Team: John Owen (CD), Loic Bigois (HA), Craig Wilson (Head of Vehicle Eng. & Dynamics), Russell Cooley (CE), Ross Brawn (TP), Nick Fry (CEO), Norbert Haug (VP), Thomas Fuhr (MD), Rob Thomas (COO) Drivers: Michael Schumacher (7), Nico Rosberg (8)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Anyone heard anything else about this stalling rear wing?????????
main element is too big. It's stalling on the back side, the flow can't stay attached to the back of the wing.
Having a smaller main element would ensure the slot between it and the flap would provide flow energy lower down before separation takes place.
its only Mclaren wing is so different from the rest
their main element is small and the stalling element is huge
Merc had some what bigger stalling element, but they changed it to smaller in the last few tests and they gained something from that....i read Brawn or someone here saying that thats the best setup for stalling
the Ferrari , RBR and Merc have the same rear wing element setup
I think this is a case of bad stalling rather than good stalling. Why bother trying to stall the main element anyway? If the angle of attack is not that great then it won't make a lot of drag.
I don't know, it depends whether the drag induced from normal operation is less than the drag caused by separated flow? I find that hard to believe with the main element, honestly.
Partial stall, perhaps? Would be hard to control I imagine.
"Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words." - Chuang Tzu
Anyone heard anything else about this stalling rear wing?????????
main element is too big. It's stalling on the back side, the flow can't stay attached to the back of the wing.
Having a smaller main element would ensure the slot between it and the flap would provide flow energy lower down before separation takes place.
The idea behind their rear wing is that the main plane stalls when the drs is activated, so the drag is reduced even further, so i think its just a case of optimizing their design as i think at the moment it is stalling too easy
I'm referring to 90% of the time when the wing is closed. From what i understand, i think it's perfectly fine when it's open, but is giving problems under normal running.
ringo wrote:I'm referring to 90% of the time when the wing is closed. From what i understand, i think it's perfectly fine when it's open, but is giving problems under normal running.
It must be in the same condition, though, right? The flow won't attach because the flap has been opened, I would say it is more likely to detach. But, as mentioned, this might be the design behaviour.
"Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words." - Chuang Tzu
on AMuS:
Ein Grund für die dezente Vorstellung waren die zahlreichen technischen Probleme, die Schumacher und Rosberg bremsten. Der Hybridantrieb gab sich als launische Diva. Mal funktionierte er, mal nicht. "Entweder stimmt was mit den Sensoren nicht, oder es gab Fehlalarm", grübelte Technikchef Andy Cowell. "Wenn zu viele Fehlermeldungen kommen, schaltet das System aus Sicherheitsgründen ab. Wir müssen dann jedes Mal die Parameter überprüfen, bevor wir einen Reset machen." Da sich je nach Kers-Betriebszustand die Bremsbalance ändert, wussten die Piloten nie, woran sie waren. Das schafft kein Vertrauen ins Auto. Und Vertrauen ist Rundenzeit.
Auch der Heckflügel stiftete Verwirrung. In Kurvenfahrt kam es hin und wieder zu unkontrollierten Strömungsabriss. "Vielleicht ist er eine Spur zu spitz ausgelegt", vermutet Haug. "Aber wir wollen natürlich auch beim Flachstellen möglichst viel Widerstand abbauen. Die Topspeeds zeigen, dass wenigstens das funktioniert." Fazit des Mercedes-Rennleiters: "Wir haben nicht den Abtrieb genereriert, zu dem das Auto normalerweise in der Lage ist. Wenn alles passt, kann Rosberg im Training die Button-Zeit fahren."
Andy Cowell cited unexplainable errors coming from the Kers system and robbing the drivers of their confidence as the system kept switching off due to to many error writings the system produced false errors maybe ,but the switchoff is a safety measure a reset can only be done after checking all parameters. So approaching a turn you could never be sure of the brake balance settings and car reactions...
the Rear wing showed for the first time stall effects when it shouldn´t and is suspected to be to be prone to instable flow when under cornering .they see themselves in the Button time window at this time. according to Haug
ringo wrote:
I'm referring to 90% of the time when the wing is closed. From what i understand, i think it's perfectly fine when it's open, but is giving problems under normal running.
