Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[mantikos]

Any bets on a more Ferrari package as it's proving to be the next step in aerodynamics?

When Mercedes are winning Ferrari supporters say it's down to the engine... When Ferrari win its the Aerodynamics, are you sure its not a loophole in the energy deployment that's giving them the advantage..? Ferrari are winning because of their engine advantage.

Two up votes for your comment is comical.

Why did Mercedes go the Ferrari way with side pod design mid-season?

Except they didn't - if anything, they are closer to RB's design with lower inlets than Ferrari.

[LM10]

When Mercedes are winning Ferrari supporters say it's down to the engine... When Ferrari win its the Aerodynamics, are you sure its not a loophole in the energy deployment that's giving them the advantage..? Ferrari are winning because of their engine advantage.

Two up votes for your comment is comical.

Why did Mercedes go the Ferrari way with side pod design mid-season?

Except they didn't - if anything, they are closer to RB's design with lower inlets than Ferrari.

Still, the whole concept in general remains the Ferrari idea from last year.

[DCM]

Forgive me for being such a noob, but could the rear wing "wobble" be acting as a mass damper? A la 05/06 Reanalt Mass Damper, the tail of cheetah etc? I would think that any mechanical advantage would be an aero disadvantage but just an idea

[DiogoBrand]

Forgive me for being such a noob, but could the rear wing "wobble" be acting as a mass damper? A la 05/06 Reanalt Mass Damper, the tail of cheetah etc? I would think that any mechanical advantage would be an aero disadvantage but just an idea

AFAIK the mass damper introduced by Renault only worked vertically. I don't see any advantage to a horizontal mass damper. The wing is probably too light to make a difference in that regard anyway.

[henry]

Forgive me for being such a noob, but could the rear wing "wobble" be acting as a mass damper? A la 05/06 Reanalt Mass Damper, the tail of cheetah etc? I would think that any mechanical advantage would be an aero disadvantage but just an idea

AFAIK the mass damper introduced by Renault only worked vertically. I don't see any advantage to a horizontal mass damper. The wing is probably too light to make a difference in that regard anyway.

A horizontal(transverse) mass damper would do the same as a vertical. The tyres are not very stiff or damped in either plane and so there would BEV benefit from a TMD.

If I remember correctly the FIA were concerned that there would be developments of both vertical and horizontal and lots of heavy masses involved. So they decided the breached movable aero and banned them.

[DiogoBrand]

The purpose of a vertical mass damper was to settle the car over kerbs and bumps. What would be the purpose of an horizontal one?

[ClarkBT11]

People are exaggerating Ferrari PU advantage, just like Toto and Hamilton. Hamilton ran more downforce and also ran wide just a tiny bit, that's why Vettel overtook him with a greater speed difference. There was also the head wind which increased the tow effect.

After the overtake, Hamilton started gaining on Vettel, as well as the Force Indias, and by the end of the straight, all 4 were alongside each other. So Mercedes PU is not as bad as Toto and Hamilton are trying to tell. They are just trying to be underdogs, take the pressure off themselves and put it on Ferrari. Ferrari PU is just as good as Merc PU, or just slightly better. Ferrari is winning because of their PU 'AND' the chassis.

PU and chassis? Only if the cars red though right?

[henry]

The purpose of a vertical mass damper was to settle the car over kerbs and bumps. What would be the purpose of an horizontal one?

The purpose of the vertical mass damper was to reduce load and deflection fluctuations in the vertical plane. It aided traction in particular as well as improving ride over kerbs and bumps.

The horizontal mass damper would do the same thing for lateral motion. In low speed corners the cars vibrate horizontally on their tyres, particularly at the rear, low frequency high amplitude.

There are other possibilities for this technology, vibrations in roll or yaw or pitch which could be attributed to the undamped behaviour of the tyres might also have been candidates for treatment by TMDs. Last year the Mercedes cars showed a nasty roll oscillation,, affecting traction as they accelerated out of the bus stop at Spa.

[Zynerji]

Forgive me for being such a noob, but could the rear wing "wobble" be acting as a mass damper? A la 05/06 Reanalt Mass Damper, the tail of cheetah etc? I would think that any mechanical advantage would be an aero disadvantage but just an idea

AFAIK the mass damper introduced by Renault only worked vertically. I don't see any advantage to a horizontal mass damper. The wing is probably too light to make a difference in that regard anyway.

