Mercedes GP MGP W01

[Ganxxta]

For anyone who doesn't think packaging is important, they need only look at that. I think we can see why Mercedes were a good minute behind just looking at that and they have a very, very long way to go to catch up.

Thats actually a McLaren and it looks like the 09 one...

[segedunum]

Thats actually a McLaren and it looks like the 09 one...

Wrong shade of silver. It's still a half decent example of the differences, although a view of Mercedes' current rear would be nice.

[mike]

mayb we should start discussing the affects of exhaust driven DDD
it is seemingly the best solution, compared to the mclaren mega DDD and the ferrari mount your gearbox high solution, the mercedes solution is just too 1st gen to be affect at the moment

[marcush.]

the redbulls gearbox was raised an inch or so as well from 2009 to create space for ddd tricks..just do not remember where I read this...

[adrianjordan]

For anyone who doesn't think packaging is important, they need only look at that. I think we can see why Mercedes were a good minute behind just looking at that and they have a very, very long way to go to catch up.

That's definately the 2009 McLaren, not the Merc and I'm not so sure that's not the 2009 Red Bull as well (lack of shark fin)...

[mike]

That's definately the 2009 McLaren, not the Merc and I'm not so sure that's not the 2009 Red Bull as well (lack of shark fin)...

thats the 09 red bull without the centre hot air exit

[shamikaze]

mayb we should start discussing the affects of exhaust driven DDD
it is seemingly the best solution, compared to the mclaren mega DDD and the ferrari mount your gearbox high solution, the mercedes solution is just too 1st gen to be affect at the moment

I have been thinking about exactly that as well. Has anyone here some good data on air-velocity at the exit-points of the exhaust (between 10 and 18.000 rpm where these cars run 99% of their time) ?
If the air-velocity exiting is higher then the velocity of the air passing over the car, then this could bring some obvious benefits.

Central exhausts (MP4-25 Style) would generate downforce at the rear wing-bridge.
Low-side exhausts (RB6-style) would cause the air between the hull and the wheels to move faster creating a small lower-pression area that would suck-in more air (it is most likely to be very turbulent air there anyway due to front-wheels). That in turn would due to the opening-up towards the end, generate an even higher air-speed where it meets the diffuser air, and the rear-wing bridge air giving it a good additional DF.
I am not a aero-engineer nor aero-specialist, just know a bit of the basics, so obviously this could be wrong, but I'd like to hear your thinking/opinions on this.

Thanks,

S.

[marcush.]

quite interesting quote from Ross Brawn about the airbox design:
they had the current solution already panned from the beginning but it took them a while to make it work.
Secondly they will have dedicated inlets for different tracks as well!

The new wheelbase offered more scope for readjusting weightdistribution than they decided to use in Spain..!?!
The repositioning of the front wheels was a planned(or accounted for) move from the beginnings so a new nosecone was not needed.

Their tyre use is less than optimum still -do they need too long to produce grip or are they overworking the tyres?-
he names tyre usage as the significant difference to Redbull and questions Aero as the main reason for the big gap...oops


http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 50953.html

[Raptor22]

It should like like this no?

I've drawn the red on another pic. just like you did.



Red shows FIA theory, green shows reality. It is not the first time that FIA sticks to exiting rules without using logic. If someone gets injured or killed than they change the regs.

Someone wrote that even Brundle mentioned it on TV, so it's not just me and few other guys here. Anyone with video or quote of what he said?

Ringo is correct.

manchild, just because you dreamt up a problem and that dream is shared with Martin Brundle does not make it reality. Reality is the W01 passed the chassis structural tests and conforms to the dimentions and safety requirements.
If you choose to dream a problem, well I can;t help you or martin Brundle with that.
Fact is that its a chassis design that is highly innovative, homologated and cannot be copied till next year.

The camera housing can indeed be part of the safety structure but the most important part of the design that you and AMrtin Bridle seem to miss is that the roll hoops have never ever provided penetration resistance simply because F1 cars don;t fall from the sky vertically like airplanes do.
They roll and a roll hoop works in conjunction with the side impact bars to provide a saefty triangle that extends from the edge of the sidepods to the top of the roll hoop.
In any event where a car has come to rest on its roll hoop, upside down, the energy of the impact has been disspated by the. The structure immediately behind the drivers head provides the big platform for penetration resistance and this is only needed at the end of the accident just before the vehicle comes to rest.

I will state again that your arguement is flawed. the airbox on no F1 car provides any roll over protection. the airboxes are designed to work with the roll hoop simply because the roll hoop is already there.

In 1989 the Ferrari type 640 debuted with NACA style airbox inlets behind the drivers head and the roll hoop protruding above that into the airstream where it intervered with flwo to the rear wing. After 2 races Ferrari corrects this to the McLaren style of airbox/roll hoop integration.
In teh turbo era, the roll hoop was clearly visible because the turbo inlets were ram snorkels on the side pods to ensure a short inlet path to the turbo.
With normally aspirated engines the airlets to the engines could have remained on the side pod (and Benetton had these) but the integration of roll hoop and airbox inlet provided a benefit in having fewer bits jutting into the airstream, speeding up airflow to the rear of the car and increasing under body efficiency.

