Mercedes GP W02

[tjaeger]

If the car is so much shorter compared to all other cars there is probably not sufficient real estate to make it much more tighter around the sidepod's and so forth. All the stuff under the hod got to go some place..
Therefore I am not expecting too much magic around the shape changing in regards to cutting down on size.

[tjaeger]

I mean:
- The engine is a given size and does not shrink
- The fuel cell got to carry the same amount of fuel than the others.
- All the other auxiliary equipment u can package different, but it will not win too much room.
- KERS does not appear to be micro small.
- Radiators is still the same logic, you need a certain surface area to get the thermal exchange required, the laws of heat exchange did not magically change.

Therefore the volume required can either go in length or width. Of course there is the 3rd dimension height (which is not an option).

[tjaeger]

Wonder if they missed the direction on the overall concept this year. RB appears to be stepping away from V-shape nose a little and the nose cone appears to be dropping, instead of being that high up.
Maybe trying to copy last years RB features ain't the best option with the DD being banned...
Thoughts?

[dren]

Is the W02 really that much shorter than all of the other cars?

[tjaeger]

That is what everyone says here on the forum, as well as some other forums. Some comparison pics appear to point out a dramatic difference.
Think the longest car is the McLaren...

Isn't it the case that:
- Long wheel base is better for fast corners and fast circuits, giving the car better stability and superior cornering?
- Short wheel base cars are superior for twisty circuits (street circuits) Monaco, I guess cannot think yet of another one in the whole season..? Probably better in slow corners?

[tjaeger]

All excited to see what they bring to the table this week for the final testing. Guess if they want some confidence on their new package it is now or never, let the pants down.
Possibly this week might give the first true comparison between all teams, when everyone will likely test their season starter package, or probably 98% complete designs that they will race in Australia.

[Richard]

tjaeger - the biggest factor in the long/short debate is likely to be aero rather than mechanical.

The emerging theme in F1 is to create as much space at the back as possible to generate down force. Williams is the most extreme version of this, their car appears to stop with a significant gap to the wing/diffuser. A shorter car will not have such a big gap which means a more cluttered airflow.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

tjaeger - the biggest factor in the long/short debate is likely to be aero rather than mechanical.

The emerging theme in F1 is to create as much space at the back as possible to generate down force. Williams is the most extreme version of this, their car appears to stop with a significant to the wing/diffuser. A shorter car will not have such a big gap which means a more cluttered airflow.

Richard, last year the W01 was also very short in comparison to the rest. Why would Mercedes maintain this line with the W02?
What aero benefit are they getting?

Does shorter wheel base mean better tyre wear characterisitics?

There must be a scientific and plausible reason why Mercedes are doing this.

[dren]

I am guessing Mercedes has a short car because:

- The new aero package (yet to be seen) requires it (probably most likely)
- They believe the short chassis gives them the proper weight distribution to work the tires well
- They have a short gear box
- They need it to keep the chassis rigid enough

Wheel base now is more a function of aero design direction and car packaging.

Scarbs had a good write up on it last year.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/02/1 ... important/

[tjaeger]

Thanks a lot Richard for the explanation..same to you dren.

Have to agree with JET, if last years SWB car did not work, makes you wonder why the go with it once more. I hope they do have a very good plan behind that.

[marcush.]

Brawn always maintained that they did not increase wb to get the wheelbase correct but to give them more scope to play around with weight distribution.
Along these lines with a fixed weight distribution to gaion degree in freedom in terms of weight distribution is not an issue in 2011.

[747heavy]

does longer/shorter wheelbase equals longer/shorter overall length?

I think last year MGP did increase the wheelbase without making the car physical longer (length between nose tip and rear wing)

The W02 could be shorter then other cars (less floor length etc), but it does not has to, just because it has a shorter wheelbase.

what would happen, if (as an example) RBR is moving there front wheels 70mm backwards with a different set of wishbones?
Still the same gearbox, floor, aero for the rear no? (not including wave and vortex patterns etc.)

just some thoughts to keep in mind

[dren]

Thanks a lot Richard for the explanation..same to you dren.

Have to agree with JET, if last years SWB car did not work, makes you wonder why the go with it once more. I hope they do have a very good plan behind that.

No problem!

I think we have to look at why the W02 has a SWB and then say that design idea is good/bad rather than saying the SWB is a bad idea. Since likely the SWB is a result due to some other design direction. So the SWB is sort of like a 'symptom' to the problem if in fact the W02 design direction is a problem. We'll see soon!

The W01 had a SWB, but why? I'm thinking packaging for the DD and original weight distribution calculations. Or maybe the gear box is short?

Isn't the gear box this year metal instead of carbon fiber due to the increased minimum weight limit?

[scarbs]

does longer/shorter wheelbase equals longer/shorter overall length?

I think last year MGP did increase the wheelbase without making the car physical longer (length between nose tip and rear wing)

The W02 could be shorter then other cars (less floor length etc), but it does not has to, just because it has a shorter wheelbase.

what would happen, if (as an example) RBR is moving there front wheels 70mm backwards with a different set of wishbones?
Still the same gearbox, floor, aero for the rear no? (not including wave and vortex patterns etc.)

just some thoughts to keep in mind

A lot of the cars dimensions are measured relative to the axles. i.e. the front and rear overhangs, front wing position, as well as the start of the diffuser and most forward position of the drivers feet .
If a car has a long enough nose tip, then its possible to extend the wheelbase without making the car longer. As you say Mercedes did this by pushing the front axle forwards, this necessitated an equal forward shift in the front wing, but this remained within the overall length of the car.
A team could reduce their wheelbase, by moving the front suspension rearwards, as long as the nose tip did not then exceed the maximum overhang, the front wing was moved backwards by an equal amount and the drivers feet remained behind the axle line. this is a pretty big impact on the aero as the vortices created by the front wing, vanes, splitter will be hitting the front of the floor differently. these would all need redesigns.

[Twaddle]

I'm starting to think that the shortness may, at least partly, be down to cost. Mercedes GP just don't have the level of funding available to McLaren, Red Bull or Ferrari. It may have been prohibitively expensive - or at least no cost effective when considering the other compromises that would have to be made - to design a sufficiently stiff chassis along with revised gearbox etc. required to go along with it. If their existing setup was quite close to the manadatory weight distribution anyway, they may have decided not to spend resources playing about with something completely new in this area.