Williams FW37 Mercedes

[turbof1]

I want to claw my eyes out with some of the stuff I am reading here about Williams wing being "to simplistic" over the last couple posts. Turbo, you made far to many over simplifications.

Perhaps. The thing is, I did not want to move into too much details and then finding myself being stuck in it. Maybe simplistic is not the correct word, or maybe it does not do Williams honour since it's still a complex wing, but what I do know is that they are not mapping out the very complex tiny air structures some others do with their wings.

If you find that I'm too over simplificating too much, fair enough, but do please elaborate then instead of just attacking the notion.

[F1aero]

I want to claw my eyes out with some of the stuff I am reading here about Williams wing being "to simplistic" over the last couple posts. Turbo, you made far to many over simplifications.

Perhaps. The thing is, I did not want to move into too much details and then finding myself being stuck in it. Maybe simplistic is not the correct word, or maybe it does not do Williams honour since it's still a complex wing, but what I do know is that they are not mapping out the very complex tiny air structures some others do with their wings.

If you find that I'm too over simplificating too much, fair enough, but do please elaborate then instead of just attacking the notion.

Agreed with trinidefender!
turbo f1, do you or have you ever working in an F1 aero department?
If so you'd know that every single flow structure & vortex is deeply investigated. There is no part of the flow which is not known about!

You also said that you don't see much development to control rear wheel wake & tyre squirt.
Is the development of the spat & fences, RBD winglets & diffuser not thought about?

[turbof1]

turbo f1, do you or have you ever working in an F1 aero department?
If so you'd know that every single flow structure & vortex is deeply investigated. There is no part of the flow which is not known about!

You'd be surprised... .

You are deviating away from the matter, just as trinidefender. Of course Williams knows what's happening with every stream of air. What I am saying is that Williams is not finetuning airflow like for instance Red Bull or Mercedes does. That's not an oversight as you insinuate I say. It's I think a concious decision and part of their low drag philosophy. PZ worded it right: they have far less vortex-producing devices. That is the reality, if you like it or not. Again, I'm neither saying Williams will automatically improve by adding those things. I'm fully aware it does not work like that, trust me.

What I personally believe is that Williams is on par with Mercedes concerning peak downforce, but not in terms of aero stability. It's the sacrifice they are making for their low drag philosophy. Just look at Mercedes what they did at China: they made changes to the wing that probably sacrificed peak downforce in order to better handle wheel wake to keep the whole matrix of flow structures stable. It probably ended up with adding drag too (although it possibly recuperates it from reduced drag from the wheel wake).

It's quite easy again to attack the notion. Criticism is ok, but do tell your vision also then. I'm sticking my neck out; it's only fair that you do the same.

You also said that you don't see much development to control rear wheel wake & tyre squirt.
Is the development of the spat & fences, RBD winglets & diffuser not thought about?

Very interesting you mention updates on the rear when the current discussion obviously is about the front wing . Have you ever worked at an aero department? Then you should know the front wing is the single most important aero performance differentiator since it maps out the whole airflow infrastructure going rearwards the car. I never mentioned anything about the rear, so either you are confusing my posts with someone else, or you are simply making things up. Either way you've made an opinion without properly reading my posts, so I suggest doing that before getting back to me.

(Don't answer the question btw. It was rhetorical, with the answer not being a yes or no)

[RicME85]

I think the word that needs bringing in here is 'comparatively'

[LookBackTime]

...

turbo f1, do you or have you ever working in an F1 aero department?
If so you'd know that every single flow structure & vortex is deeply investigated. There is no part of the flow which is not known about!

You'd be surprised... .

...

I hope you are not Jason Somerville !



I have enjoyed this discussions.

[turbof1]

I think the word that needs bringing in here is 'comparatively'

Yes, very probably needed in here. Don't get me wrong either: all of these cars are incredibly complex, including the Williams one. Decades of aero research cumulates into such cars. Competition however is always relative to your opponents.

[trinidefender]

I haven't had much time over the last week but hopefully soon I'll be able to give a proper answer. When I say simplistic I do mean exactly that. I can almost assure you that they have mapped out the "tiny airflow structures" on their wing. The fact that they haven't changed their wing in so long shows that the original base design was just that good and suited their car that well. The rest of the car was then designed around that airflow structure.

The reason that nobody has copied it is that you can't just stick somebody else's front wing on your car and expect it to work. The rest of the car will then have to be designed around it.

Btw you mentioned that the merc wing had many flat footplate sections. It came across from that description that they were just there to connect the outboard end to the neutral section. This cannot be further from the truth. Just because it looks flat does not mean it is not doing work with the airflow.

[turbof1]

...shows that the original base design was just that good...

It only shows they are locked into the concept. It being good or bad is an entirely different matter. Mclaren worked for 3 years with a particular design of front wing before realizing they had to overthrow it and start from scratch with a completely different concept of front wing. Just because a front wing works good for a car, does not necessarily mean the front wing IS good. Williams could very well end up in a death end within a few months not being able to further develop the front wing without starting off with a new concept with more potentional. Not that I'm stating it's a bad wing per se, but having the same base for a long while is not the same as having a good wing. Let's not confuse that.

The reason that nobody has copied it is that you can't just stick somebody else's front wing on your car and expect it to work. The rest of the car will then have to be designed around it.

Nobody made any mention of copying, williams using a different wing or an other team using a williams-like wing. Again, try to stick to what actually been said.

Btw you mentioned that the merc wing had many flat footplate sections. It came across from that description that they were just there to connect the outboard end to the neutral section. This cannot be further from the truth. Just because it looks flat does not mean it is not doing work with the airflow.

