Mercedes AMG F1 W03

[raymondu999]

How does a lighter gearbox presume to reduce the weight at the rear though? Weight distribution is controlled by having a minimum of 291kg on the front axle and 342 on the rear - say they save 1kg on the CF gearbox. They'd have to add 1kg of ballast to compensate. Having said that, you could put it lower for a lower CofG.

[wunderkind]

How does a lighter gearbox presume to reduce the weight at the rear though? Weight distribution is controlled by having a minimum of 291kg on the front axle and 342 on the rear - say they save 1kg on the CF gearbox. They'd have to add 1kg of ballast to compensate. Having said that, you could put it lower for a lower CofG.

Yes, the goal is more to reduce the centre of gravity and the pendulum effect (if any).

[raymondu999]

How much though? I mean the gain can't be massive - doesn't an F1 gearbox sit on the floor anyways? Where could you put ballast LOWER than the gearbox position? I'm not trying to be negative - just trying to understand this.

[wunderkind]

How much though? I mean the gain can't be massive - doesn't an F1 gearbox sit on the floor anyways? Where could you put ballast LOWER than the gearbox position? I'm not trying to be negative - just trying to understand this.

On the floor and further forward to reduce the car's moment of inertia further perhaps.

[raymondu999]

Further forward isn't really of any use though - that means you have to move something, such as ballast, further rearwards. The mass at the rear will constantly be at least 342kg, thanks to the regulations...

[Lycoming]

it may still reduce yaw inertia. You can change yaw inertia without altering center of gravity location. But I agree, any gains they make from a carbon gearbox are likely to be small. They can perhaps bring the CG down a bit, and drop yaw inertia a bit, and thats about it. the true nature of the gains depends on how well they can package the ballast that they gain. I suspect the yaw inertia gain will be greater than the CG height gain, though the CG height drop will probably result in a greater performance improvement.

I agree that overall there isn't a massive gain, but it must be significant or they wouldn't do it. A carbon fiber gearbox case can be quite troublesome as compared to a titanium one.

[raymondu999]

Again though - how do you move center of gravity, when weight distribution is just about fixed? (save for 7kg of leeway)

[Lycoming]

you move it up and down in the vertical axis, front/back within the bounds defined by the weight distribution regulations, and preferable as close to the middle as possible.

[raymondu999]

Up and down yes - for vertical. but for longitudinal and lateral center of gravity, for every weight you move forwards, another mass has to move rearwards to keep the weight distribution within the rules, up to that 7kg leeway. Doesn't the 342 rear 291 front regulation effectively cancel out shifting the center of gravity longitudinally anyways?

[wunderkind]

Up and down yes - for vertical. but for longitudinal and lateral center of gravity, for every weight you move forwards, another mass has to move rearwards to keep the weight distribution within the rules, up to that 7kg leeway. Doesn't the 342 rear 291 front regulation effectively cancel out shifting the center of gravity longitudinally anyways?

It will be a trade-off. Seeing Mercedes has also made the effort of rearranging the hardware in the leading edge of the lower sidepods, I suspect they would have done the necessary calculations and made sure the alterations would yield some tangible benefits.

Like Lycoming said, carbon fibre gearbox casings are troublesome to produce and they would have only done it as part of a bigger scheme to improve performance.

Again, I think it is about chipping away bit by bit to make the significant progress desired.

[humble sabot]

To be clear on the CG issue, you are correct, if the scrutineer has to see 342kg on the rear wheels and 291 on the front that means you have to move your masses around to accomplish that. Sometimes that means you have to make things lighter at the extremities. When you do that you reduce the moment of inertia when changing direction.

[ivand911]

I think they gain more going to CF casing. 4-5 kg? And I think change in rear suspension (suspension connection points), also new rear brakes have bigger impact on performance.

[Gridlock]

Scarbs is always asking those who own a CF gearbox casing to weigh it, I think they came in about 12.5kg? Anyone want to weigh a Ti one?

Are there any nom-obvious gains from the CF casing, i.e. reduced weight ancillaries or mounts for suspension etc, flex?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Are there any nom-obvious gains from the CF casing, i.e. reduced weight ancillaries or mounts for suspension etc, flex?

By using the Carbon cased gearbox, mass can be lowered in the form of ballast. It also gives them a wider setup range. Depends where Mercedes want to put the mass, as they still have to fall within the bounds of the mandated weight distribution.
Basically a lower unsprung mass is what most teams will look for.
Basic, but explains it fairly well here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

Im wondering too if the Red Bull "hole in the floor" could be adapted to the W03.
Any team in the pitlane would benefit with speeding up the airflow under the car, and this simple yet controversial development will be seen sooner rather than later on most cars IMO.
On the RB8 it redirects oncoming airflow as well as exhaust flow. How Mercedes could utilise it depends on their exhaust philosophy, but it would still work with airflow coming from the front of the car around the sidepods and back as this would still have usable energy to help speed up flow beneath the floor.

[Ferraripilot]

I have to hand some big credit over to Merc for their sidepod developement. I certainly was not expecting a change this quick and radical as it required crash testing. They are serious and I believe if they keep things up in Canada they could be in a good position to hunt for the WCC.