less mass behind the airscope and all radiators are generally positioned lower than Mercedes.

Regs are stating that is mandatory to have the mass distribution 44.5% at the front axel and only 54% at the rear, leaving a mass of some 12kg liberty ....

[atanatizante]

So if they have placed a sensor in the T tray then what are these devices?

[VacuousFlamboyant]

So if they have placed a sensor in the T tray then what are these devices?

http://postimg.cc/hz6Y0HGH

http://postimg.cc/mtGX231N

James gave an interview. It's another high precision laser ride height sensor from what I could gather. Given its position, it's either measuring uplift, floor pitch, or spring deflection, suspension work. Longitudinal, vertical and transverse dynamics. (Though, it's far off the front axle considering the usual "absolute" precision range of these devices).

[GrizzleBoy]

Can anyone explain to me how the semi circular bulge into the floor from the lower side impact structure is not a super rough implementation of whatever it is supposed to be?

It just looks so ugly to my super amateur armchair eyeball aero.

Is there any reason why it would be worse for them to have created a more streamlined shape that tapers a little into the normal coke bottle shape instead of basically being what looks like a big pringles can awkwardly sunk into the side of the car?

I understand why the front side of it needs to bulge out to create the outwash theyre looking for, but why the back of it too?

[Femi]

Please consider me as a tiny midget in a room full of elephants here. I recall reading that this phenomenon could not be simulated or detected via standard simulation tools. Do you guys think with these type and volume of data gathering - using this sensor and others, they should be in a stronger position to overcome this limitation?

[matteosc]

In this regard, Ferrari success may be misleading. Ferrari has porpoising, but their concave sidepods (and underbody) is less susceptible to porpoising ups and downs as it might absorb some of the detached flow better, thus creating less drag. Something that is exacerbated in the Mercedes by the excess of suspension work and the center of gravity being placed further down, rather than the sidepods themselves.

I do not think that Mercedes has a lower center of gravity than Ferrari. On the contrary, Ferrari has way less mass behind the airscope and all radiators are generally positioned lower than Mercedes.

Regs are stating that is mandatory to have the mass distribution 44.5% at the front axel and only 54% at the rear, leaving a mass of some 12kg liberty ....

Not sure of what you mean. I was talking about COG height, not front/back positioning.

[Eagertolearn]

At some point I was wondering why the metal piece in the T-tray wouldn't cool down over half a lap. It's a sensor, that's why. You got to wear a sheet of metal over your head to see it. I want to believe! The high-res images gave it away.

I also belive it's a sensor, they said that to equally distribute the added weight of the sensors that Lewis and Russel had various sensors shared between them, so maybe LH had this sensor in front while Russel had other sensors on different areas, that would enable Mercedes to correlate the data. It's a odd place to have a sensor but I think is the right place to catch the moment porpoising comes into effect at high speed. Fingers crossed they are doing the right things.

[Big Tea]

At some point I was wondering why the metal piece in the T-tray wouldn't cool down over half a lap. It's a sensor, that's why. You got to wear a sheet of metal over your head to see it. I want to believe! The high-res images gave it away.

I also belive it's a sensor, they said that to equally distribute the added weight of the sensors that Lewis and Russel had various sensors shared between them, so maybe LH had this sensor in front while Russel had other sensors on different areas, that would enable Mercedes to correlate the data. It's a odd place to have a sensor but I think is the right place to catch the moment porpoising comes into effect at high speed. Fingers crossed they are doing the right things.

It would be far more effective to have all the sensors on the same car, that way data from each can be compared accurately in distance and time.

[Stu]

Two sensors for ride height (with a decent frequency) would be all that is required for front/rear ride height results. I would expect the cars to be carrying these anyway.

[AR3-GP]

I have gotten the impression that Mercedes typically run these sensors, but with their overweight situation, many sensors have suddenly become optional.

You should always be running with a ride height sensor.

[pursue_one's]

Interesting video.

[ing.]

Two sensors for ride height (with a decent frequency) would be all that is required for front/rear ride height results. I would expect the cars to be carrying these anyway.

Right. The outrigged sensors on the outer edges of the floor, ahead of the rear tires, are likely used to measure the relative displacement of the floor (from the main body) and also its vibration phasing.

Thinking a bit outside the box on the phasing, it wouldn’t be too far fetched to imagine the addition of some weights here that—in conjunction with the inherent stiffness and damping coefficient of the floor structure—could act as a mass damper with benefits to floor sealing and minimizing the bouncing. Though with the car already at/over the weight limit a suitable mass would probably be counterproductive.

[PlatinumZealot]

To be a mass damper the floor has to vibrate in opposite phase to the air flow vibrations which is impossible because the two are inextricably linked.

Something else has to be the mass damper and you can imagine it will be some big amount of weight to push the car down when the car wants to bounce upward.

You could make one out of a cantilevered weight in the sidepods but it could constitute a moving part. Mass dampers are banned anyway.

[Big Tea]

To be a mass damper the floor has to vibrate in opposite phase to the air flow vibrations which is impossible because the two are inextricably linked.

Something else has to be the mass damper and you can imagine it will be some big amount of weight to push the car down when the car wants to bounce upward.

You could make one out of a cantilevered weight in the sidepods but it could constitute a moving part. Mass dampers are banned anyway.

Is there not some way of redirecting an air stream when a floor edge flexes? If it let just enough escape would it not counteract the downward movement until next time it was back at that level?

This would than not be a mass damper or movable aero as it is not moved.