Then I'm sorry that it came across that way. I only described how the part looked:

The wing element protrude through the endplate and curl directly down to the curved section of the footplate.

There's quite a big space between the curled section of the footplate, and the base of the wing elements, which is filled by extented, flat sections of footplate.

There's a very tiny spacing between the wing elements and the endplate, with no integration of the elements into the endplate, or a heavily curling towards the backend. It's a little bit of both worlds, or perhaps actually none of either worlds.

I did not explained what it did, with no comments at all on the performance or influence on the airflow. Simply and only how it generally looks. I even did not include any possible wording of the neutral section. This is all you not having readed my comments at all, else we would not have this useless conversation in the first place. I can't help it if you want to read something that is simply not there and tell me "this can't be further from the truth". The sun circling around the earth also can't be any further from the truth, yet I also did not mention that.

If you want to formulate a proper answer later on, then read my posts thoroughly. You were shooting in the wild there, f1aero based his own comments on your comments and suddenly I'm facing criticism/outright attacks on things I never ever claimed, said or otherwise tried to insinuate.

[axle]

Re: The lack of mechanical grip.

I seem to recall an interview either at Austria or Britain where Pat(?) said the FW37 would be the last of a particular lineage with the trait. How far back the lineage is, I do not know, he was careful with his words.

From from that I take, it's a fundemental issue. That they realised too late to fix in the FW37, or it took too much investment. The FW38 won't be the same. But for this season they can't fix it.

Whether they can mask it, through changes like the rear suspension upper a-arm changes seen on the Merc etc which has raised the rear pickup point is yet to be seen.

But it does sound like the 2016 car is being engineered to "fix" it, I expect 2016 to be revolution and not evolution.

[PlatinumZealot]

Front wing Lineage as far as 2012. Irrc. But the car was actually strong in low speed in 2011 so go figure.

[BanMeToo]

Is it more about mechanical grip issues for them, or lack of downforce due to a "low drag aero philosophy". Both?

[Sevach]

Front wing Lineage as far as 2012. Irrc. But the car was actually strong in low speed in 2011 so go figure.

In 2011 it was crap everywhere, 2012 was the one that was a demon on street circuits, tight corners and low grip tarmac in general, Maldonado putting it in the top 3 of qualifying a number of times.

[F1aero]

turbo f1, do you or have you ever working in an F1 aero department?
If so you'd know that every single flow structure & vortex is deeply investigated. There is no part of the flow which is not known about!

You'd be surprised... .

You are deviating away from the matter, just as trinidefender. Of course Williams knows what's happening with every stream of air. What I am saying is that Williams is not finetuning airflow like for instance Red Bull or Mercedes does. That's not an oversight as you insinuate I say. It's I think a concious decision and part of their low drag philosophy. PZ worded it right: they have far less vortex-producing devices. That is the reality, if you like it or not. Again, I'm neither saying Williams will automatically improve by adding those things. I'm fully aware it does not work like that, trust me.

What I personally believe is that Williams is on par with Mercedes concerning peak downforce, but not in terms of aero stability. It's the sacrifice they are making for their low drag philosophy. Just look at Mercedes what they did at China: they made changes to the wing that probably sacrificed peak downforce in order to better handle wheel wake to keep the whole matrix of flow structures stable. It probably ended up with adding drag too (although it possibly recuperates it from reduced drag from the wheel wake).

It's quite easy again to attack the notion. Criticism is ok, but do tell your vision also then. I'm sticking my neck out; it's only fair that you do the same.

You also said that you don't see much development to control rear wheel wake & tyre squirt.
Is the development of the spat & fences, RBD winglets & diffuser not thought about?

Very interesting you mention updates on the rear when the current discussion obviously is about the front wing . Have you ever worked at an aero department? Then you should know the front wing is the single most important aero performance differentiator since it maps out the whole airflow infrastructure going rearwards the car. I never mentioned anything about the rear, so either you are confusing my posts with someone else, or you are simply making things up. Either way you've made an opinion without properly reading my posts, so I suggest doing that before getting back to me.

(Don't answer the question btw. It was rhetorical, with the answer not being a yes or no)

Just to clarify i agree with most of your points raised.
I guess i was trying to make a point that most people do not realise or appreciate how much time & effort goes into aero development. There is not one part of the car that is not looked into / developed aero wise.

Theres isnt a part of the aero/flow etc that is unknown! Understanding how & why that flow is happening is another matter.

[turbof1]

I guess i was trying to make a point that most people do not realise or appreciate how much time & effort goes into aero development. There is not one part of the car that is not looked into / developed aero wise.

Looked into yes, but don't forget we are talking about massive amounts of data, and truly massive amounts. Not every team makes the same choices based on that data (else we would have a spec series by nature). Williams' choice is to walk one particular path, an other team choosed something different.

Even then: I've made the mistake in the past of believing everything is controllable. Fact is: the teams cannot control everything. Something like wheel wake is probably never truly containable in the current regulations format.

Choices and a game of compromises. You are right: there goes a huge effort into aero development, quantifiable in dozens of millions of pounds and thousands upon thousands of work hours. Let's appreciate the fact too that even with those numbers, the solutions have not converged yet to a single optimal point, and that teams can get the solution wrong, despite that great sacrifice.

[Sevach]

One further thing, the floor winglet from the Austria test.

Williams is already simulating how the car would work with extra downforce from it's floor.
How they plan to achieve that level is the question however...