Mercedes AMG F1 W07

[turbof1]

Maybe Scarb is reading F1Technical :
https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/702833699277168641

It doesn't necessarily create a stronger Y250 vortex (it might, just saying), but the intent here is to bent the Y250 vortex inwards, towards the underchassis turning vanes. It comes at the cost of downforce producing surface on the wing.

It doesn't bend as the air travels up the wing elements like the outwash ends do. It looks more like they are trying to separate the neutral section from the Y250 vortex section. It probably further separates this vortex from what is going on with the nose. There are several more vortex generators aft of the Y250. Is one feeding the other or are they all doing their own thing? I can see the batwing working with the Y250 as they both produce the same rotation.

It's the airflow underneath the wing that determines the direction of the vortex, but yes: you might be correct. However, the profiles do bent inwards towards the back of the neutral section, where the final mainplane element directly curls down on the edge of the neutral section.

[dren]

It's the airflow underneath the wing that determines the direction of the vortex,

It's the airflow across the wing vs the wing shape. The high pressure will spill over towards the low pressure to equalize. The batwing is producing lift, the front wing is producing downforce. Since they are on opposite sides, the rotation will be the same.

I'm just not sure of the effect of feeding one vortex into a similar rotating one downstream. Does it combine and strengthen, or does it have an adverse reaction?

[turbof1]

It's the airflow underneath the wing that determines the direction of the vortex,

It's the airflow across the wing vs the wing shape. The high pressure will spill over towards the low pressure to equalize. The batwing is producing lift, the front wing is producing downforce. Since they are on opposite sides, the rotation will be the same.

I'm just not sure of the effect of feeding one vortex into a similar rotating one downstream. Does it combine and strengthen, or does it have an adverse reaction?

airflow flows from high pressure to low pressure. It equalizes, yes, but the shape on the underside of the wing makes it very important, more important then the shapes on top which can differ from the underside (for instance, right underneath the edge of the neutral section, there's a small flap/turning vane), for the shape of the vortex. Since the batwing and turning vanes only come afterwards, I'm emphasizing the wing for now. They have an impact on the vortex, but I'd like to take this one step at a time.

If the vortices co-rotate, they merge and keep atleast the vortex trail going. The Y250 vortex is a very powerful, but not very stable vortex, and dissipates quickly. Mercedes is apparently very keen on keeping it alive, given the batwing and now serrated turning vanes, which aid in airflow attachment which helps steering the vortex. It helps if the vortex is shaped with the an optimal vector towards the turning vanes. Vortices are fickle; if somewhere between the wheels and chassis a big enough unwanted pressure gradient builds up, it can break up the vortex or steer it away. it breaks up airflow structures and you can loose suddenly a bug chunk of downforce. Given the limitation on aero devices in the current rules, this very difficult to prevent. Mercedes tries to combat it very intensively given the amount and detailing of the devices.

[giantfan10]

Toto and Mercedes sure do have a pretty good PR team and have the press eating out of their hands...wheres all this innovation promised?

[SparkyAMG]

It depends on how you define innovation...

It looks visually similar to their old nose, and indeed other teams have s-ducts, but all the discussion and technical analysis points to this being a concept that's quite different to anything any of the other teams are using at the moment.

[bonjon1979]

Toto and Mercedes sure do have a pretty good PR team and have the press eating out of their hands...wheres all this innovation promised?

Maybe they're trying to drag peoples attention towards the nose and away from that rather funky addition to the front of the sidepod.

[giantfan10]

Toto and Mercedes sure do have a pretty good PR team and have the press eating out of their hands...wheres all this innovation promised?

Maybe they're trying to drag peoples attention towards the nose and away from that rather funky addition to the front of the sidepod.

This is F1 though.. fans and teams alike go over every car with a microscope from launch day till the end of the season lol it is what it is though

[ringo]

As new as these innovations are, we don't even know if they work as intended, so i'm going to wait till Melbourne before i comment on how they improve the car.

[bonjon1979]

Toto and Mercedes sure do have a pretty good PR team and have the press eating out of their hands...wheres all this innovation promised?

Maybe they're trying to drag peoples attention towards the nose and away from that rather funky addition to the front of the sidepod.

This is F1 though.. fans and teams alike go over every car with a microscope from launch day till the end of the season lol it is what it is though

yeah, i know. but I guess if they're worried about it being banned they don't want to draw any attention to it and a bit of misdirection never hurts! All the Red bull flexi wing stuff was only acted upon because of all the press coverage. It wasn't because the FIA lead things.

[turbof1]

There's nothing on the car in the sense of being applicable to be banned. Everything we saw until now is just existing concepts taken one step further. Arguably, the nosecone might or might not be a clever interpretation as I think the underside of the duct is considered an aero device and not officially part of the nose. Else you'd might have issues with the cross section rule.

[OO7]

[trendy]

From Merc

"Great job on the setup change there guys. Ferrari would have done it in 13mins but 15 is ok" @nico_rosberg stoking the fire #Banter #F1

[diego.liv]

The more the day passed, the more i thought that there must be a'problem' in the english language, that some people may mix up innovation and invention.

from the Oxford Dictionary:

INVENTIVE
Having the ability to create or design new things or to think originally

INNOVATIVE (used by Toto)
(Of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original

The latter recalls the aspect of creativity, essential to the matter we are facing today imho.
But surprisingly, i found something that may create confusion

INNOVATION
A new method, idea, product, etc

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Mercedes may not be able to race new nose

Mercedes may not be able to race its innovative new nose and wing in its current configuration, after it emerged the design has not yet passed deflection test checks.
.
.
.
Sources have revealed that Mercedes is still working on making the design strong enough to withstand the deflection test without any issues – which it has not managed to do yet.

And that job is made particularly difficult because, as this exclusive photograph shows, the support pillars for the wing have been made extremely narrow.

If the wing is deflecting too much, then the team will either have to find a way of strengthening it, or may even have to revise its aggressive support pillar concept.

[Just_a_fan]

I think Mercedes' s-duct is placed to work the FIA-defined central section in order to generate more downforce. It might even help the front wing when in dirty air. Previous s-ducts have taken air from further back below the tub/nose. I wonder if that is Mercedes' "innovation", if it really is innovative in any way.