A horizontal(transverse) mass damper would do the same as a vertical. The tyres are not very stiff or damped in either plane and so there would BEV benefit from a TMD.

If I remember correctly the FIA were concerned that there would be developments of both vertical and horizontal and lots of heavy masses involved. So they decided the breached movable aero and banned them.

It seems more likely (to me) that they just thinned the end plates (instead of the stamped looking 3d normal designs) to have less drag. Would expect similar at Monza, but then back to normal.

[DCM]

The purpose of a vertical mass damper was to settle the car over kerbs and bumps. What would be the purpose of an horizontal one?

The idea would be in exploiting hooke's law of simple harmonic motion along the horizontal plane to manage the left/right tire loading through a slow, bumpy corner with the wing acting as a sprung mass trying to maintain (return to) equilibrium.

[DiogoBrand]

So basically because the tyres have such tall walls, they allow too much lateral movement, which could be counteracted with a horizontal mass damper?

[DCM]

So basically because the tyres have such tall walls, they allow too much lateral movement, which could be counteracted with a horizontal mass damper?

Well I could be wrong, but I think that at the wheels the force would become vertical along the way the wing is attached, but essentially once you hit the inside curb, it sets the wing (call it a pendulum) in motion. This thing then oscillates through the corner transfers some of that initial impact energy to the outside corner through a series of oscillations. A sin/cos wave over time. This may plant the outside corner more than it would otherwise have as the wing (while oscillating) is transferring some of that impact energy to the outside corner.

No loading and unloading the tires is not usually a beneficial practice, but maybe Mercedes has found a way to manage those harmonics to their advantage.

It could be an optical illusion, but you can almost see the car rotate along with the wing oscillation.

Don't know, it's all speculative but I would think that unless they wanted it to move, they would have prevented it form doing so to such a degree.

I doubt will find out for sure unless there is a ban or clarification by the FIA. Just as with the Mass dampers, Renault were not the only team to develop, test, and run it. But because Renault were reliant on it, it hurt them more than the others when its use was restricted. Only then, did we see the impact and the rough 0.3sec it netted them while in use. I wish no such action to take place during the season, but I would think it would take similar circumstance to know for sure.

[GrayGreat]

People are exaggerating Ferrari PU advantage, just like Toto and Hamilton. Hamilton ran more downforce and also ran wide just a tiny bit, that's why Vettel overtook him with a greater speed difference. There was also the head wind which increased the tow effect.

After the overtake, Hamilton started gaining on Vettel, as well as the Force Indias, and by the end of the straight, all 4 were alongside each other. So Mercedes PU is not as bad as Toto and Hamilton are trying to tell. They are just trying to be underdogs, take the pressure off themselves and put it on Ferrari. Ferrari PU is just as good as Merc PU, or just slightly better. Ferrari is winning because of their PU 'AND' the chassis.

PU and chassis? Only if the cars red though right?

No, Merc did not win last 4 years ONLY with PU, and especially 2017. Their chassis was only behind RedBull probably (2014-17) and on par with Ferrari (2017) but this year, Ferrari seems to have a better chassis than Mercedes (IMO).

[jh199]

Any guesses/news about the new aerodynamic package for Mercedes at Monza?

If this update isnt just a Monza specific update, I'd expect some cuts along the outer floor. Mercedes (and sauber?) seem to be the only ones not utilizing this area. Mercedes has that small flick up near the front and some tire squirt cuts but nothing along the lines of Ferrari, Red Bull or Mclaren


AMuS

F1

Is there any reason why Mercedes hasnt done this yet? Maybe these cuts are only needed on higher rake concepts?

[bill shoe]

Don't know, it's all speculative but I would think that unless they wanted it to move, they would have prevented it form doing so to such a degree.

I doubt Merc is trying to intentionally use rear wing motion as a Tuned Mass Damper. In the recent post-Hungary test, they tried a rear wing with twin mount-posts, right? This shows they are interested in stopping the motion.

But yes the TMD ban is nearly impossible to police and I suspect it's being used somewhere on some car in a subtle way that involves relatively normal flexing rather than obvious TMD-looking things. The FIA can't stop parts from having mass and non-infinite stiffness.