Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Toto Wolff said that these upgrades were brought to make them be faster on slow corners. So if that's right Spielberg is the better place than Paul Ricard.

Good performance out of slow corner (<100 kph) is more to do with mechanical grip, as the slower you are in a corner, the lesser aero (reduced aero load) plays a role in acceleration from lower speed. Good aero generates grip for flowing fast corners, along with good mechanical grip.

On slower corners, when a driver nails the throttle, the car starts to have wheel spin and how do you avoid wheel spin? Either go slow on the throttle and wait until car becomes faster enough to consume further throttle OR have good mechanical grip that thrusts the car forward when throttled without causing wheel spin. You can never have NO WHEEL SPIN situation, but the better mechanical grip you have, the faster you can infuse the throttle. That is why the good suspensions are so critical. Not just for grip, but to gain good aero balance to getter better speed on throttle.

[Just_a_fan]

You can't develop a car as fast as you want if it's reaching it's development limit.

Couldn`t resist

He kind of is right though, isn't he? What Mercedes has done is pretty much a concept change. So they finally did what many other teams have done already from the beginning by copying Ferrari's sidepod solution.
I wonder why they've not gone with this from the start of the season. They could've optimized the whole car even better.

This is more RedBull than Ferrari.

Why didn't they do it earlier? Maybe they just never thought of the idea before the season. They saw RedBull's design and thought "hmm, let's see if we can use some of that on our car". Then they started to develop it ready for now.

[turbof1]

Toto Wolff said that these upgrades were brought to make them be faster on slow corners. So if that's right Spielberg is the better place than Paul Ricard.

Good performance out of slow corner (<100 kph) is more to do with mechanical grip, as the slower you are in a corner, the lesser aero (reduced aero load) plays a role in acceleration from lower speed. Good aero generates grip for flowing fast corners, along with good mechanical grip.

On slower corners, when a driver nails the throttle, the car starts to have wheel spin and how do you avoid wheel spin? Either go slow on the throttle and wait until car becomes faster enough to consume further throttle OR have good mechanical grip that thrusts the car forward when throttled without causing wheel spin. You can never have NO WHEEL SPIN situation, but the better mechanical grip you have, the faster you can infuse the throttle. That is why the good suspensions are so critical. Not just for grip, but to gain good aero balance to getter better speed on throttle.

You can still generate quite a bit of aerodynamical grip in slow corners. Just look at Formula Student cars which reach only around 120-130kph (thanks @Vanja) and still benefit hugely from having aerodynamics.

[Sierra117]

You can still generate quite a bit of aerodynamical grip in slow corners. Just look at Formula Student cars which reach only around 120-130kph (thanks @Vanja) and still benefit hugely from having aerodynamics.

Yeah but aren't Formula Student cars totally bonkers with huge wings? I'm sure the very different aero rules play a huge part.

Why didn't they do it earlier? Maybe they just never thought of the idea before the season. They saw RedBull's design and thought "hmm, let's see if we can use some of that on our car". Then they started to develop it ready for now.

It could also be the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the solution has to be unique according to the rest of the car (rake being the biggest influence here). They may very well have been trying to crack this since last season and only just figured out the optimal solution where they can bring it out in testing.

Not just for grip, but to gain good aero balance to getter better speed on throttle.

Stronger, faster, getter

[PhillipM]

They're also running immensely draggy wings to do it, I've the same on the rear of one of my cars, it's average speed is only ~80kph so the wing drag is pretty much no concern at all even though it tops out at 200+kph. So I've a wing that generates a few hundred kilos of DF even at 80kph but it'd knock 20kph+ off the top speed alone if it didn't run out of gears first.
And the car still generates more 'mechanical' grip at 80kph than aero. Formula student cars are the same, they don't really care about top speeds at all.

It can help yes, but even in F1 you're probably similar levels of mechanical to aero grip at <100kph.

[turbof1]

You can still generate quite a bit of aerodynamical grip in slow corners. Just look at Formula Student cars which reach only around 120-130kph (thanks @Vanja) and still benefit hugely from having aerodynamics.

Yeah but aren't Formula Student cars totally bonkers with huge wings? I'm sure the very different aero rules play a huge part.

Of course, but it still indicative how important aerodynamics are even at lower speeds. Formula one has to worry about the piled up drag on higher speed, which Formula Student doesn't have. They will pile up that "low speed" downforce on a track like this if they know they can shed off the drag at higher speeds through changing flow structures. I think that's the case here: Mercedes introduced aerodynamic updates that introduce more downforce at low speeds, but at higher speeds things will get stalled and thereby shed drag.

I don't want to downplay mechanical grip either, don't get me wrong. Just that aerodynamic grip stays vital even at low speeds.

[Dipesh1995]

You can still generate quite a bit of aerodynamical grip in slow corners. Just look at Formula Student cars which reach only around 120-130kph (thanks @Vanja) and still benefit hugely from having aerodynamics.

Yeah but aren't Formula Student cars totally bonkers with huge wings? I'm sure the very different aero rules play a huge part.

Of course, but it still indicative how important aerodynamics are even at lower speeds. Formula one has to worry about the piled up drag on higher speed, which Formula Student doesn't have. They will pile up that "low speed" downforce on a track like this if they know they can shed off the drag at higher speeds through changing flow structures. I think that's the case here: Mercedes introduced aerodynamic updates that introduce more downforce at low speeds, but at higher speeds things will get stalled and thereby shed drag.

