Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[Just_a_fan]

So I think it’s more the softer suspension is a byproduct and the aero is the aim.

The two are linked and are both benefits of the concept. Mercedes laid their stall out, using the clever suspension systems to get traction that were subsequently "banned", RedBull had championed the high rake / good traction method and were able to adapt more easily to the no-clever-suspension rules. Ferrari had struggled to get anything to work and the saw that the RedBull approach was the way to go. They have done an excellent job with their chassis and now that the PU is at least as good as the Mercedes (probably more so), they are reaping the rewards.

If RedBull had the PU performance of the Mercedes/Ferrari, they'd be crowning a world champion the last year or two.

[Zynerji]

So I think it’s more the softer suspension is a byproduct and the aero is the aim.

The two are linked and are both benefits of the concept. Mercedes laid their stall out, using the clever suspension systems to get traction that were subsequently "banned", RedBull had championed the high rake / good traction method and were able to adapt more easily to the no-clever-suspension rules. Ferrari had struggled to get anything to work and the saw that the RedBull approach was the way to go. They have done an excellent job with their chassis and now that the PU is at least as good as the Mercedes (probably more so), they are reaping the rewards.

If RedBull had the PU performance of the Mercedes/Ferrari, they'd be crowning a world champion the last year or two.

It still pisses me off that the FRIC and other killer passive suspension magic (TMD) was banned. One would think that those items would really be road-car relevant, as active ride is simply HEAVY and power consuming, thus reducing efficiency.

[Sevach]

Is Merc the only one that has such aggressive engine cooling solutions? I can't remember ever seeing Ferrari do it (e.g openning a chimney). Wonder what that indicates in terms of engine design and packing.

Then again it could be the electrics that are being cooled more since they get hot a lot real fast (batteries especially).

Mclaren routinely places holes in this area

[Tom145145]

So I think it’s more the softer suspension is a byproduct and the aero is the aim.

The two are linked and are both benefits of the concept. Mercedes laid their stall out, using the clever suspension systems to get traction that were subsequently "banned", RedBull had championed the high rake / good traction method and were able to adapt more easily to the no-clever-suspension rules. Ferrari had struggled to get anything to work and the saw that the RedBull approach was the way to go. They have done an excellent job with their chassis and now that the PU is at least as good as the Mercedes (probably more so), they are reaping the rewards.

If RedBull had the PU performance of the Mercedes/Ferrari, they'd be crowning a world champion the last year or two.

The FRIC ban hurt both Mercedes and Red Bull in 2016, I would even say it hurt Red Bull more. High rake is a concept to firstly improve downforce, we can tell this because Adrian Newey uses it on his cars . Also for further reference;viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23240&start=15 &http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html

[wesley123]

High rake is a concept to firstly improve downforce, we can tell this because Adrian Newey uses it on his cars .

I fail to see how that makes it a downforce thing.

Also for further reference;viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23240&start=15 &http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html

There are a few issues with it as a whole;
1. With the higher rake, the floor actually is further from the ground, reducing ground effect.
2. Current cars lack the exhaust blowing that filled the area between the tire and the diffuser. This means that you spend a whole lot more energy filling this area with (weaker) vortices.
3. Rake increases rear CoG height.
4. The car will have a larger frontal area. This will be largely mitigated by the softer rear(although less so under DRS)
5. The proximity to the ground of the front wing means it is more sensitive, thus requires more wing elements to reduce it's sensitivity, which reduces peak downforce.
6. The softer rear will hurt the car aerodynamically as the cars' pitch will change more, under braking the front wing will drop further, growing the desire for a less sensitive front wing. Also the rear will raise similarly.

These things are pretty well visible if you compare the Mercedes with other cars; A 5 plane front wing, the sole one on the grid to do so. It's outer section is only 6 elements, where others have 8. Also wingtips are different; Teams place more slots there, presumably to generate the desired vortex under the ever changing pitch conditions.

Therefore I think that in the current environment, the high rake is aerodynamically undesirable.

It's main advantage is mechanical;
You can run a softer rear. The soft rear suspension will significantly help traction, which is a great thing to have with the torquey V6 engines.
This also helps with tire life.

And this also is something visible; Mercedes has struggled very much on tracks where traction is key, but they dominated the aero tracks.

All these things suggest the rake is mechanical.

[Sierra117]

High rake is a concept to firstly improve downforce, we can tell this because Adrian Newey uses it on his cars .

I fail to see how that makes it a downforce thing.

