From AMUS
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Mercedes F1 chief technical officer James Allison is confident that his technical team has found the root cause of the German-Anglo squad’s recent gearbox failures and can make the necessary changes to avoid its reappearance.
Maybe a solution for their past known rear tyres problem ! interesting to see Redbull tendance. Also the Renault wasn't a consistent car last year... This could be a result not the origin of changes.AMG.Tzan wrote:What on earth is Mercedes doing? Huge wheelbase...smallest rake!! I like how Mercedes has gone so different...specially with rake!! 3 years now most teams try to use as much rake as possible...still Mercedes keeps the rake down and produces the same or even more amounts of downforce compared to Red Bull!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C64IIdlW0AAPiku.jpg
From AMUS
PlatinumZealot wrote:The rake angle might be smaller but the diffuser throat for all cars are more or less the same once you lift the rear floor as close to the lower control arms as you can.
A longer wheel base is more floor area, which is like a bigger wing if you will... bigger wing means bigger down-force. The angle of attack of the floor is not as high, so the increase in drag is low.
A larger flat floor does not necessarily improve downforce. It only does so if the if the diffuser and flow conditions can support more downforce. In a windtunnel, I've personally seen an increase in floor area result in a decrease of downforce, but most of time, the downforce change(either direction) has been of a smaller magnitude than other seemingly smaller changes (like gurney height , or a pair of strakes).PlatinumZealot wrote:The rake angle might be smaller but the diffuser throat for all cars are more or less the same once you lift the rear floor as close to the lower control arms as you can.
A longer wheel base is more floor area, which is like a bigger wing if you will... bigger wing means bigger down-force. The angle of attack of the floor is not as high, so the increase in drag is low.
The radiator exits are down there, beside and below the crash structure. It could be water vapor or something oil related. Compare to this photo of a Merc engine failure from last year, and notice where the plumes are originating from.godlameroso wrote:http://i.imgur.com/cZHlukb.jpg
Shouldn't exhaust blow out of the exhaust pipes? How does Mercedes manage to blow exhaust under the exhaust?
Source:
https://youtu.be/LGQH3xtoO44?t=26s
Yes the boundary layer loses energy the further along thw floor it goes. More Frictional loss and viscous losses. However if the team has well sealed floor they can get away with it being bigger and have that velocity still strong at the diffuser throat.Pierce89 wrote:A larger flat floor does not necessarily improve downforce. It only does so if the if the diffuser and flow conditions can support more downforce. In a windtunnel, I've personally seen an increase in floor area result in a decrease of downforce, but most of time, the downforce change(either direction) has been of a smaller magnitude than other seemingly smaller changes (like gurney height , or a pair of strakes).PlatinumZealot wrote:The rake angle might be smaller but the diffuser throat for all cars are more or less the same once you lift the rear floor as close to the lower control arms as you can.
A longer wheel base is more floor area, which is like a bigger wing if you will... bigger wing means bigger down-force. The angle of attack of the floor is not as high, so the increase in drag is low.
It's easy, it meets the regulation to the bare minimum without actually constraining the drivers fingers at all as required.dans79 wrote:I fail to see how this is going to offer any kind of advantage., am i missing something?
If it was me, I'd be trying to come up with some way to take advantage of the bodies natural mechanics to yield a non linear response.
What do you mean, specifically?dans79 wrote:I fail to see how this is going to offer any kind of advantage., am i missing something?
If it was me, I'd be trying to come up with some way to take advantage of the bodies natural mechanics to yield a non linear response.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reve ... ts-883444/roon wrote: What do you mean, specifically?
Teams will no longer be able to cleverly map the clutch settings to ensure that the sweet spot for the getaway was in a wide window.
As Haas driver Kevin Magnussen explained: "You just had to release it between 10 percent and 80 percent.
"Somewhere in there was a flat map that would be set to the grip, the tyres and fuel loads. So the start was 100 percent up to the engineers before. But now it is completely down to us."
It seems to me, finding a way to mimic the old non linear torque delivery, would be the most import thing, and I don't see how this design would help with that.As well as a maximum 80mm movement allowed in the clutch paddle, there now has to be a 50mm gap between the clutch paddle and any other control on the wheel.
