Mercedes AMG F1 W04

[MercAMGF1Fans]

Sounds like Mercedes is testing at Silverstone today. Anyone have any pics?

Mercedes Spy™ ‏@MercedesAMGSpy 1h
Mercedes testing at Silverstone: http://s10.postimg.org/3xoz2sbdl/Oude_a ... tlaten.jpg … (today) #F1 #Mercedes

That is a W02. Why would they use that car?

Demo runs etc.. sponsor videos

[mantikos]

Perhaps they had different meanings of there per cent's

MB: 100 - new, 0 damage -> change between 20-40% to get sure they wouldn't fail
RBR: 100 - new, 0 changing point witch also means 20-40%

ps. i am new in this amazing forum, and i come from Germany near Stuttgart, and hope you'll understand my English

Welcome...and marginal coupled with the other messages about gaps etc clear up any doubts about how bad RR was with tyres

[SectorOne]

Probably something for BBC,

Hamilton and Stirling Moss at Silverstone.
Tweeted by Mckenzie

http://www.whosay.com/leemckenzie/photo ... 4?wsref=tw

and a tweet from Mercedes,

The sun is out @SilverstoneUK and we have some very special Mercedes on show including this amazing W 196...



edit:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hClvL6zrcLI[/youtube]

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Gary Anderson Analysis of recent Merc updates


via AutoSport


via AutoSport

[flyboy2160]

I don't understand his comment about the twisted vane trying to keep the exhaust from going under the floor. I thought everybody is trying to drive the exhaust down below the floor to help seal the sides of the diffuser. Maybe they are trying to have it go under at a specific point?

[beelsebob]

I don't understand his comment about the twisted vane trying to keep the exhaust from going under the floor. I thought everybody is trying to drive the exhaust down below the floor to help seal the sides of the diffuser. Maybe they are trying to have it go under at a specific point?

Yeh, he's talking bullshit – he's utterly convinced that all the teams are aiming their exhaust at the brake ducts, not down the side of the diffuser. Sauber's recent CFD models showed that at least they (and various other teams have made comments about it too, e.g. McLaren), are aiming it fairly and squarely down the side of the diffuser.

[wesley123]

I'm sure he knows that. The problem is that the readers of Autosport need to understand it, and not only the technical readers, no everyone. So in turn, it is dumbed down, and often completely wrong. Why? Because the readers need to understand it. And readers understand it better if they can see it, and have a view how it would be going. No one would understand it if he would go explain how it would go under the floor, mix with airflow blah blah blah. And when less people understand it=less readers.

On the other hand, I am sure the brake ducts have some positive effect on getting the airflow where it needs to be.

[SectorOne]

That my friend does not make any sense.
Saying the exhaust plume is directed at a another component just because the average person should have it easier to
understand makes zero sense.

i don´t think it has anything to do with trying to make average people understand but instead Gary´s own belief on where the exhaust plume is directed or intended to go.

[wesley123]

That my friend does not make any sense.
Saying the exhaust plume is directed at a another component just because the average person should have it easier to
understand makes zero sense.

i don´t think it has anything to do with trying to make average people understand but instead Gary´s own belief on where the exhaust plume is directed or intended to go.

Okay so what is the point of posting a section in a magazine that no one reads?

Saying that it goes to the brake ducts where it does it's work is much easier to understand and gives the less technical readers a good suggestion what is done with the exhaust. However, saying that due to downwash flowing over the sidepod which pushes the plume down, which then flows towards the flow, then bleeds under the diffuser footplate to seal the flow by generating a strong vortex. I am quite sure 90% of the less technical readers dont even know what a vortex is. And people are much less likely to read something they do not understand.

The brake duct story is a simple and easy to understand and gives a decent enough idea of what is done. And that is the whole point. Autosport won't distribute an article that no one reads because it is too hard to understand.

[mantikos]

That my friend does not make any sense.
Saying the exhaust plume is directed at a another component just because the average person should have it easier to
understand makes zero sense.

i don´t think it has anything to do with trying to make average people understand but instead Gary´s own belief on where the exhaust plume is directed or intended to go.

Okay so what is the point of posting a section in a magazine that no one reads?

Saying that it goes to the brake ducts where it does it's work is much easier to understand and gives the less technical readers a good suggestion what is done with the exhaust. However, saying that due to downwash flowing over the sidepod which pushes the plume down, which then flows towards the flow, then bleeds under the diffuser footplate to seal the flow by generating a strong vortex. I am quite sure 90% of the less technical readers dont even know what a vortex is. And people are much less likely to read something they do not understand.

The brake duct story is a simple and easy to understand and gives a decent enough idea of what is done. And that is the whole point. Autosport won't distribute an article that no one reads because it is too hard to understand.

Sorry plain and simple BS - he got this and many other things wrong - of course, he isn't privy to team's data so he has to guess and this guess (as several others in the past) are plain wrong.

