General aero discussions

[vorticism]

Now contrast that to the actual aero devices of an F1 car that is not in a testing spec. What purpose would there be to mount an "aero neutral" wing element anywhere? It would just generate drag.

Specify the types of drag and their quantities. The aero neutral shape will provide skin and form drag yet no lift induced drag i.e. less overall drag.

Good for wing pylons, suspension arms, and even, yes, hehe, mid-wings.

[AR3-GP]

Now contrast that to the actual aero devices of an F1 car that is not in a testing spec. What purpose would there be to mount an "aero neutral" wing element anywhere? It would just generate drag.

Specify the types of drag and their quantities. The aero neutral shape will provide skin and form drag yet no lift induced drag i.e. less overall drag.

Good for wing pylons, suspension arms, and even, hehe, mid-wings.

Wing pylons exist to hold the rear wing. Suspension arms...well....


The only analog I can propose for the purpose of the mid-wing, is to shroud the side impact structure. Then it's possible that its purpose was to be "aero neutral", and I'll admit that I forgot that the SIS is inside the mid-wing.

So it could be possible then...

[vorticism]

Now contrast that to the actual aero devices of an F1 car that is not in a testing spec. What purpose would there be to mount an "aero neutral" wing element anywhere? It would just generate drag.

Specify the types of drag and their quantities. The aero neutral shape will provide skin and form drag yet no lift induced drag i.e. less overall drag.

Good for wing pylons, suspension arms, and even, hehe, mid-wings.

Wing pylons exist to hold the rear wing. Suspension arms...well....


The only analog I can propose for the purpose of the mid-wing, is to shroud the side impact structure. Then it's possible that its purpose was to be "aero neutral", and I'll admit that I forgot that the SIS is inside the mid-wing.

So it could be possible then...

Precisely. Hence:

If they did not have to place a SIPS there, would they have anything at all? The main aspect of their concept may simply be: eliminate sidepods.

[AR3-GP]

Specify the types of drag and their quantities. The aero neutral shape will provide skin and form drag yet no lift induced drag i.e. less overall drag.

Good for wing pylons, suspension arms, and even, hehe, mid-wings.

Wing pylons exist to hold the rear wing. Suspension arms...well....


The only analog I can propose for the purpose of the mid-wing, is to shroud the side impact structure. Then it's possible that its purpose was to be "aero neutral", and I'll admit that I forgot that the SIS is inside the mid-wing.

So it could be possible then...

Precisely. Hence:

If they did not have to place a SIPS there, would they have anything at all? The main aspect of their concept may simply be: eliminate sidepods.

It's very possible. However ( ), a lot of credible people have suggested that it has more purpose than this. The Vanja/Shub collaboration suggest that such a device (the mid-wing) could be used to generate a vortex which encourages the extraction of the tire wake, away from the floor. If we can conclude that from some generic CFD models, then I'm willing to bet Mercedes had the same idea.

Also, given the tire wake concerns that multiple other teams have expressed, I would be amazed if Mercedes would not have the mid-wing if there was no requirement for SIS. The W13/W14 would have little to no tire wake management in the absence of the effects of the mid-wing. The car would just be an open invitation for tire wake to end up in the diffuser and beam wing.

[vorticism]

I'd wager that the mid wing is much less effective at moving tire wake than a traditional sidepod, if that was their intention; my Occam brand razor tells me they just wanted smol sidepods. Of the vorticity it does likely produce, and the degree of which that it has which we're arguing over, we can also consider what percentage of it comes from the 4 or 5 stacked vortex generators (which many teams have) and what percentage comes from the mid wing.

[AR3-GP]

I'd wager that the mid wing is much less effective at moving tire wake than a traditional sidepod, if that was their intention; my Occam brand razor tells me they just wanted smol sidepods. Of the vorticity it does likely produce, and the degree of which that it has which we're arguing over, we can also consider what percentage of it comes from the 4 or 5 stacked vortex generators (which many teams have) and what percentage comes from the mid wing.

On the evidence of the car's performance and lack of downforce, I can't disagree.

[Venturiation]

Wing pylons exist to hold the rear wing. Suspension arms...well....


The only analog I can propose for the purpose of the mid-wing, is to shroud the side impact structure. Then it's possible that its purpose was to be "aero neutral", and I'll admit that I forgot that the SIS is inside the mid-wing.

So it could be possible then...

Precisely. Hence:

If they did not have to place a SIPS there, would they have anything at all? The main aspect of their concept may simply be: eliminate sidepods.

It's very possible. However ( ), a lot of credible people have suggested that it has more purpose than this. The Vanja/Shub collaboration suggest that such a device (the mid-wing) could be used to generate a vortex which encourages the extraction of the tire wake, away from the floor. If we can conclude that from some generic CFD models, then I'm willing to bet Mercedes had the same idea.

Also, given the tire wake concerns that multiple other teams have expressed, I would be amazed if Mercedes would not have the mid-wing if there was no requirement for SIS. The W13/W14 would have little to no tire wake management in the absence of the effects of the mid-wing. The car would just be an open invitation for tire wake to end up in the diffuser and beam wing.

