Mercedes W15

[AR3-GP]

Wow, that's not what you want to do unless you aren't sure what to expect from your suspension Compliance alert, code red level 5

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Could it be for different circuits? Bumpy vs smooth?

[mendis]

Different mounting points for front suspension!

[AR3-GP]

Different mounting points for front suspension!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900

we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous page

[mendis]

Panel created for mounting points.

[mendis]

Different mounting points for front suspension!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900

we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous page

I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.

[AR3-GP]

Different mounting points for front suspension!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHCaGmYasAA ... me=900x900

we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous page

I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.

Okay I see. For some reason your image doesn't appear for me. Does it show for you?

[mendis]

we both were a bit slow on this mendis...See previous page

I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.

Okay I see. For some reason your image doesn't appear for me. Does it show for you?

Please check now.

[ing.]

...

The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.

My thoughts exactly. Very curious because they already have experience with the RB-style inclined wishbones on their previous car(s) so they should have a good understanding of the impact of this on the anti-dive effect, and so should have been able to model it.

Also curious because it can’t be very weight efficient creating back-up structure for two upper wishbone aft pick-ups.

As seen on a lot of the flow-viz pictures during the testing, it seems RB (and all the others that followed) are using the inclined wishbones to have as many distinct airfoil shapes (when viewed from head-on) to redirect the upwash downstream of the FW ahead of the sidepod floor. Inclining both the upper and lower wishbones as much as RB do effectively reduces anti-dive effect quite a bit—especially compared to the case of the wishbones being inclined upwards at the rear:

viewtopic.php?p=1185542#p1185542

Here, if nothing else changed except the lowering of the aft pick-up of the upper wishbone, they have effectively increased the anti-dive effect slightly as well as the aero upstream of the floor compared to previous days’ set-up.

[AR3-GP]

I actually saw the previous page, but the illustration seemed better in Sam's explanation.

Okay I see. For some reason your image doesn't appear for me. Does it show for you?

Please check now.

Thank you, it is working now.

[ing.]

...

The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.

I expect the adjustable part would be replaced after FP3 with a "solid" part that weighs less. Like a 3d printed bushing.

It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.

[Luscion]

[Farnborough]

The changeable front susp. is a fun thing but I have a niggling thought, shouldn't they have a solid idea what to go with even before they turn a lap - both on kinematics and aero effects? This surely isn't going to be change from race to race. I don't like that they're still looking for a direction on the front susp. - doesn't inspire confidence in my opinion.

I expect the adjustable part would be replaced after FP3 with a "solid" part that weighs less. Like a 3d printed bushing.

It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.

They could have the a primary "plate" with interface to monocoque being e.g. four peripheral and structural mounting points....then with different plate having various wishbone locations.

Swap the plate to move the geometry....facilitate with longer/shorter arm to maintain upright location.

It wouldn't even weigh that much in difference...and leaving the monocoque structure completely in tact with accompanying crash testing etc.

There was difference of opinion (and possibly the feel it generated) between drivers last year if I remembered GR v LW acceptance of Monaco update....with GR season, perhaps, not reaching his own targets after that.
Could be to experiment and even the two drivers preference of opposed demands to give static setting but at different locations.

[Luscion]

[ing.]

I expect the adjustable part would be replaced after FP3 with a "solid" part that weighs less. Like a 3d printed bushing.

It’s not just the attachment point or the cover. The back-up structure needs to be designed to take loads from both pick-up points so extra weight there if they want to maintain the adjustability. Even if they choose one position, not sure monocoque can be changed without crash test.

They could have the a primary "plate" with interface to monocoque being e.g. four peripheral and structural mounting points....then with different plate having various wishbone locations.

Swap the plate to move the geometry....facilitate with longer/shorter arm to maintain upright location.

It wouldn't even weigh that much in difference...and leaving the monocoque structure completely in tact with accompanying crash testing etc.

There was difference of opinion (and possibly the feel it generated) between drivers last year if I remembered GR v LW acceptance of Monaco update....with GR season, perhaps, not reaching his own targets after that.
Could be to experiment and even the two drivers preference of opposed demands to give static setting but at different locations.

Probably not much weight but still, besides and plate or attachment fittings, the bulkhead—that reacts the loads from the wishbone rear legs (upper and lower)—needs to be beefed up from top to bottom, instead of just locally.

Generally a very curious thing to do, almost like a development test rig to get learning on suspension and aero properties of the two configurations. Will be interesting to see if they choose a single set-up going forward.

[Sieper]

I expect so, merely as there are already so many factors in set-up due to choices made with the front axle in a race weekend anyway. Introducing another parameter that might throw everything else off might not be something you always want/can deal with.