Also for further reference;viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23240&start=15 &http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html

There are a few issues with it as a whole;
1. With the higher rake, the floor actually is further from the ground, reducing ground effect.
2. Current cars lack the exhaust blowing that filled the area between the tire and the diffuser. This means that you spend a whole lot more energy filling this area with (weaker) vortices.
3. Rake increases rear CoG height.
4. The car will have a larger frontal area. This will be largely mitigated by the softer rear(although less so under DRS)
5. The proximity to the ground of the front wing means it is more sensitive, thus requires more wing elements to reduce it's sensitivity, which reduces peak downforce.
6. The softer rear will hurt the car aerodynamically as the cars' pitch will change more, under braking the front wing will drop further, growing the desire for a less sensitive front wing. Also the rear will raise similarly.

These things are pretty well visible if you compare the Mercedes with other cars; A 5 plane front wing, the sole one on the grid to do so. It's outer section is only 6 elements, where others have 8. Also wingtips are different; Teams place more slots there, presumably to generate the desired vortex under the ever changing pitch conditions.

Therefore I think that in the current environment, the high rake is aerodynamically undesirable.

It's main advantage is mechanical;
You can run a softer rear. The soft rear suspension will significantly help traction, which is a great thing to have with the torquey V6 engines.
This also helps with tire life.

And this also is something visible; Mercedes has struggled very much on tracks where traction is key, but they dominated the aero tracks.

All these things suggest the rake is mechanical.

That's a really good read, thanks! It's easy to forget about the braking stability, which is why Merc hardly ever touches the front wing.

What do you think can be done for rear-end traction without going to increasing rake? The sidepod flow seems to have improved downforce, but Merc are still nowhere near safe as is evident on tracks like Monaco and now Hungary.

[Tom145145]

High rake is a concept to firstly improve downforce, we can tell this because Adrian Newey uses it on his cars .

I fail to see how that makes it a downforce thing.

Also for further reference;viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23240&start=15 &http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html

There are a few issues with it as a whole;
1. With the higher rake, the floor actually is further from the ground, reducing ground effect.
2. Current cars lack the exhaust blowing that filled the area between the tire and the diffuser. This means that you spend a whole lot more energy filling this area with (weaker) vortices.
3. Rake increases rear CoG height.
4. The car will have a larger frontal area. This will be largely mitigated by the softer rear(although less so under DRS)
5. The proximity to the ground of the front wing means it is more sensitive, thus requires more wing elements to reduce it's sensitivity, which reduces peak downforce.
6. The softer rear will hurt the car aerodynamically as the cars' pitch will change more, under braking the front wing will drop further, growing the desire for a less sensitive front wing. Also the rear will raise similarly.

These things are pretty well visible if you compare the Mercedes with other cars; A 5 plane front wing, the sole one on the grid to do so. It's outer section is only 6 elements, where others have 8. Also wingtips are different; Teams place more slots there, presumably to generate the desired vortex under the ever changing pitch conditions.

Therefore I think that in the current environment, the high rake is aerodynamically undesirable.

It's main advantage is mechanical;
You can run a softer rear. The soft rear suspension will significantly help traction, which is a great thing to have with the torquey V6 engines.
This also helps with tire life.

And this also is something visible; Mercedes has struggled very much on tracks where traction is key, but they dominated the aero tracks.

All these things suggest the rake is mechanical.

Please find some articles to support this argument, I can only find ones that reference aero gain. To the point of its bad for ground effect, It improves ground effect by lowering the front wing reducing flow under the floor and allowing the diffuser to expand more, more expansion means lower pressure underneath.
The reason I mention Adrian Newey is purely that he is renowned for making cars based around an aerodynamic concepts not mechanical, it was a little tongue in cheek.

[Tom145145]

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html. This is quite good at explaining rake, long read but worth it.

[Just_a_fan]

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/rake_angle.html. This is quite good at explaining rake, long read but worth it.

Yeah, I got to this bit

The trick also comes from being able to find a speed threshold whereby you’re effectively switching off the rear wing. This happens when the car's rake is reduced: as the load at the back builds with speed, the car is forced toward the ground, which in-turn rotates the wing and overloads it, stalling flow, both reducing downforce and drag. Few degree of rotation is enough.

and realised he didn't know what he was talking about. Reducing the angle of attack of the rear wing doesn't "overload it, stalling flow". Reducing the angle of attack would reduce downforce and drag just by reducing the angle of attack, it doesn't "overload" or "stall".

[djos]

Some of you Mercedes fans need to spend some time in old RedBull car topics to comprehend how the high rake concept works.

