2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

[FoxHound]

@ben

That sequence can be explained by the more downforce, as per the larger rear wing and rake.

If we had to put similar levels on the Mercedes, my opinion is we'd see lower top speeds and higher cornering speeds.

[Juzh]

The primary reason merc's in the lead is still power. They have a better chassis for some types of corners - mainly slow to medium speed turn ins, but power is still the main thing keeping them ahead in quali. Monaco pretty much confirms it.

I disagree.

Silverstone is an alleged power track, and while Mercedes retain an advantage on the straights at silverstone, it is not decisive.

Equally, Red Bull ran ridiculous rake angle and larger wings comparative to the Mercedes cars, meaning higher drag.
This automatically hampers them on straights to give them advantages in the corners.

Yet we see Mercedes beat them through the twisty bits more often than not with less wing.

And Monaco confirms nothing other than both Mercedes drivers could not get clean laps at the end of Q3, a fact you seem happy to forego.

70% full thorttle is a power track. And those end of straights speed where renault's ERS is utter --- (still) ultimately add up to a lot. Article also says no engine can match merc's ease of driving.

Funny how this "draggy" red bull is actually faster than renaults in the speed traps by about 4kmh.

Yes, in monaco with "clean laps" merc was probably on the red bull level, but that's it. Or perhaps merc drivers were overdriving because they were actually under pressure for once and wanted to extract something that wasn't in the car at all.

[bhall II]

Can someone explain to me how a wing's AoA is somehow a definitive indicator of aerodynamic efficiency?

Disregarding engine power and driveability in and of themselves, why is it sensible to ascribe to the chassis performance characteristics that could also be attributed to fuel efficiency (short fueling)?


via F1Fanatic

EDIT: That figure can't be correct, because it implies burning ~145kg of fuel. However, it still illustrates my point.

Has anyone considered the notion that performance comparisons based upon data collected during a mixed-weather event may not be representative?

You guys are throwing stuff around with very little critical thinking. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

Try it from a different angle: if you had to defeat your own argument, what would you say?

[Jolle]

Can someone explain to me how a wing's AoA is somehow a definitive indicator of aerodynamic efficiency?

Disregarding engine power and driveability in and of themselves, why is it sensible to ascribe to the chassis performance characteristics that could also be attributed to fuel efficiency (short fueling)?

http://i.imgur.com/fMaQZg8.png
via F1Fanatic

EDIT: That figure can't be correct, because it implies burning ~145kg of fuel. However, it still illustrates my point.

Has anyone considered the notion that performance comparisons based upon data collected during a mixed-weather event may not be representative?

You guys are throwing stuff around with very little critical thinking. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

Try it from a different angle: if you had to defeat your own argument, what would you say?

I suspect a typo, with 1.8kg it makes more sense. If you'll take the same data for Spa, they state 2.2kg per lap.

[dans79]

Can someone explain to me how a wing's AoA is somehow a definitive indicator of aerodynamic efficiency?

Who said anything about efficiency? The last several pages have been about DF. You can generate tons of DF, but that doesn't mean you did it efficiently.

Disregarding engine power and driveability in and of themselves, why is it sensible to ascribe to the chassis performance characteristics that could also be attributed to fuel efficiency (short fueling)?

The data provided by Phil is from qualifying, they aren't saving fuel in qualifying.

My issue is with your assertion that power units don't matter in low-speed corners. That's just wrong, and to even marginally base a viewpoint upon it is misleading. Driveability matters a lot.

First, this is a technical forum, do we really need to state the obvious assertions in every post/thread? Not to mention this is 2016, all the engines are "drivable" imo. If we where discussing the 2015 Honda, or 2014 Renault that would be a different story!

[Juzh]

all the engines are "drivable" imo. If we where discussing the 2015 Honda, or 2014 Renault that would be a different story!

Renault in 2014 was sufficient in driveability. It was a mess in 2015.

I mean you literally never hear or have heard a thing about merc's driveability which leads me to believe it was more or less as good as it can be from the start, yet we hear it literally ALL the time with renault (even now, after the update) and how they have and will improve it.

[bhall II]

For dans79

- To talk about downforce and drag is to talk about aerodynamic efficiency, and it's been asserted many times throughout this thread that RB12 creates more drag than W07. This appears to be the linchpin of the argument from those who tend to minimize the impact of Mercedes' power advantage.

When you consider the fact that RBR runs trimmed out compared to Mercedes because of the engine, then this shows me that RBR has slightly better aero, while Merc has a much better engine, including its low speed drivability.

