Team: Bob Bell (TD), Norbert Haug (VP of Mercedes-Benz Motorsport), Nick Fry (CEO), Ross Brawn (TP), Geoff Willis (Technology Director), Also Costa (Engineering Director) Drivers: Michael Schumacher (7), Nico Rosberg (8)
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.
Ferraripilot wrote:What I'm ultimately wondering is if the front wing does only work with DRS, but also works passively once a certain pressure is reached. If I had to guess, I would say yes, absolutely. This would yield some straight line speed during a race which is really where it's needed.
Perhaps not. A t-junction between RW air, nose hole air, and FW slot air could function as a sort of air pressure logic gate, with flow ordinarily going to the rear wing. When DRS is active, the flow reverses, anor at least decreases enough that nose hole air goes to the FW slots. Then again, sufficient pressure could blow the FW slots AND the nose cone hole...doing I have no clue what.
A series of such pressure gates could produce a number of these effects, changing airflow over several areas of the car.
Bloody clever...RB again shows his capacity to foster innovation!
So you're saying flow would be constant to the rear wing and only controlled via pressure differences reached between the rear wing with DRS active and/or with certain reached pressures at the front nose inlet say above 'X' predetermined speed or pressure. This would allow the system to work both passively at the front and with DRS. You're right though, the pressure switching mechanism(s) would get complicated
That is how I see it too. But, you would want very quick attachment at the front when braking. I don't know how quick a passive system would reattach.
There is no passive element to this proposed system. The DSR opens and a signal is sent to the nose. With the distance and complicated route that this flow must take to get to the nose, one can question whether it can perform the require signaling function.
It certainly goes not represent a primary air flow source which is still missing. The nose hole is not large enough and of questionable legality as it can only be for driver cooling. A best you could allow some (49%) of the nose hole flow to go the the wing as long as the hole's primary purposes if driver cooling (51%).
At least we now have a possible activation system. Now to find a primary air flow source.
hardingfv32 wrote:There is no passive element to this proposed system. The DSR opens and a signal is sent to the nose. With the distance and complicated route that this flow must take to get to the nose, one can question whether it can perform the require signaling function.
It certainly goes not represent a primary air flow source which is still missing. The nose hole is not large enough and of questionable legality as it can only be for driver cooling. A best you could allow some (49%) of the nose hole flow to go the the wing as long as the hole's primary purposes if driver cooling (51%).
At least we now have a possible activation system. Now to find a primary air flow source.
Brian
McLaren blew the whole RW with a small section of the air box intake which is quite far away. I wonder how big the intake on the nose would have to be to supply enough air to stall small parts of the FW?
Motorsport Graduate in search of team experience ;)
Owen.C93 wrote: I wonder how big the intake on the nose would have to be to supply enough air to stall small parts of the FW?
This is being proposed as a way to balance the car when the DRS is open during the unlimited usage period of qualifying. I would say you are looking for a major affect on the front wing to counter the loss of down-force when the DRS is open. It is going to take a major air source to kill the front wing to match the rear wing. Or maybe something is better than nothing in this case.
The inlets for the f-ducts of two years ago were not that large. You do not need massive openings to supply the air.
In this case, you do not need a fluidic switch/signal because the DRS mechanism is the switch. The duct is rather large at the back, so perhaps this is supplying all the air that is needed to stall the front wing. The nose inlet would then be for only driver cooling.
Or, like what was posted, there could be a passive front wing system along with a DRS system as well.
dren wrote:The inlets for the f-ducts of two years ago were not that large. You do not need massive openings to supply the air.
In this case, you do not need a fluidic switch/signal because the DRS mechanism is the switch. The duct is rather large at the back, so perhaps this is supplying all the air that is needed to stall the front wing. The nose inlet would then be for only driver cooling.
Or, like what was posted, there could be a passive front wing system along with a DRS system as well.