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

[AR3-GP]

Precisely. Hence:

It's very possible. However ( ), a lot of credible people have suggested that it has more purpose than this. The Vanja/Shub collaboration suggest that such a device (the mid-wing) could be used to generate a vortex which encourages the extraction of the tire wake, away from the floor. If we can conclude that from some generic CFD models, then I'm willing to bet Mercedes had the same idea.

Also, given the tire wake concerns that multiple other teams have expressed, I would be amazed if Mercedes would not have the mid-wing if there was no requirement for SIS. The W13/W14 would have little to no tire wake management in the absence of the effects of the mid-wing. The car would just be an open invitation for tire wake to end up in the diffuser and beam wing.

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

I don't know what you're asking me. I proposed that the mid-wing would generate lift and that it would shed a vortex. I never said this cost them 1 second or anything else that you said in your post.

As for the CFD model, you're missing the point there as well. The understandings from any CFD model are qualitative, not quantitive. I never said the CFD model was exact to any specific car. I only said that the model shows what is possible for a mid-wing to do on a generic F1 car. In the models which have been done, it shows that this mid-wing can be used to shed a vortex/downwash which could help with wake management. I then suggested it's probable that Mercedes tried to take advantage of this. In doing so, it would generate some lift.

[Venturiation]

It's very possible. However ( ), a lot of credible people have suggested that it has more purpose than this. The Vanja/Shub collaboration suggest that such a device (the mid-wing) could be used to generate a vortex which encourages the extraction of the tire wake, away from the floor. If we can conclude that from some generic CFD models, then I'm willing to bet Mercedes had the same idea.

Also, given the tire wake concerns that multiple other teams have expressed, I would be amazed if Mercedes would not have the mid-wing if there was no requirement for SIS. The W13/W14 would have little to no tire wake management in the absence of the effects of the mid-wing. The car would just be an open invitation for tire wake to end up in the diffuser and beam wing.

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

I don't know what you're asking me. I proposed that the mid-wing would generate lift and that it would shed a vortex. I never said this cost them 1 second or anything else that you said in your post.

As for the CFD model, you're missing the point there as well. The understandings from any CFD model are qualitative, not quantitive. I never said the CFD model was exact to any specific car. I only said that the model shows what is possible for a mid-wing to do on a generic F1 car. In the models which have been done, it shows that this mid-wing can be used to shed a vortex/downwash which could help with wake management. I then suggested it's probable that Mercedes tried to take advantage of this. In doing so, it would generate some lift.

i just picked your answer about cfd but it was for the discussion mid wing in general

the thing is that maybe that mid wing works in a way that is only visible when all the other elements are correct, we can't just test one part on a generic car, what works with this concept may not work with others

but i still think the key is in the floor and suspension and having constant amount of downforce

[AR3-GP]

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

I don't know what you're asking me. I proposed that the mid-wing would generate lift and that it would shed a vortex. I never said this cost them 1 second or anything else that you said in your post.

As for the CFD model, you're missing the point there as well. The understandings from any CFD model are qualitative, not quantitive. I never said the CFD model was exact to any specific car. I only said that the model shows what is possible for a mid-wing to do on a generic F1 car. In the models which have been done, it shows that this mid-wing can be used to shed a vortex/downwash which could help with wake management. I then suggested it's probable that Mercedes tried to take advantage of this. In doing so, it would generate some lift.

i just picked your answer about cfd but it was for the discussion mid wing in general

the thing is that maybe that mid wing works in a way that is only visible when all the other elements are correct, we can't just test one part on a generic car, what works with this concept may not work with others

but i still think the key is in the floor and suspension and having constant amount of downforce

I don't know what the "key" to unlocking their performance or what their biggest problem is. If I did, I would sell it to them.

I was only answering the question of whether the mid-wing generates some lift or not.

[zibby43]

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

I don't know what you're asking me. I proposed that the mid-wing would generate lift and that it would shed a vortex. I never said this cost them 1 second or anything else that you said in your post.

As for the CFD model, you're missing the point there as well. The understandings from any CFD model are qualitative, not quantitive. I never said the CFD model was exact to any specific car. I only said that the model shows what is possible for a mid-wing to do on a generic F1 car. In the models which have been done, it shows that this mid-wing can be used to shed a vortex/downwash which could help with wake management. I then suggested it's probable that Mercedes tried to take advantage of this. In doing so, it would generate some lift.

i just picked your answer about cfd but it was for the discussion mid wing in general

the thing is that maybe that mid wing works in a way that is only visible when all the other elements are correct, we can't just test one part on a generic car, what works with this concept may not work with others

but i still think the key is in the floor and suspension and having constant amount of downforce

I think you’re onto something. My question is this: does the side pod design choice have knock on effects that prevent floor and suspension development that promotes the consistent and stable aero platform that this generation of car needs?