If its designed to stall when its open, its going to be pretty close to stalling under normal running considering the flap has to be so small
mep wrote:Why do they have sensors at all that are able to switch the device on and off?
I thought it would be a driver activated system.
It is, but they have some heat and current sensors for safety, in case there is a short, so the car doesn't catch fire. And apparently, one of those is faulty.
For the rear wing, I wonder if that monkey seat they added on top of the beam wing might be messing with it. It seemed to work well in testing before that was installed, and it's the only major aero difference I noticed at the back of the car. The rear wing itself certainly seems identical to the testing model.
mep wrote:Why do they have sensors at all that are able to switch the device on and off?
I thought it would be a driver activated system.
It is, but they have some heat and current sensors for safety, in case there is a short, so the car doesn't catch fire. And apparently, one of those is faulty.
For the rear wing, I wonder if that monkey seat they added on top of the beam wing might be messing with it. It seemed to work well in testing before that was installed, and it's the only major aero difference I noticed at the back of the car. The rear wing itself certainly seems identical to the testing model.
its not the monkey seat
its the way the rear wing is attached to the car
http://translate.google.de/translate?u= ... =&ie=UTF-8 apparently Eeckelart predicted: inconsistent rear wing behavior due to the fact that the rear wing channels downforce via the endplates and beam wing alone. All leading teams have their rear wings supported by a 3rd pillar and/or resting the end plates on the floor directly.
That same rear wing worked perfectly well in Barcelona.
And to be honest, I don't really agree with Eeckelart. It's quite easy with today's composite structures to make the endplates stiff enough to transmit the loads.
If it was that simple, Mercedes would have changed this already.
bot6 wrote:That same rear wing worked perfectly well in Barcelona.
And to be honest, I don't really agree with Eeckelart. It's quite easy with today's composite structures to make the endplates stiff enough to transmit the loads.
If it was that simple, Mercedes would have changed this already.
well with all due respect i would agree with him as he has been working in f1 for more than 10 years unlike armchair experts.
what he said was it works, but it will have lots of inconsistency
and it will be exaggerated in crosswind conditions
and mind you he said this weeks before the Melbourne GP and the Merc team kinda confirmed this in their latest press release
It's not only the end-plates that's the problem.. ALL of the wing is supported by the beam wing support! So it's just one big cantilever and a parallelogram when it's vibrating.
I get what you guys say, but when you take into account the thickness and angles of the beam and rear wing, there is plenty of volume there to make a stiff enough structure vertically and transversely.
A central pillar might be an easier, simpler solution. It might also end up being lighter. But that doesn't make the Merc solution structurally impossible or too soft. It mainly depends on how many layers of carbon fiber you put on the endplates and beam wing, and making a structure stiff enough is possible, even if it might come with a slight weight disadvantage.
If Eeckelart said that weeks before the race, then his words might just have been taken out of context by the journalists to validate a claim that they know what's happening. Eeckelart might have simply been explaining why they went the single pillar route with HRT instead of the no pillar route, which absolutely does not mean Mercedes have the same issues with a completely different design to HRT's concept.
It's so easy for the journalist to jump the gun, say "this is the problem" and fish out a 10 week old article about the HRT rear wing to validate his theory.
Sisuke, You say Eeckelart has been working in F1 for over 10 years so he must know. By the way, so have a lot of the guys at Mercedes. So maybe he knows what's best for HRT, but keep in mind Mercedes have a different design concept and more firepower to make certain things work.
I hope that this time I'm not wrong when I think that they can solve this problem unlike last year. Let's wait at least until Malaysia, if they are again as slow as in Melbourne then the season is over, because no one will wait with the development for merc.
Last edited by mx_tifoso on 31 Mar 2011, 01:20, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:removed response to deleted off topic remark.