The best you can hope from the DRS wing source is a signal circuit. Even that can to called into question with a some fluid dynamics calculations. I count 5 or 6 90 deg bends just in the rear and front wings that the air flow must navigate. How many more are possible in the route between the wings? Every 90 deg bend reduces velocity 25%.
A passive system requires a switching system that still has not been demonstrated. The best you can possible hope for with a passive switch is a system that has variable flow from open to close.
The point of this recent Scarbs proposal is to compensate for the DRS activation. For that you need a sharp on and off signal for the front wing.
Those brake ducts look the same as last years ... am surprised to see the same ones and no development in that area as there is alot to be gained if you observe the way the ones on mclaren/ redbull have changed..
Metalrulz wrote: there is alot to be gained if you observe the way the ones on mclaren/ redbull have changed..
How do we know that for certain? Just because RB and McLaren were overall better performers does not mean everything they did on their cars was correct. It only means the sum of their activities was better. We is little we can do to isolate the performance of the brake ducts from the rest of the car.
I think I have to agree with Brian on this one...that's quite the circuitous route for signal air to take from the DRS to the source (nose inlet?). Ever try to blow through a 3000 mm long straw?
Metalrulz wrote:Those brake ducts look the same as last years ... am surprised to see the same ones and no development in that area as there is alot to be gained if you observe the way the ones on mclaren/ redbull have changed..
Maybe this aeras is on the "To Do" list and or at present on the "If it aint broke" list as well. Yes its free downforce at the point of contact with wheel to ground, but they may have decided to keep them the same as last year till they have the time and resource to do so as they may have more of a need for the resource else where.
RE: DRS-switched front wing blowing - what if the front portion of the signaling path were a (semi-) closed system?
I.E. it takes in additional volume of air each time the DRS is activated and the wing holes open, but maintains the air volume inside the signaling path between activations, bleeding off just enough to de-activate the front wing when the DRS is closed. This would reduce the lag time in the system and the volume of air required to switch it.
This is far more logical to me than the presumption that it fully pressurizes and evacuates with each activation, or that the pressure from the rear wing holes is the main source of air for the front wing. Either would have huge lag time because of the tortuous route the air must take to get from the rear wing holes to anywhere in the nose.
For it to be legal, I don't know that there could be any "valve" to be switched in the nose. Rather, I would think that the path to blow the wing would always be open, and possibly shared with the driver cooling ducts if the nose hole were used as an air source, along with some kind of anti-reversion shaping to the ducts from the rear to prevent air from flowing backwards. That would explain why Mercedes is still running such an aggressive front wing vs. Red Bull for example, who appear to have taken some downforce out of their front wing.
Continuing with that train of thought, if air flowing from the nose hole were to suddenly meet that increased pressure from the air ducted in from the rear wing ahead of the driver cooling duct exit, that may be enough to force more of it down the path to the front wing slots.
For that matter, the reverse could also be true - the air coming through the nose hole to the driver cooling ducts could be enough to prevent the loss of pressure in the ducts from the rear when the DRS-activated rear wing holes are closed, because that channel becomes a closed system when the holes are closed as well.
I don't have the drawing talents of some others here to illustrate it, but that would seem logical to me. It would just count on the volume and pressure of air from the rear exceeding that of the front when the rear wing holes are open. Complicated, but not impossible.
Tatsu333 wrote:RE: DRS-switched front wing blowing - what if the front portion of the signaling path were a (semi-) closed system?
I.E. it takes in additional volume of air each time the DRS is activated and the wing holes open, but maintains the air volume inside the signaling path between activations, bleeding off just enough to de-activate the front wing when the DRS is closed. This would reduce the lag time in the system and the volume of air required to switch it.
In the past 'we believe' they used a fluid switch that requires a constant signal flow to function. This is not an energize only to set the flow path. It must stay energized to function. Although I can not quote the rule, I would say you are not allow any moving parts in an aero system except where noted, so flap type valves are out.