You explanation also makes no sense what so ever...people read to be informed - they buy the magazine to learn how to be misinformed and learn BS...but this is a car thread not a magazine thread.

[SectorOne]

Okay so what is the point of posting a section in a magazine that no one reads?

Saying that it goes to the brake ducts where it does it's work is much easier to understand and gives the less technical readers a good suggestion what is done with the exhaust. However, saying that due to downwash flowing over the sidepod which pushes the plume down, which then flows towards the flow, then bleeds under the diffuser footplate to seal the flow by generating a strong vortex. I am quite sure 90% of the less technical readers dont even know what a vortex is. And people are much less likely to read something they do not understand.

The brake duct story is a simple and easy to understand and gives a decent enough idea of what is done. And that is the whole point. Autosport won't distribute an article that no one reads because it is too hard to understand.

Interesting how you made one thing simpler yet made the other thing sounds way more complex then it really is.

One is to feed the brake duct winglets. The other is to get the exhaust plume between the rear tire and the edge of the diffuser to seal the air coming out of the diffuser.

The brake duct story is a simple and easy to understand and gives a decent enough idea of what is done.

No it isn´t. That´s misinformation 101.

You don´t have much faith in people´s desire to learn new things i can tell. And it´s not exactly posted in the new york times front page but a car magazine and in the techincal section written by a former racing car designer.

[Huntresa]

Imo its easier to understand the sealing of the diffuser then the exhaust aimed at the brake ducts.

[wesley123]

There is a difference between being informed and making it hard for readers to understand. If you seriously explain it well people wouldnt fully understand it, and that is a problem. And yes, people like being informed. But what is the point of reading about vortex formation and how it works the exhaust(which the 2 small fins in the picture aid) when you dont know what a vortex is?

Ever noticed how when you read something on a more 'general' website or magazine about a subject that you understand well it suddenly sounds dumb what you are reading, while when you read about a subject you dont know much about it is much less so? No, that isnt because that other site just has things more wrong, it is cause it is dumbed down for people to understand it better.

Oh and also note how for example Scarbs articles on his blog go in much more detail than GA's articles in Autosport? You know why that is? Not because Scarbs know more stuff about it or scarbs is smarter(sorry Craig), no it is because Gary Anderson's Autosport articles are written for the broad public, while scarbs blog articles are more written for the people that know more about the subject. Just like many people here.

Also, I honestly doubt Gary anderson doesnt know about the coanda exhaust and how it seals the diffuser.
1. It is pretty much the most talked about thing in the last few years
2. Many engineers have told that it does seal the diffuser.
3. There is many proof about it's function.
Also it seems that a lot of people keep forgetting that Gary anderson has actual F1 experience.

But well, seeing things from another perspective than your own, it is hard. Just remember that many people dont even know how a wing works, many F1 viewers dont know how a wing works, and many autosport readers dont kow how a wing works. Sorry, but you arent going to understand how this or that works when you dont even know what a vortex for example is.

Just let me compare it to the following; when you started school, were you immediately taught about complex formula's? No. Why? Because you dont understand the basics, and when you dont understand it, you arent going to understand the more compelx stuff. So what makes anyone here think that people that dont know anything about aero(and yes there are a lot people that dont, just like you and me dont know anything about architecture or psychiatry for example) you arent going to let them understand the complex ways how an f1 car works. And that is why it is dumbed down, so regular people can understand it. Oh yes, and on that kid thing, kids can learn things better than older people.

[SectorOne]

There is a difference between being informed and making it hard for readers to understand. If you seriously explain it well people wouldnt fully understand it, and that is a problem. And yes, people like being informed. But what is the point of reading about vortex formation and how it works the exhaust(which the 2 small fins in the picture aid) when you dont know what a vortex is?

When talking about the basic concept of where the air is going and what happens with the car you don´t need to know what a vortex is.

I´m sorry but once again i can´t make any sense of the rest of the post. It just doesn´t add up for me.
misinforming a person because you make it sound more complex then it really is makes no sense whatsoever.

A simple sentence can explain the basic concept behind sealing the diffuser there´s no doubt about that.
It´s like instead of quickly explaining e=mc2 you make up your own formula that has no relevance to reality.

[wesley123]

When talking about the basic concept of where the air is going and what happens with the car you don´t need to know what a vortex is.

For example in the image, GA talks about those two small winglets. Which would enhance the vortex(my quick guess now), although small it is an important part of the update, and therefore cannot be ignored. So then, the vortex is of quite importance in the whole story. It is quite like science(or w/e the english term is) without the atoms.

I´m sorry but once again i can´t make any sense of the rest of the post. It just doesn´t add up for me.
misinforming a person because you make it sound more complex then it really is makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay, there might be a way to tell it correctly, yet simple so it can be understood.

A simple sentence can explain the basic concept behind sealing the diffuser there´s no doubt about that.
It´s like instead of quickly explaining e=mc2 you make up your own formula that has no relevance to reality.

True, but then you dont use terms from physics no? You try to simplify it so anyone can understand it.