I don't really know what you mean with trimmed out. RBR have been driving with a much bigger rear wing in Silverstone than Mercedes. And they have had pretty much the same minimum speed through the corners. So it seems to me, RBR has the same downforce and more drag than Mercedes. If Mercedes had so much more engine power, they would be accelerating faster than RBR, but they don't do that. At least not until 270km/h or so. Which is also an indicator for more drag on the RBR. (of course assuming same mass)

Simply, it shows Red Bull are full of BS if they have the gumption to point to the engine as the reason they aren't beating Mercedes.

I can understand why favorable sector times and cornering speeds are cited as evidence. But, I don't understand the relevance of the AoA Red Bull chooses to run. Though it may seem counterintuitive, there's not always a strong correlation between AoA (frontal area) and relative top speed. Other data bears this out.

- I didn't realize the AMuS data is from qualifying. So, that's a fair point. But, now I want to know why RB12, ostensibly with a comparable power-to-weight ratio, wasn't able to match the speeds of Mercedes, Manor, Ferrari, Haas, Williams, and Force India through S1 or the speeds of Mercedes and Ferrari through S2, despite sector times that were nonetheless favorable compared to all but the top two and the freedom to employ DRS to eliminate the effects of the variable everyone seems to blame for the car's poor top speed.







I think the rear wing argument is a distraction that's causing confirmation bias.

[EDIT: This part was unnecessary.]

Notice once again that I've not taken a position here one way or the other - at least, not consciously. I don't know what's what. (And neither does anyone else, which is sorta the point I'm trying to make.)

[OO7]

DRS wouldn't eliminate the variable, it would mitigate it however.

[bhall II]

Fair enough.

[FoxHound]

For dans79

- To talk about downforce and drag is to talk about aerodynamic efficiency, and it's been asserted many times throughout this thread that RB12 creates more drag than W07. This appears to be the linchpin of the argument from those who tend to minimize the impact of Mercedes' power advantage.

Not at all,

This is all documented. We know for a fact Red Bull run a higher rake than Mercedes.
We also know the floor is pivotal to how all cars generate their downforce. I'm riding on the back of some knowledgeable hacks here, so I'll throw this out for us to chew on.

The downforce increases exponentially as the (floor)height is reduced, because the strength of these vortices is increasing.

This paper was written in 2006 about a stones throw from where my post is being written. Ben, it's up your street.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42969/1/GetPDFServlet.pdf

There are plenty references too. And the verdict is, the higher your arse, and the more it squats, the more you hurt when you start to gain serious speed(250kph+).
This, allied to the bigger frontal area of the Red Bull wing, and you have a vehicle pushing enough air to put out a fire in the next Village!

From your source ben...


Now then, we have higher rake, larger front wing area and larger rear wing area(Silverstone and various events in 2016).
The deduction is that if it has certain aerodynamic properties, and claims specific "bests" while pointing at specific "failings",
can we not "mitigate" both claims by using physics, lap time data and our own eyes(rake angles, wing levels etc)?
If it quacks like a duck....

[bhall II]

The downforce increases exponentially as the (floor)height is reduced, because the strength of these vortices is increasing.

And the verdict is, the higher your arse, and the more it squats, the more you hurt when you start to gain serious speed(250kph+).

It's not that simple.

At Monza, ride heights have to be set low enough to promote some stall in the diffuser at high speed while maintaining grip at around 130mph as the car pitches, yaws and rolls through the tricky second part of the Ascari chicane. As the DRS is activated on the straight, the stall invoked in the rear wing has to promote a more generalised stall through the beam wing and diffuser and, in so doing, shed the speed-sapping drag that is an inescapable feature of downforce.

An aerodynamic element in ground effect that's optimized for a certain ride height will typically lose efficiency - less drag - if raised or lowered from that ride height...



And despite the absence of a beam wing, it's still possible to aerodynamically couple the rear wing to the diffuser. This is especially true if those components are aggressive in nature, because each would invariably rely upon the efficiency of the other.

(There are caveats aplenty. But, I'm trying to keep it simple and restricted to one idea at a time.)

[rscsr]

When you consider the fact that RBR runs trimmed out compared to Mercedes because of the engine, then this shows me that RBR has slightly better aero, while Merc has a much better engine, including its low speed drivability.

I don't really know what you mean with trimmed out. RBR have been driving with a much bigger rear wing in Silverstone than Mercedes. And they have had pretty much the same minimum speed through the corners. So it seems to me, RBR has the same downforce and more drag than Mercedes. If Mercedes had so much more engine power, they would be accelerating faster than RBR, but they don't do that. At least not until 270km/h or so. Which is also an indicator for more drag on the RBR. (of course assuming same mass)

No. Drag would be visible everywhere. They are accelerating up to 250kpm mostly totally similar. This tells me, that the drag is more or less the same on both cars and the ICE is more or less equal in power. The difference occurs randomly, but instantaneous between 250 and 280kph. This clearly tells me it is the MGU-K running out of power once the battery is not feeding it anymore and it is only supplied by the MGU-H.