I'll give you a tip tho, without sealing the sides of the floor, it doesn't! The whole point is to gain a larger diffuser volume than the rules technically allow, which increases down force.

[Vanja #66]

Yeah, I got to this bit

and realised he didn't know what he was talking about. Reducing the angle of attack of the rear wing doesn't "overload it, stalling flow". Reducing the angle of attack would reduce downforce and drag just by reducing the angle of attack, it doesn't "overload" or "stall".

Top surface could stall and it could be beneficial for drag reduction. Airfoils with high camber can experience this in certain situations. And if top surface stalls, it could cause bottom surface to stall as well, especially the flap.

Which could be what the idea was for Ferrari RW in Germany.

[wesley123]

Please find some articles to support this argument, I can only find ones that reference aero gain.

To be fair, there aren't really any articles that confirm anything, they are all (educated) guesses at best. Most articles referring rake=moar downforce!! Are either from the EBD age or simply uses "higher rake is bigger diffuser" as their argument.

And in that age I agree; You had mass flow from the exhaust to fill in the area between the rear tire and diffuser.
http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2013/03/rake- ... force.html

To the point of its bad for ground effect, It improves ground effect by lowering the front wing reducing flow under the floor and allowing the diffuser to expand more, more expansion means lower pressure underneath.

The front wing is closer to the ground, that is definitely true. But as I named, this also brings a big issue in what is sensitivity. Bring it closer to the ground and the wing becomes more sensitive.

The splitter also is closer to the ground, but outside of that, the leading edge of the floor is probably higher off the ground, as well as the rest of the floor. Thus, the increase that rake could give is countered by the reduction in ground effect itself.

The application of rake is simply different these days than it was in the EBD age. Also, you have to consider that rake is lower than before, as most, if not all, cars' wheelbases have increased.

That's a really good read, thanks! It's easy to forget about the braking stability, which is why Merc hardly ever touches the front wing.

What do you think can be done for rear-end traction without going to increasing rake? The sidepod flow seems to have improved downforce, but Merc are still nowhere near safe as is evident on tracks like Monaco and now Hungary.

My personal view is that Mercedes simply requires more from the tires to apply this traction than that other teams do. It's imo visible in that Mercedes always seem to struggle more with their tires than the rest of the field does.

Trick suspension like FRIC probably would have helped in this.

[Just_a_fan]

Yeah, I got to this bit

and realised he didn't know what he was talking about. Reducing the angle of attack of the rear wing doesn't "overload it, stalling flow". Reducing the angle of attack would reduce downforce and drag just by reducing the angle of attack, it doesn't "overload" or "stall".

Top surface could stall and it could be beneficial for drag reduction. Airfoils with high camber can experience this in certain situations. And if top surface stalls, it could cause bottom surface to stall as well, especially the flap.

Which could be what the idea was for Ferrari RW in Germany.

I don't have a problem with a highly cambered aerofoil being stalled in the way you suggest. I have a problem with the suggestion that the tiny change in AoA of the rear wing with slight reduction in rake would do it. To do such a thing would require the rear wing (indeed the whole car's aero) to be so finely tuned that the slightest change would render the car undriveable. A cross wind or following another car could cause the rear wing "to switch off" and the resulting forward shift in balance would have the car spinning like a top. This is like the "Ferrari's mirrors turn the air down in to the radiator duct" story.

[Vanja #66]

I don't have a problem with a highly cambered aerofoil being stalled in the way you suggest. I have a problem with the suggestion that the tiny change in AoA of the rear wing with slight reduction in rake would do it. To do such a thing would require the rear wing (indeed the whole car's aero) to be so finely tuned that the slightest change would render the car undriveable. A cross wind or following another car could cause the rear wing "to switch off" and the resulting forward shift in balance would have the car spinning like a top. This is like the "Ferrari's mirrors turn the air down in to the radiator duct" story.

Yup, that's true.

[PlatinumZealot]

Yeah, I got to this bit

and realised he didn't know what he was talking about. Reducing the angle of attack of the rear wing doesn't "overload it, stalling flow". Reducing the angle of attack would reduce downforce and drag just by reducing the angle of attack, it doesn't "overload" or "stall".

Top surface could stall and it could be beneficial for drag reduction. Airfoils with high camber can experience this in certain situations. And if top surface stalls, it could cause bottom surface to stall as well, especially the flap.

Which could be what the idea was for Ferrari RW in Germany.

What about drag though. In some aeroplane books they say stall increase drag as well. why doesn't that apply to F1 rear wings? We always hear of stalling to reduce drag in F1.