Team: Bob Bell (TD), Aldo Costa (ED), Geoff Willis (Technology Director), Andrew Shovlin (CRE), Simon Cole (CTE), Ron Meadows (SD), Matthew Deane (CM), Ross Brawn (TP), Nick Fry (CEO), Toto Wolff (Exec Director), Andy Cowell (MD of powertrain),
Drivers: Nico Rosberg (9), Lewis Hamilton (10)
Team name: Mercedes AMG Petronas
Fantastic! Great to know your CFD simulations agree with what James Allison publicly announced about the device last year.n smikle wrote:My preliminary CFD simulations show that the DRD is a down-force adder in its normal state. And when it switches the air jets turn off and the down-force and some drag is reduced.
I don't know what your issue is with me, I think your recent posts are unfounded and unnecessarily critical.n smikle wrote:
Scarbs is always full of words but never numbers. He didn't say whether the Passive F-duct (that is what the DRD essentially) is, gives down-force or takes it away.. He also has no interior details on the switch itself.
Again guys, I will say this... most of these F1 "puzzles" are usually solved first on this very website, then copied by others. You can find the answer you just to have confidence and think for yourself, or even discuss the concept with others. Guys like Scarb's and Keith Kollantine aren't always right.
My preliminary CFD simulations show that the DRD is a down-force adder in its normal state. And when it switches the air jets turn off and the down-force and some drag is reduced.
Indeed Scarbs! Sometimes it seems people just like to be deliberatly argumentative or inflamatory on this forum lately. The amount of bickering and general thread deviation has been making catching up on these F1 car threads very tedious indeed! As always, we the genuinely interested are ever grateful for your contributions so please don't stop!scarbs wrote:I don't know what your issue is with me, I think your recent posts are unfounded and unnecessarily critical.n smikle wrote:
Scarbs is always full of words but never numbers. He didn't say whether the Passive F-duct (that is what the DRD essentially) is, gives down-force or takes it away.. He also has no interior details on the switch itself.
Again guys, I will say this... most of these F1 "puzzles" are usually solved first on this very website, then copied by others. You can find the answer you just to have confidence and think for yourself, or even discuss the concept with others. Guys like Scarb's and Keith Kollantine aren't always right.
My preliminary CFD simulations show that the DRD is a down-force adder in its normal state. And when it switches the air jets turn off and the down-force and some drag is reduced.
I don't post numbers, I cant post numbers, who else can? Only the teams themselves know the numbers any development adds to their car. I'd love to see your numbers for Mercedes DRD?
I have posted a clear image of how the 'switch' is laid out, based on pictures of the real device and with words to explain how it works, I have also tested this device in 2D CFD and explained its limitations.
I have frequently put forward that the DRD does not add downforce, in fact I'm sure it costs downforce from the blockage effect and air bleeding from the stalling "L" duct at lower speeds. I believe this explains the comments from James Alison that the system currently costs laptime and the top speed boost doesn't pay for itself.
Neither can I see how perpendicular blowing, normal the wings surface, can add downforce. Tangential blowing yes, but that isn't how I see the slots are configured.
I would love to see how you set up your CFD case. That would make us ALL laugh I think...n smikle wrote:Scarbs is always full of words but never numbers. He didn't say whether the Passive F-duct (that is what the DRD essentially) is, gives down-force or takes it away.. He also has no interior details on the switch itself.kris wrote:I do understand that part.. I was wondering more in terms of the theory behind the concept?stefan_ wrote:One of the differences that doesn't qualify it as an "f-duct" is that the driver has no influence on the system in directing the air or allowing/disrupting airflow to go to the main flap.
Again guys, I will say this... most of these F1 "puzzles" are usually solved first on this very website, then copied by others. You can find the answer you just to have confidence and think for yourself, or even discuss the concept with others. Guys like Scarb's and Keith Kollantine aren't always right.
My preliminary CFD simulations show that the DRD is a down-force adder in its normal state. And when it switches the air jets turn off and the down-force and some drag is reduced.
What has all this to do with the Merc?Litmus wrote:To N Smikle - I seem to recall Scarbs pointing others to your work via Twitter when you were modelling exhaust flows this time last year so a little bemused as to why you're having a crack at him. And Keith for that matter.
I will have to run the whole test again! But i will do it because it would be a good comparison!Gridlock wrote:Fascinating stuff, could you post a version without the tube to show the difference on the pressure map?
We have a 43 page thread devoted to the Lotus blown wing.Gridlock wrote:Fascinating stuff, could you post a version without the tube to show the difference on the pressure map?
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 376246&f=6 
MercedesAMG wrote:Interesting article about the W04 in German:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 55931.html
It's said that the car is more than 2 sec faster than the old one. But it's of course only a speculation, nothing more.
More than 2 secs faster with the same rules and with a more or less basic design?MercedesAMG wrote:Interesting article about the W04 in German:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 55931.html
It's said that the car is more than 2 sec faster than the old one. But it's of course only a speculation, nothing more.