Please check this diagram and tell me which has 10% less power and which one has 20% more drag than A.

[FoxHound]

It's not that simple.


And despite the absence of a beam wing, it's still possible to aerodynamically couple the rear wing to the diffuser. This is especially true if those components are aggressive in nature, because each would invariably rely upon the efficiency of the other.

(There are caveats aplenty. But, I'm trying to keep it simple and restricted to one idea at a time.)

There's a tidy explanation which still points to higher rake meaning higher drag. I dunno if we going round in circles yet, but it does seem this point has not been surmounted.

Maximising the downforce of the diffuser is, however, a subtle issue. The downforce generated by a diffuser is a function of two variables: (i) the angle of the diffuser, and (ii) the height above the ground. Generally speaking, the peak downforce of the diffuser increases with the angle of the diffuser. Then, for a fixed diffuser angle, the downforce generated will increase according to an exponential curve as the height reduces, until a first critical point is reached (see diagram above, taken from Ground Effect Aerodynamics of Race Cars, Zhang, Toet and Zerihan, Applied Mechanics Reviews, January 2006, Vol 59, pp33-49). As the height is reduced further, the downforce will increase again, but according to a linear slope, until a second critical point is reached, after which the downforce falls off a cliff.

It does suggest that teams running higher rake forego low speed aero(largely not as important as Chassis and tyres at speeds below X), to get a more higher DF(and drag), as the car builds speed. Each team will be acutely aware of the drop off point and will adjust the car accordingly.
But the point still stands that the higher rake you run, the more DF(and drag) you get right up to the drop off point, which each team will invariably avoid.

And as the front wing and diffuser are responsible for about 75% of Downforce, and 35% of drag, the relationship between the 2 will correlate as the speed increase, where Messrs Zang Toet and Zerihan tell us "the downforce generated will increase according to an exponential curve as the height reduces,"
*Rear wing assembly is responsible for 30% of drag apparently.

[bhall II]

There's a tidy explanation which...

...is deliberately generalized, isolates the diffuser from other aerodynamic components, and doesn't take into account the discrete downforce curves that result from different angle/ride height combinations. This isn't a one-size-fits-all scenario. That's partially why I said there are caveats aplenty.


via Willem Toet

Further, no aerodynamicist in his right mind would ever design a diffuser that produces peak downforce in conditions consistent with those encountered along high-speed straights where downforce is unnecessary. That would be tantamount to "DAS." The idea is to achieve peak downforce within a useful range of speeds and conditions.

What performance regions bookend each area of peak downforce seen on the graph above?

Further further, anti-squat suspension geometry is pretty common...

Rear wing assembly is responsible for 30% of drag apparently.

[That] force distribution [graphic] is for a car that is still young in terms of aerodynamic development – later, better designs allowed a further increase in the percentage of downforce created by the floor.

[FoxHound]

There's a tidy explanation which...

...is deliberately generalized, isolates the diffuser from other aerodynamic components, and doesn't take into account the discrete downforce curves that result from different angle/ride height combinations. This isn't a one-size-fits-all scenario. That's partially why I said there are caveats aplenty.

It's all designed to work together, as predictably as possible. From front to rear, left to right, and the upper surfaces to the floor. If they all worked without any correlation to the designers overall concept, the Frankenstein of a beast would stand no chance. There must be constants to be able to work from so that correlation can be possible.

Further, no aerodynamicist in his right mind would ever design a diffuser that produces peak downforce in conditions consistent with those encountered along high-speed straights where downforce is unnecessary. That would be tantamount to "DAS." The idea is to achieve peak downforce within a useful range of speeds and conditions.

Every team will know their optimal range, and would follow accordingly. And it's a one reason why, from track to track, teams get overtaken/overtake others in relative performance. With the cases we are discussing, the differences will not be monumental to the competition. They will certainly have an impact though.
But I have to repeat, I still see no evidence to suggest that Rake will not create more drag at speed.
You have outlined that Rake can be developed to "achieve peak DF within a useful range of speeds and conditions".
And with that there is no argument from me.
But as it develops this usable DF, drag goes up too, and it goes up at a higher rate in accordance to the rake angle.
Everything I've searched on this comes up uniformly in agreement.

Pitch, Yaw and Roll will also have big ramifications, and while we focus on the pitch(rake) of Red Bull, we have not focused on the Yaw/Roll of the Mercedes.



We see the front wing on the loaded side of the car is lower than the unloaded section.



*Battery running low on lap top...to be continued