The very best FS cars create around 1000 N of downforce at 60km/h. Most are around 600 N - 700 N with a decent aero package from my experience.

[bonjon1979]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201806 ... 13e459.jpg

Is it possible that the mirror is just sitting on that stalk? One would expect a 'cleaner' bonding of the pieces otherwise - or does it have to be connected in order to be there in the first place?

in all fairness. I can't see how this is allowed but fins on Ferrari's Halo mirrors weren't.

Is it attached to the Halo?

No?

That's how

I think you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the fact they were attached to the halo. The ferrari solution was banned because the wings and supports were deemed to be extraneous and were there for aerodynamic purposes rather than structural. Clearly these fins are also extraneous to structural integrity as the wing mirrors worked fine before so they too shouldn't be allowed as they are there for aerodynamic purposes.

[e30ernest]

in all fairness. I can't see how this is allowed but fins on Ferrari's Halo mirrors weren't.

Is it attached to the Halo?

No?

That's how

I think you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the fact they were attached to the halo. The ferrari solution was banned because the wings and supports were deemed to be extraneous and were there for aerodynamic purposes rather than structural. Clearly these fins are also extraneous to structural integrity as the wing mirrors worked fine before so they too shouldn't be allowed as they are there for aerodynamic purposes.

They are in an area where aerodynamic devices are allowed though, unlike on the halo. That's the main difference I think.

[turbof1]

in all fairness. I can't see how this is allowed but fins on Ferrari's Halo mirrors weren't.

Is it attached to the Halo?

No?

That's how

I think you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the fact they were attached to the halo. The ferrari solution was banned because the wings and supports were deemed to be extraneous and were there for aerodynamic purposes rather than structural. Clearly these fins are also extraneous to structural integrity as the wing mirrors worked fine before so they too shouldn't be allowed as they are there for aerodynamic purposes.

I had the same opinion (that the fia would step in) until it got pointed out to me that other teams have the same arrangement of mirror support. Ferrari's mirrors were banned because they weren't deemed "minimal". So there is precedent for this arrangement of supports, meaning the fia cannot do anything about it, not until they bring out a technical directive.

[bonjon1979]

Is it attached to the Halo?

No?

That's how

I think you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the fact they were attached to the halo. The ferrari solution was banned because the wings and supports were deemed to be extraneous and were there for aerodynamic purposes rather than structural. Clearly these fins are also extraneous to structural integrity as the wing mirrors worked fine before so they too shouldn't be allowed as they are there for aerodynamic purposes.

They are in an area where aerodynamic devices are allowed though, unlike on the halo. That's the main difference I think.

Oh, I see. So they're below the restricted areas above the sidepods where as the Halo mirrors fall foul of that area. Thanks for clearing that up.

[PlatinumZealot]

Wow, that looks like a complete overhaul of the car. Sidepods similar to ferrari, rear wing apes Mclaren. Incredible amount of changes.

No they are not similar to Ferrari!

[jjn9128]

Toto Wolff said that these upgrades were brought to make them be faster on slow corners. So if that's right Spielberg is the better place than Paul Ricard.

Good performance out of slow corner (<100 kph) is more to do with mechanical grip, as the slower you are in a corner, the lesser aero (reduced aero load) plays a role in acceleration from lower speed. Good aero generates grip for flowing fast corners, along with good mechanical grip.

On slower corners, when a driver nails the throttle, the car starts to have wheel spin and how do you avoid wheel spin? Either go slow on the throttle and wait until car becomes faster enough to consume further throttle OR have good mechanical grip that thrusts the car forward when throttled without causing wheel spin. You can never have NO WHEEL SPIN situation, but the better mechanical grip you have, the faster you can infuse the throttle. That is why the good suspensions are so critical. Not just for grip, but to gain good aero balance to getter better speed on throttle.

You can still generate quite a bit of aerodynamical grip in slow corners. Just look at Formula Student cars which reach only around 120-130kph (thanks @Vanja) and still benefit hugely from having aerodynamics.

About 1/2 weight in DF at 100km/hr, DF equal to weight at ~165km/hr, twice the weight at ~240km/hr...etc (all assuming DF coeff is constant with speed - or that ride height is fixed). Downforce is still vital at low speed. "Mechanical" grip, engine driveability...etc are more important than at high speed, but downforce aids both these to some extent.

You can never have NO WHEEL SPIN situation, but the better mechanical grip you have, the faster you can infuse the throttle.

Optimal acceleration requires ~7% wheel slip.

[bonjon1979]

Wow, that looks like a complete overhaul of the car. Sidepods similar to ferrari, rear wing apes Mclaren. Incredible amount of changes.

No they are not similar to Ferrari!

your opinion is noted but I disagree.

[PlatinumZealot]

Wow, that looks like a complete overhaul of the car. Sidepods similar to ferrari, rear wing apes Mclaren. Incredible amount of changes.

No they are not similar to Ferrari!

your opinion is noted but I disagree.

Look with your own two eyes and stop believeing everything you read.
They cut a bit out of the sides of the same side pod as the before and added two extra vanes above and below. Notice they were very cautious in leaving the general outline the same to avoid unwanted surprises.

Ferrari side pod is whole different kettle of fish. It has two holes in it and the entrance is nearly 8 inches rearward.

Redbull is different too. Redbull has two full wings in front of the side pod. The three are all very different. Send stevie wonder to feel them with his hands and he would say the same thing.

We need to stop perpetuating fake news.