Mercedes AMG F1 W06

[Nicola11]

Mercedes using new Winglets under the mirrors


(picture credits to formule1.nl)

[stefan_]

2015 Winter testing | Session 2, Day 1 - Circuit de Catalunya, Spain (19.02.2015)

[Morteza]

https://twitter.com/emmepi27/status/568448890464309248 https://twitter.com/theWPTformula/statu ... 3248485376

[dans79]

Man that front wing looks funky from above.

[turbof1]

http://i.imgur.com/cqCjAUC.jpg

I drew that wing, studied through every small detail, and I still have to admit I never thought the wing to curl back parallel the neutral section in such an extreme fashion.

I mean I knew it did curl back, but the AoA in that section is enormous, much more then anticipated.. I believe that without flexing, the wing simply stalls there fairly quickly.

[SectorOne]

That overhead shot is just sick. Front wing AoA is mental, and vortex heaven on or near the sidepods.

[arahman_93]

Is this rear wing new on the merc. Just above the 2 slots theres this Bulgy bit.

[turbof1]

Hey guys,

I've moved the livery discussion to the team thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 15&t=21196.

Also refrain from speculation about future performances. Not only doesn't speculation have any place in a car thread (remember: only discussion about physical parts!), drawing parallel's to the Brawn-Mercedes transition is hugely wild. Not even bothered to move that, so I deleted those posts.

[mantikos]

Maybe they have raised the inner FW AoA to such high levels to cause spanwise flow which by the looks of it would cause flow to increase the outwash and at the other end cause more air to be directed to the batwing area and split diverters mounted under the tub.

[eyalynf1]

That overhead shot is just sick. Front wing AoA is mental, and vortex heaven on or near the sidepods.

I have two theories on this front wing, and that is one of them...

The first is as Sector implies, which is that the near vertical and curved section of the wing immediately adjacent to the neutral section is essentially a bargeboard. It allows the flow structures between it and the nose to proceed back and around the sidepods undisturbed. It does this by deflecting flow outward that would otherwise proceed to the suspension and result in turbulent wake that would be incident on the sidepod and dismantle the structures there. I think this approach may also be why the traditional bargeboards at the front of the sidepods have become almost vestigal; the front wings are now decreasing the cross section of the wake incident on the sidepods that used to be handled by the bargeboards.

In addition, the nose cross section is minimized here, and the large curvature of the wing allows a large cross section of laminar flow in between the high AoA section and the nose when the car is in yaw (turning). This cross section of flow in yaw may actually proceed spanwise to the opposite sidepod intact and reduce stalling on the outside of the car during high speed turn.

The second is that as this point, the front wings of F1 cars are essentially wing/diffuser hybrids. Call them quintuple-deck diffusers or whatever, but imagine if you could have the same size box on the rear diffuser as the front wing, and also have holes. My guess is that it would look a lot like the front wings, with horizontal perhaps without the dramatic outwash elements.

[NoDivergence]

The high angle of attack is fine at least for the wing's performance. Considering your mounting points are close together near the center, it makes sense structurally to have your maximum downforce in the center of the wing. It also makes sense 3D lift distribution wise as you reduce your induced drag at the ends of the wing, reducing the negative interactions of the flow with the tire. And yes, the inward moving vortex is high strength and useful to the undercut and batwing.

When you have high number of cambered elements, the end camber looks extremely steep, but the slots help refresh the boundary layer to each succeeding element as well as allow off the surface pressure recovery. You have a little separation, but you are still increasing the downforce with additional AOA, not even close to stalled

Here's an example of an extremely old 7 element design.


Look familiar?

Nowadays, we are likely well into the 5.0 or even 6.0 C_l range.

[PlatinumZealot]

http://i.imgur.com/cqCjAUC.jpg

I drew that wing, studied through every small detail, and I still have to admit I never thought the wing to curl back parallel the neutral section in such an extreme fashion.

I mean I knew it did curl back, but the AoA in that section is enormous, much more then anticipated.. I believe that without flexing, the wing simply stalls there fairly quickly.

The angle of attack is actually similar as you go across the wing from end-plate to neutral section. More or less the same profile is swept on an "S" shaped path when seen from above.

[Aaronque]

[Morteza]

Barcelona Test - Day 2 - Friday - 20/2/2015














Via AMuS

[Aaronque]