Mercedes W13

[Quantum]

Which of these criteria was not met with a spring/damper in that location?

As for part "d", does it vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature? I'd say no, as it only aborbs the movement of the T-tray caused by aerodynamic load.
As for part "e", does it deform systematically or routinely or rather irregularly?
As for part "f", does it exceed the numbers in the load deflection tests? Obviously no, as it would not be on the car in that case.

That's my interpretation. Please tell me anyone, if or where I might be wrong.

"D" aerodynamic load does not operate in a vacuum outside of space/time continuum.
Movement of the T Tray takes time, due to velocity.

"E" is essentially outlawing a mass damper. So if it is routinely deforming in a specific way, and it's permissible, I'd argue a mass damper could escape under the same interpretation. But we know Mass dampers aren't legit.

"F" It can pass the test and still fail. If it exhibits behaviour (on track)other than the same load deflection relationship that has been measure in the test.

[yallkok]

This is T-Tray:
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... y/9073458/

[Quantum]

On topic...

It appears Mercedes don't have it...as mentioned earlier by another poster. Packed with electronics that would otherwise be in the sidepods.

[matteosc]

Which of these criteria was not met with a spring/damper in that location?

As for part "d", does it vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature? I'd say no, as it only aborbs the movement of the T-tray caused by aerodynamic load.
As for part "e", does it deform systematically or routinely or rather irregularly?
As for part "f", does it exceed the numbers in the load deflection tests? Obviously no, as it would not be on the car in that case.

That's my interpretation. Please tell me anyone, if or where I might be wrong.

"D" aerodynamic load does not operate in a vacuum outside of space/time continuum.
Movement of the T Tray takes time, due to velocity.

"E" is essentially outlawing a mass damper. So if it is routinely deforming in a specific way, and it's permissible, I'd argue a mass damper could escape under the same interpretation. But we know Mass dampers aren't legit.

"F" It can pass the test and still fail. If it exhibits behaviour (on track)other than the same load deflection relationship that has been measure in the test.

I think this does not belong to this thread. Just as a note, I think you are stretching some concepts. Such as "permanent deformation", in point "E", which has nothing to do with mass damper. But again, not really the thread topic.

[Quantum]

I think this does not belong to this thread. Just as a note, I think you are stretching some concepts. Such as "permanent deformation", in point "E", which has nothing to do with mass damper. But again, not really the thread topic.

If a mod gets it cleaned up that's all good.

But I think its pertinent to the W13, as it exhibits excessive porpoising, which was altered in the race with barn door aero that killed it's straighline performance.

It's something I've not seen on their car either, which means it could be a solution to their problem. However I just don't know how its legal as it is effectively mass damping the bib.

[matteosc]

I think this does not belong to this thread. Just as a note, I think you are stretching some concepts. Such as "permanent deformation", in point "E", which has nothing to do with mass damper. But again, not really the thread topic.

If a mod gets it cleaned up that's all good.

But I think its pertinent to the W13, as it exhibits excessive porpoising, which was altered in the race with barn door aero that killed it's straighline performance.

It's something I've not seen on their car either, which means it could be a solution to their problem. However I just don't know how its legal as it is effectively mass damping the bib.

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray. I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

[gluon]

[F1Krof]

Is that a new leading edge flap?

[Quantum]

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray. I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

Let me get this right.

You are saying it's legal because nobody has protested it?

Also this "Not every system with a mass and a damper is a mass damper" makes no sense can you elaborate?

Because here from the FIA, I cannot see anything that allows the bib to behave differently beyond XYZ plane (top/side/front)

3.15.2 Load/deflection linearity
All load deflection tests must have a nominally linear elastic relationship unless otherwise
stated.

Linearity.

Right so we go to the bib and it's relation to the floor.

3.5.5 Bib to Floor Body Assembly
Once the Bib and Floor Body are fully defined, the Bib and the Floor Body must be trimmed to
each other, to create one unified volume with no remaining overlapping surfaces. A fillet
radius, no greater than 50mm, may be applied along the intersection between these surfaces.
This fillet, which need not comply with Article 3.5.4, will nevertheless be considered part of
the Bib.
Furthermore, in the area of the fillet, minimum flexibility is permitted in order to allow
compliance of the Front Floor Structure when the front of the car comes into contact with the
ground. After the fillet has been applied, the external surfaces at the boundaries between
adjacent sections of Bib and Floor Body must maintain both continuity and tangency in any X,
Y, or Z plane.


I draw to your attention the final part of that rule.

After the fillet has been applied, the external surfaces at the boundaries between
adjacent sections of Bib and Floor Body must maintain both continuity and tangency in any X,
Y, or Z plane.

If that bib moves after the fillet is applied, it is illegal as it will no longer be in continuity and tangency with X, Y or Z plane.
It also mentions something interesting.... "minimal flexibility is permissible".
There is no figure. but it clearly cannot go beyond the XYZ planes which would indicate it cannot flex beyond a measurable amount(my interpretation).

