Mercedes AMG F1 W06

[R_Redding]

At 38min 46s left of FP1 , you get a good view of Rosberg driving out of the garage.

Thet have removed the adhesive aluminium foil from the front of the "SDuct" panel and its open. If it were a eyeline test or non working ,then why bother to open it up.

Rob

[henra]

I don't really know why they want to test the vanity panel only; wouldn't the flow be different with a real S-duct when airflow gets pushed out of it, including over the bulge?

It definitely would. But you err on the safe side. Airflow with a functioning S-duct won't be worse than with a closed one. So you can check the significance of the worst possible adverse effects on the upper side airflow. If that is negligeable there is a good chance you will gain something overall.

Or maybe being an S-duct is not its main purpose.
Possibly they need an extension for a modified suspension element and want to check if aero side effects are small enough not to overshadow any possible gains on the mechanical side.
Anyway it must be some kind of 'Regression Test' of a new development path they want to pursue.

[bhall II]

There's no reason for an S-duct on a car like the Mercedes.


(Click to enlarge)

The regulations concerning chassis height at the bulkhead make it impossible to form a clean line along the ideal path from the underside of the nose to the areas adjacent to the splitter downstream. By necessity, a protrusion is created (highlighted above in light yellow).

For a team that uses a higher-nose strategy, like the Red Bull below, this protrusion disrupts air flow. The solution is in those cases is to intercept the would-be disrupted flow with an S-duct and vent it over the chassis so that it doesn't scatter underneath the chassis and --- up everything around it.


(Click to enbig)

For a team that uses a lower-nose strategy, like Mercedes or Lotus or Ferrari, this is more or less irrelevant, because they make more extensive use of air flow around the nose, not underneath it. That avoids the problems caused by the protrusion.

I have no idea what Mercedes is doing, but I doubt it's an S-duct, at least not now.

[patatrice]

after this pic,
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Mer ... 909829.jpg

I think it is S-duct and not visibility/monocoque testing for 2016... (AMUS is wrong I think)

Hole has been there at austrian test... and the last races anyone?

Of course not because this part is on the car since the beginning of the saison.
You can see that on the picture, just under "fighting"

[turbof1]

There's no reason for an S-duct on a car like the Mercedes.

It's a test for next year's car; we are looking at tell tale signs what the car will be like then.

[Matt Somers]

Here's my thoughts on it (rather than go into a massive post again here) http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/bite- ... -duct.html

The crux of it revolves around driver cooling, have we concluded:
A. How driver cooling is achieved with the W06 in the absence of a hole in the nose tip?
B. If we are to assume that the slot is in behind/under the nose as I have posted in that article, we have to assume this is the reasoning for the hollow lower section of the nose and the slot under the chassis/bulkhead.
C. The other option is that the small hole in the lip/chin/tongue on which the turning vanes are hung is how airflow is passed on for cooling.
D. None of the above and Merc don't cool the drivers unless they open up the hole on top of the chassis that feeds down through the steering mech hatch but, then what is the lower chassis slot for?

Bhall, I agree their nose design style doesn't conventionally need the 'S' duct but I think what we have seen shows they're not thinking conventionally and they will either change nose designs or their version is essentially more like the F2008 chassis slot. On top of this it seems pretty clear they're evaluating the chassis/nose interaction angle, especially in light of suspension geometry changes and so the duct will just marganalise a steeper inclination of the angle.

[bhall II]

Yeah, it's clearly a test. I guess I just struggle to understand the particulars of testing the functionality of an S-duct without running, you know, an actual duct. It strikes me as the equivalent of running a broom handle between the airbox and the rear wing as if to somehow test an F-duct.

[patatrice]

Here's my thoughts on it (rather than go into a massive post again here) http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/bite- ... -duct.html

The crux of it revolves around driver cooling, have we concluded:
A. How driver cooling is achieved with the W06 in the absence of a hole in the nose tip?
B. If we are to assume that the slot is in behind/under the nose as I have posted in that article, we have to assume this is the reasoning for the hollow lower section of the nose and the slot under the chassis/bulkhead.
C. The other option is that the small hole in the lip/chin/tongue on which the turning vanes are hung is how airflow is passed on for cooling.
D. None of the above and Merc don't cool the drivers unless they open up the hole on top of the chassis that feeds down through the steering mech hatch but, then what is the lower chassis slot for?

Bhall, I agree their nose design style doesn't conventionally need the 'S' duct but I think what we have seen shows they're not thinking conventionally and they will either change nose designs or their version is essentially more like the F2008 chassis slot. On top of this it seems pretty clear they're evaluating the chassis/nose interaction angle, especially in light of suspension geometry changes and so the duct will just marganalise a steeper inclination of the angle.

The same system can't be used for driver cooling and S Duct....simply because there are any sealing bareer in the cockpit . And air flow can't choose the right way.

[Drica]

I was wondering how is it possible that this years pole is a clear second slower than last years, considering all the engine performance gains and aerodynamic tweaks which should have improved the lap time, not worsen it. Could it be the air/track temperature related?

[3jawchuck]

I was wondering how is it possible that this years pole is a clear second slower than last years, considering all the engine performance gains and aerodynamic tweaks which should have improved the lap time, not worsen it. Could it be the air/track temperature related?

Maybe a small result of the environmental conditions but mostly the drivers seem to be saying the new kerbs are the defining factor.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121793

[Drica]

I was wondering how is it possible that this years pole is a clear second slower than last years, considering all the engine performance gains and aerodynamic tweaks which should have improved the lap time, not worsen it. Could it be the air/track temperature related?

Maybe a small result of the environmental conditions but mostly the drivers seem to be saying the new kerbs are the defining factor.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121793

Wow, i knew that kerbs can upset the cars to a certain level, but this much...

[BanMeToo]

Well they are pretty big mate and if we're talking about the first two turns, right on the old racing line

[R_Redding]

Its a combination of track and kerbs..

Pirelli stated....
1) The microstructure of the stones in the tarmac is diffenent.. having lost the edges they had last year , so less grip
2) The track was damaged during the wet weather sessions last year(?).

Combined with the 50mm raising of some kerbs , it has a great effect on both line across the kerb , and the steering angle needed to turn a corner.

Last year they had much more grip and could take a faster line across kerbs with much less steering input. Rosbergs line through turn 1&2 this year was apparantly 15kph slower than hed achieved last year.

Rob

[Leon]

[Leon]