Mercedes AMG F1 W05

[SiLo]

The understeer might be helping protect the rear tyres a little bit during the race. It might be something that they are setting up slightly on purpose as its been apparent at all the races, but during the race is doesn't seem to affect their pace.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

The understeer might be helping protect the rear tyres a little bit during the race. It might be something that they are setting up slightly on purpose as its been apparent at all the races, but during the race is doesn't seem to affect their pace.

Spot on, you can notice the understeer during quali, but it will disappear during the race, just to protect the tyres.

[flyboy2160]

I just had to clean out a large number of off topic update and driving style posts. I warned the posters. Bans the next time.

[ringo]

The wing is basically cantilevered off the supports. That's a lot of bending under aero load.
Should have a tendency to rotating forward and down.

[bhall]

[...]
Should have a tendency to rotating forward and down.

How come? One would think it would it would do the opposite, because low pressure under the flaps will tend to pull them down and back, and that such action would be more beneficial, too.

If the wing tilts forward under load, it will increase the angle of attack, adding downforce and drag, when the car is at its highest speeds and has the least need for such added downforce. If it tilts backwards, on the other hand, it will reduce the angle of attack of the wing when the car as at its highest speeds and could really use that sort of drag reduction.

Or am I missing something?

[Lycoming]

just to clarify - are we talking about the front, the rear, or both?

[Robbobnob]

You can see the fasteners in this pic. Is the cross sectional areas of the area where the pylon and front wing section mandated?

[timbo]

You can see the fasteners in this pic. Is the cross sectional areas of the area where the pylon and front wing section mandated?

Eh?
If you ask about center section it is indeed mandated. But I guess this is where they can (and want to) put ballast, thus the fasteners.

[Mandrake]

Mercedes have also chosen to run a larger turbo than the opposition and its reduction of turbo lag means less power needs to be harvested from the ERS to keep the turbine spooled off throttle. The surplus energy is transferred to MGU-K which delivers instant energy to the power train whilst increasing economy.

Is the Turbo not a standardised part? I wasn't aware that teams can bolt on different Turbochargers to their supplied engines...

[kooleracer]

Mercedes have also chosen to run a larger turbo than the opposition and its reduction of turbo lag means less power needs to be harvested from the ERS to keep the turbine spooled off throttle. The surplus energy is transferred to MGU-K which delivers instant energy to the power train whilst increasing economy.

Is the Turbo not a standardised part? I wasn't aware that teams can bolt on different Turbochargers to their supplied engines...

Mercedes has a larger turbo compared with Renault and Ferrari. All Mercedes teams benefit from it, as you rightly stated its a standardized part.

[aral]

You can see the fasteners in this pic. Is the cross sectional areas of the area where the pylon and front wing section mandated?

Eh?
If you ask about center section it is indeed mandated. But I guess this is where they can (and want to) put ballast, thus the fasteners.

I doubt that anyone needs to ballast their car this year, and putting it in the front wing would seriously affect the mandated balance ration, front/rear. Also, I doubt that they are fasteners. If they were as such, they would have been made flush, rather than have openings. Could it be something to bleed air?

[turbof1]

You can see the fasteners in this pic. Is the cross sectional areas of the area where the pylon and front wing section mandated?

Eh?
If you ask about center section it is indeed mandated. But I guess this is where they can (and want to) put ballast, thus the fasteners.

I doubt that anyone needs to ballast their car this year, and putting it in the front wing would seriously affect the mandated balance ration, front/rear. Also, I doubt that they are fasteners. If they were as such, they would have been made flush, rather than have openings. Could it be something to bleed air?

It's simple - if mercedes is able to get the weight below the mandatory minimum weight, they add ballast. Putting it in the front wing is very common, and is balanced out by putting balance at the rear too. There are some teams that are below the minimum weight already. It's also said the W05 needs less pipworks and hence saves up on weight.

[Just_a_fan]

[...]
Should have a tendency to rotating forward and down.

How come? One would think it would it would do the opposite, because low pressure under the flaps will tend to pull them down and back, and that such action would be more beneficial, too.

I would expect that the mountings aren't far from a line running through the usual centre of pressure...

[bhall]

I would expect that the mountings aren't far from a line running through the usual centre of pressure...

Maybe. I just don't understand how the wing can tilt forward under load. That seems counterintuitive to me. Then again, I've been wrong before...

Regardless of their precise role, the mounting points haven't changed from the launch version, only the nose itself. So, whatever they're doing, they've been doing it from the beginning.



I imagine the new, shorter nose allows for more mass flow under the chassis, and it removes a blockage encountered when the car is in yaw. It could also reduce the tendency of the neutral center section to produce lift.



Does the above look like a change in layup to anyone else? Could it be what allows the pylon to flex?

[CBeck113]

Maybe. I just don't understand how the wing can tilt forward under load. That seems counterintuitive to me. Then again, I've been wrong before...

Don't doubt yourself on this one. In order for the wing to bend forward, they would need to generate about twice the downforce on the front of the wing in order to overcome the leverage of the trailing side, which is almost twice as far from the mounting points. Since they don't increase the surface area to that extreem and don't have the angle of attack like the trailing side of the wings, it can't happen. Unless thex are flexing the entire nose toward the ground - this would cause the front of the wing to bend forward...

Does the above look like a change in layup to anyone else? Could it be what allows the pylon to flex?

Yes. But no, I don't believe so. I think that is simply an attachment to the pylon for aerodynamic purposes, which can be changed without altering the nose, which would force a new crash test. Does anyone have a video of the pylons / wing / nose flexing? Would be very helpful to see how they handle this.