I cannot see anywhere where 5mm is permissible as your links are suggestion

[dans79]

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray.

During the course of F1 history several things have been allowed by the rules for non trivial periods of time before the fia changed their mind, or someone posed a question, or pretested. The mass damper and Fric are good examples.

I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

The rule any team implementing such a device must be very mindful of is this one.

3.2.2 Aerodynamic Influence

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.10.10 (in addition
to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the flexible seals specifically
permitted by Articles 3.13 and 3.14.4, all aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing
the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to
their frame of reference defined in Article 3.3. Furthermore, these components must produce
a uniform, solid, hard, continuous, impervious surface under all circumstances.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the
car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.10.10, or
any incidental movement due to the steering system, any car system, device or procedure
which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the
car is prohibited.

The Aerodynamic influence of any component of the car not considered to be bodywork must
be incidental to its main function. Any design which aims to maximise such an aerodynamic
influence is prohibited.

Based purely on its location this part of the car has a impact on the aerodynamic performance of the car. Given thats its has a dampening element it's obviously not immobile.

Thus if anyone can prove its designed to alter the aerodynamic performance of the car positively in certain situations it's going to get banned almost immediately. If, and how it might affect the performance of the car, is something that will take the competition time to figure out.

A simple example of a positive aerodynamic influence would be that it helps minimize poprusing!

[dans79]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoLxXkXoAs ... name=large

Considering we can still see the reinforcement stays this looks to me a modification to one of the existing floors.

[dialtone]

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray.

During the course of F1 history several things have been allowed by the rules for non trivial periods of time before the fia changed their mind, or someone posed a question, or pretested. The mass damper and Fric are good examples.

I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

The rule any team implementing such a device must be very mindful of is this one.

SNIP

At the end of the day, all of these are things that Ferrari and RedBull and Haas have checked with FIA, in exactly the same way as the spaceship mirrors from the W13. So unless you claim it violates the spirit of the rules or something like that, it's most likely legal as FIA has seen it and approved it, from 2 very different manufacturers. Merc should just copy it.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's very clear that the car is being run in a hugely compromised state. If they do manage to sort it out, and run the car in anything like it's proper set up then it looks like it could be an absolute monster. It's a big if though...

If we think back to McLaren's 'suspension blockers' all their sims told them it was a massive step forward but in reality, on track it was a very 'peaky' downforce generator which the drivers couldn't rely upon. I remember Jensen saying when it works the grip is on another level but that grip can disappear in an instant.

I think Merc have got a systems that on paper performs amazingly well and in the sim but in the real world the performance is, like McLaren's blockers too 'peaky' to be usable. I looks to me like they're generating too much downforce that their suspension cannot support it, as soon as the floor hits a critical distance they get slammed into the tarmac.

The reason it's not going to be a quick fix or just a new floor is because to not leave performance on the table will require a redesign of their suspension in order to better support the downforce levels they're generating. If they can make the floor less 'peaky' with a suspension that can support higher loads Merc could have a rocket on their hands.

I don't think other teams have fixed their porpoising issues, I don't think many teams are generating anywhere near the downforce from the floor that the Merc is. Look at the McLaren, they didn't solve porpoising, they just don't have any downforce.

We will see floor and suspension development go hand in hand and we'll eventually see nothing but skinny wings on the cars as teams learn to keep their cars sucked to the floor over a wider range of cornering speeds. Suspension development is going to be taken to whole new levels with this formula.

If I'm talking out of my arse please shoot me down.

As you know, propoising and downforce are inextricably linked. Mitigate porpoising is good but at the expense of downforce. If a team did a design that makes downforce at certain ride height and suspension setting but come to the track only to find out it's smack dab where the porpoising happens they are in more trouble than a team whose cars proporsing transition point is much closer to ground.

You are right, Suspension development will be integral to solving the problem. It will be more of a control measure than a prevention measure however.

If you can get the suspension rebound damping to be extremely high but only when the car is on straights. It cannot be suspension travel tuned because the tyre pressure, thus radius, changes over the race and we are taking an order of a couple milimeters of control here.

Hmmm. Need to look at the tech regs to see what are the limits on suspension contol. Can a passive mechanical brain be used? As in we know hydaulics are banned. But what about a pitot tube input into a pneumatic system?

[dans79]

At the end of the day, all of these are things that Ferrari and RedBull and Haas have checked with FIA, in exactly the same way as the spaceship mirrors from the W13. So unless you claim it violates the spirit of the rules or something like that, it's most likely legal as FIA has seen it and approved it, from 2 very different manufacturers. Merc should just copy it.

As I mentioned, lots of stuff was perfectly legal right up until the Fia decided it wasn't. Even stuff cleared by the FIA ahead of time, DAS for example!

[Just_a_fan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoLxXkXoAs ... name=large

Considering we can still see the reinforcement stays this looks to me a modification to one of the existing floors.

That "hole" in the diffuser sidewall has been there for some time. It looks like a really basic device when compared to the likes of the Red Bull's design in the same location, which appears to be quite sculpted.