Mercedes Roll Hoop alters the thinking on roll hoop design but it is not unsafe or it would not have been allowed by Mercedes or the FIA.

I challenge you to provide the accident scenario where the roll hoop digs in and will penetrate to a depth where the drivers head is at risk.

before you out fingers to key board. Head outside, find some gravel and take a large 1 inch diameter metal spike with you and a 10 lb hammer.
Now try to the drive the soike into the ground and see how far you go...
report back your results.

I'll tell you now that unless you are driving it into talcum powder, the spike will not penetrate deeper than an inch or two. the Merc' roll hoop has a bigger surface area and a much higher side loading. Penetration is a non issue.

[vealio]

I give up now, the car is a dog
I guess they can surprise in Monaco but not more.

[manchild]

@Raptor22


First of all, camera housing is not the part of the roll structure.



Second, you're comparing a rock from the gravel with gravel which is not a firm structure but completely grainy.

That same pic, gravel trap where Kovalainen hit the fence, it is deep enough. I guess their depth varies but I think that they are approximately 10 inch deep which is more than enough for bladed roll structure to get all the way trough. Sliding upside down would be even worse than falling directly from big height.

Cars do fall from above upside down if they flip, loop, and the shape of the roll structure and surrounding airbox area is crucial to prevent car sinking in.

My opinion, nothing else, and it has nothing to do with my dislike for MSC but with safety. He's not the only driver in that team.

[Raptor22]

@Raptor22


First of all, camera housing is not the part of the roll structure.



Second, you're comparing a rock from the gravel with gravel which is not a firm structure but completely grainy.

I'
d prefer you don;tplace words in my mouth to suit your arguement. I said gravel trap not a rock. Gravel trap is an area made up of an expanse of aggregate at a specified depth (I believe its 5inchees or half a foot).

That same pic, gravel trap where Kovalainen hit the fence, it is deep enough. I guess their depth varies but I think that they are approximately 10 inch deep which is more than enough for bladed roll structure to get all the way trough. Sliding upside down would be even worse than falling directly from big height.

sliding upside down in a gravel trap is impossible with any roll structure. tey dig in and flip the car over. Depending on the kinetic energy the car may flip more than once. In this scenario the the roll hoop works with the side impacts bars to aid the integrity of the safety cell.

Cars do fall from above upside down if they flip, loop, and the shape of the roll structure and surrounding airbox area is crucial to prevent car sinking in.

Cars do not fall upside down. If they flip they are rolling and there is still kintic energy to maintaining tumbling (rolling). Hence the car is not falling directly from above. think stone skipping on a pond as opposed to falling in from above.

My opinion, nothing else, and it has nothing to do with my dislike for MSC but with safety. He's not the only driver in that team.

I think your dislike of MSC is exactly what is clouding your thinking. I bet that if another driver was in that car you'd be the biggest supporter of the design.

This is a tech forum, we discuss tech issues unbiased. The design is sound.

In the pic of Kovaleinen crash, I'am not sure what it is that you wish to convey. Depth of the gravel trap? Well it appears that it is very shallow indeed since there is grass growing out of it.
Ten inches of gravel would make it very difficult for the marshalls to traverse the gravel ttrap wouldn't it. A bit like trying to walk through desert sand. Ever tried that? Gravel traps are max 5inches deep to make it possible for the marshall's to walk on it and ensure that the cars are arrested. The actual depth only needs to exceed the ride height of the car which is 50mm or 2inches. I would doubt the roll hoop penetration would be an issue.
Please apply logic to your arguements and don't make it up as you go along to suit your dislike of a particular driver. Its tedious and boring.

You may at this time feel liberated to start an MSC bashing thread elsewhere. Cheers

[ffangio]

thats certainly not what that device is doing. From what I understand, it is a passive version of McLaren's F-duct. also, increasing rear wing downforce is generally only done to balance increase in front wing downforce, which is why rear wing design stays pretty boring and stationary year-on-year.

Sorry but that's not true at all. The only reason rear wing design is relatively static is that the regulations are so prescriptive. If you could find a few points of drag-free rear downforce I'm sure you'd take it!

[RH1300S]

This may be a little premature (ie. I should wait for a couple more races) - but has anyone wondered whether Mercedes may have lost lost performance in adapting their car?

It's probably a bit early to accuse them of modifying the car purely for Michaels tastes, but it does look that way.

Look at the qualifying gaps to pole this year for Rosberg:

Bahrain +1.14
Australia +0.97
Malaysia +1.35
China – +0.36
Spain – +1.41 (MS @ 1.29)

On that basis the mods look like a backward step unless Nico didn't get his setup dialled in.

[Skinn3r55]

I believe its more likely that RedBull simply made more progress with their upgrades than the other teams. So Mercedes have progressed but RB progressed even more.