Can we trust wheelbase?
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Nice but this is the W06!timbo wrote:http://s13.postimg.org/jkbkws2if/merc_w07.jpg
Can we trust wheelbase?
They wasn't so good when they were behind another car...proteus wrote:The most interesting thing is that Mercedes has one of the simpliest nose designs and jet the car is good to drive. All other teams trying S ducts, thumb tips, long low noses and are looking all kinds of ways to get air under the nose, but here we have a Mercedes with standard nose (Lotus too last year), still kicking everybodys ass on the track. I know they have the best engine, but still, it would not be any good if the car would be undriveable.
timbo wrote:http://s13.postimg.org/jkbkws2if/merc_w07.jpg
Can we trust wheelbase?
But they were Soooo good they rarely had to follow another car.Mr.G wrote:They wasn't so good when they were behind another car...proteus wrote:The most interesting thing is that Mercedes has one of the simpliest nose designs and jet the car is good to drive. All other teams trying S ducts, thumb tips, long low noses and are looking all kinds of ways to get air under the nose, but here we have a Mercedes with standard nose (Lotus too last year), still kicking everybodys ass on the track. I know they have the best engine, but still, it would not be any good if the car would be undriveable.
But it was about stability of steering with "simple" nose design, not about overall performance...
Yeah but it is not comparable to get approximately measurements to tell if the wheelbase is longer or shorter.enry86 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/J3jc6AV.jpgkreuzass wrote:Perspective does not fit. Not possible to make a 1:1 comparision in scale. Not very enlightening.
I tried to rectify a bit the perspective, the top view came out slightly distorted, but I think the side view should be ok
The roll hoop and engine cover says that is the W06.timbo wrote:http://s13.postimg.org/jkbkws2if/merc_w07.jpg
Can we trust wheelbase?
Which indicates that airflow to the nose was very important to downstream aerodynamics. So you could conclude that the nose was not 'primitive', rather the opposite. It was surely an important integral part of the airflow management. My suspicion is that it creates vortices in opposite sense of rotation to and directly adjacent to the Y250 vortex thereby stabilising/energising it.Mr.G wrote: They wasn't so good when they were behind another car...
You mean the position where you have two cars in front by more than 5 seconds most of the time?Mr.G wrote:I don't say it's primitive, I just want to point out that they are mostly in front so it is hard to say how it would perform if they run more like in the Ferrari "position"...
Even scarbs has commented that while the noses will always be a talking point, there aren't massive aero or performance gains to be found here. It's really more a case of how the teams want the air to flow around / through / under the nose, hence why we see so many different solutions. But it's certainly not an area of the car that would give you massive advantages.proteus wrote:The most interesting thing is that Mercedes has one of the simpliest nose designs and jet the car is good to drive. All other teams trying S ducts, thumb tips, long low noses and are looking all kinds of ways to get air under the nose, but here we have a Mercedes with standard nose (Lotus too last year), still kicking everybodys ass on the track. I know they have the best engine, but still, it would not be any good if the car would be undriveable.