[ringo]

It's very possible. However ( ), a lot of credible people have suggested that it has more purpose than this. The Vanja/Shub collaboration suggest that such a device (the mid-wing) could be used to generate a vortex which encourages the extraction of the tire wake, away from the floor. If we can conclude that from some generic CFD models, then I'm willing to bet Mercedes had the same idea.

Also, given the tire wake concerns that multiple other teams have expressed, I would be amazed if Mercedes would not have the mid-wing if there was no requirement for SIS. The W13/W14 would have little to no tire wake management in the absence of the effects of the mid-wing. The car would just be an open invitation for tire wake to end up in the diffuser and beam wing.

those CFD models are not even close to accurate to the real car proportions, i think it's a bad idea to rely on them that much

unless someone can Lidar the real car with an ipad when he is on track it's hard to get something close and you can't use separate components

also by seeing how the W14 is still very quick compared to other cars with common mechanical parts but with the supposed "gold standard" of sidepods the performance has to come from somewhere else

or is Mercedes going to gain 1 second just by going from midwing to sidepod?

i still think the main difference is the floor and suspension

and sidepods are worth only a very small amount

I don't know what you're asking me. I proposed that the mid-wing would generate lift and that it would shed a vortex. I never said this cost them 1 second or anything else that you said in your post.

As for the CFD model, you're missing the point there as well. The understandings from any CFD model are qualitative, not quantitive. I never said the CFD model was exact to any specific car. I only said that the model shows what is possible for a mid-wing to do on a generic F1 car. In the models which have been done, it shows that this mid-wing can be used to shed a vortex/downwash which could help with wake management. I then suggested it's probable that Mercedes tried to take advantage of this. In doing so, it would generate some lift.

Do you have a CFD example of the midwing showing the flow from it?
Please share the image of how it is working on the W14 along the sidepods and floor.

The midwing has a negative camber. The airfoil shape is likely to be downforce generating and at worst neutral.
I am sure the engineers did their homework at finding a shape that would create downforce or be neutral with a neutral vortex. They would not give it such a big surface area if it were generating lift mostly. I think.

[Farnborough]

Neutral in the sense of them not diverting flow adversarially relative to the local domain and as well not inducing vortices, which is to say, aero neutral in the race-car-with-winglets-everywhere sense. As I said just above, the stacking and flow straightening in a wind tunnel isn't relevant to the point I'm making, which is about the existence of situations where cambered wings can exist within a neutral context. Think of it yet another way: tweak the shape one of those stacked vanes and suddenly you end up with a non-neutral wing, to the extent that a flat zero-camber foil suddenly becomes much draggier/liftier (yw) than a heavily cambered foil.

Also your example is not measuring the load on those turning vane at their fixing point within the tunnel structure.

I assure you the wind tunnel in question is fully festooned with the latest of high precision load and pressure metrology equipment. This is a technical forum, after all. However, none of that is relevant.

Another example. Draw a pipe sweep at the angle and radius of your choosing. Now, place an airfoil within it which will cause the least amount of pressure drop. Hint: it will be cambered and not flat, despite flat/zero camber airfoils being assumed as the most neutral.

I do understand the use of measurement in test flow and on vehicle.

The vane may be neutral to airflow, i can see that too. But to clarify, are there strain gauges in vane mountings to tunnel hardware to locate them as thats relevant to the load the turning encounters, same as being mounted to the tub as mid wing is.

And yes, I'm certainly aware that this is a technical forum

[vorticism]

Also your example is not measuring the load on those turning vane at their fixing point within the tunnel structure.

I assure you the wind tunnel in question is fully festooned with the latest of high precision load and pressure metrology equipment. This is a technical forum, after all. However, none of that is relevant.

Another example. Draw a pipe sweep at the angle and radius of your choosing. Now, place an airfoil within it which will cause the least amount of pressure drop. Hint: it will be cambered and not flat, despite flat/zero camber airfoils being assumed as the most neutral.

I do understand the use of measurement in test flow and on vehicle.

The vane may be neutral to airflow, i can see that too. But to clarify, are there strain gauges in vane mountings to tunnel hardware to locate them as thats relevant to the load the turning encounters, same as being mounted to the tub as mid wing is.

And yes, I'm certainly aware that this is a technical forum

That was sarcasm, sorry. Was pointing out that the extraneous details of the hypothetical are irrelevant. The pipe example is perhaps more effective.

[Farnborough]

"The vane may be neutral to airflow, i can see that too. But to clarify, are there strain gauges in vane mountings to tunnel hardware to locate them as thats relevant to the load the turning encounters, same as being mounted to the tub as mid wing is."

To that question, I can take it the answer is NO then ? That's in, no measurement of load the mount points of the vanes experience within the wind tunnel structure in redirecting the airflow.

Should that be the case, I still can't see how a mid wing, however neutral the observations on here claim, can possibly impart no force on the tub in the opposite direction of the "downwash" that most appear to view as the purpose of that structure.

The opposite loading doesn't just go away, downwash means uplift for structure supporting the mid wing.

MB may have unveiled it from under a black cloth, but even they aren't a part of the magic circle