Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[PhillipM]

What?
It wouldn't be ballast or component weights ffs, it'd be when the suspension went back on either it was bolted on in a slightly different position or/and the pushrod lengths weren't right when refitted.

Crossweights are adjusted through suspension preload.
No way you're adding 50kg to one side or the other any other way, not even 5kg really even if it was a typo.

[Just_a_fan]

What's evident from the cake tin picture, is there is a slot going across its width that blows a blanket of hot air onto the little bumps on the inner face of the rim to heat the rims. With this in place i don't think they are trying to cool the rims.

Or they are blowing cool air direct from a brake inlet duct in to the slot to cool the rim. Works both ways.

[subcritical71]

What?
It wouldn't be ballast or component weights ffs, it'd be when the suspension went back on either it was bolted on in a slightly different position or/and the pushrod lengths weren't right when refitted.

Crossweights are adjusted through suspension preload.
No way you're adding 50kg to one side or the other any other way, not even 5kg really even if it was a typo.

Oh damn, forgot about how crossweight can be dialed in with the suspension.... and i've done this on my road car with coilovers!

[dans79]

Who tells that it’s not the primary effect? Mercedes?

Anyway, I think that the rules say that there shouldn’t be any aerodynamic benefit.

The FIA decides.


If you want no aerodynamic benefit from things that aren't supposed to have one, then every car in the paddock is illegal. Every single team derives an aerodynamic benefit form their brake ducts, positioning of the suspension components, etc.

The grey area is and always has been about intent.

[PhillipM]

Not even intent if you look at rear brake winglets...

[LM10]

Who tells that it’s not the primary effect? Mercedes?

Anyway, I think that the rules say that there shouldn’t be any aerodynamic benefit.

The FIA decides.


If you want no aerodynamic benefit from things that aren't supposed to have one, then every car in the paddock is illegal. Every single team derives an aerodynamic benefit form their brake ducts, positioning of the suspension components, etc.

The grey area is and always has been about intent.

Rims move and the use of moving objects for aerodynamic benefits is not allowed. That’s why they were disallowed on RedBull back in 2012. Do we agree on that?
Why does the FIA decide in one way in first case and the other in second case? “FIA decides” as only argument is a bit worrying, if you ask me.

Or maybe you can explain the differences between the solutions of Mercedes and RedBull.

[OO7]

AMUS now also has an article about the topic.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... es-felgen/

This is the relevant part for Mexico:

Mercedes will only fall back on the perforated rims again when the world federation confirms in black and white that they are secure against protests. The negotiations in Mexico are underway.

So I think Mercedes most likely has brought both specs to Mexico and is now just waiting for confirmation.

Yes. You can see the version they ran in Austin (race spec) with the blocked holes in the background:

[MtthsMlw]

via Albert Fabrega

[OO7]

We need to see the rear wheel hubs...
I dont see where the air comes from to go into the middle of the rim... The outer discharge point looks to shoot air tangentially. . Not sure if into the spokes or the barrel of the wheel... Need a side view.

Any more ideas?

https://cdn-2.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... -rim-1.jpg

Looks like a different material lines inside the wheel where the holes are. For insulation purposes of course. This thing is designed to prevent heat transfer to the centre part of the wheel.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqUEXPIU4AAx3OR.jpg

The air comes from the 24 circumferential holes on the hub.

EDIT:
Is it possible that part of the hub (the part with the 24 circumferential holes) can move inwards and outwards, either when the wheel is attached to the hub, thus revealing and locating the thermal management holes or while the wheel or while the wheel is attached based on temperature? (I don't know if the regs would allow this however.

[Just_a_fan]

Rims move and the use of moving objects for aerodynamic benefits is not allowed. That’s why they were disallowed on RedBull back in 2012. Do we agree on that?
Why does the FIA decide in one way in first case and the other in second case? “FIA decides” as only argument is a bit worrying, if you ask me.

Or maybe you can explain the differences between the solutions of Mercedes and RedBull.

It's possible that Mercedes were able to show the FIA some data (wind tunnel, CFD) that showed that the aero effect is either negligible or even disadvantageous (maybe it make s abit more drag, for example).

Also, the effect of blowing a big "tube" of high speed air out of the centre of the front wheel was intended, and only intended, to affect the tyre wake and thus the aero performance of the car. I bet the blowing from these little holes just gives rise to a small bit of messed up air that doesn't do anything other than extract heat from the system.

Bear in mind, also, that all of the teams blow some air through the wheels - it's inherent in brake cooling. Perhaps Mercedes were also able to show that the total air mass blown through the wheel is the same either way - it's just that one way extracts more heat than the other. The blown front axle quite obviously didn't do anything to extract heat - it was purely intended to affect aero performance.

I must say that I wish the FIA would publish these things fully where there is a contentious issue. It would make the whole thing transparent.

[zibby43]

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 2191388672

[zibby43]

Rims move and the use of moving objects for aerodynamic benefits is not allowed. That’s why they were disallowed on RedBull back in 2012. Do we agree on that?
Why does the FIA decide in one way in first case and the other in second case? “FIA decides” as only argument is a bit worrying, if you ask me.

Or maybe you can explain the differences between the solutions of Mercedes and RedBull.

One *critical* difference is that Red Bull was doing this with the front wheels, whereas Mercedes is only doing it with the rear.

You're affecting/energizing the airflow stream much more significantly when employing these tactics at the front of the car.

Hope that helps.

[santos]

"Rims move and the use of moving objects for aerodynamic benefits is not allowed"... I would argue, that using air it's something aerodynamic. If it's not for drag or downforce, they are using air for something. And for sure it's something beneficial or they wouldn't be there. If it is to control the temperature of tyres.. yes it's an aerodynamic benefict.

[dans79]

Rims move and the use of moving objects for aerodynamic benefits is not allowed. That’s why they were disallowed on RedBull back in 2012. Do we agree on that?
Why does the FIA decide in one way in first case and the other in second case? “FIA decides” as only argument is a bit worrying, if you ask me.

Or maybe you can explain the differences between the solutions of Mercedes and RedBull.

RBR didn't have blown rims, the entire term blown is over used in f1.

What RBR did was collect air inward of the front wheels with a duct, and then passed it directly through the hollow front stub axle (hub) and then vented it through large holes outboard of rims. The entire purpose of the system was to increase the aerodynamic out-wash effect.

Take a look at these images.

Those large rectangular holes (big enough to put your fingers in) on the hub was where the air was coming out.

https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/06/ ... ification/

here they are with a wheel mounted
https://twitter.com/ScarbsTech/status/3 ... 1914214401

As you can see they aren't for cooling the brakes or wheels, as the air completely bypasses both of them.




No one outside of merc and the FIA knows for sure how the Merc system works. However i believe the working theory is as follows.

1. Air is collected on the inward side of the rear wheel with a duct (this isn't used on the front wheels)
2. The air is pushed into the can and thus around the brakes
3. The air exits the outward side of the can and blows onto the back of rims.
4. Some how the air is channeled in/around/through the hub to wheel interface and the spokes to heat up the wheels
5. The wheels in turn heats up the core of tire yielding a lower temperature gradient between the surface of the tire and the core. This reduces the chances of blistering.

[Phil]

The FIA didnt “decide” anything. They gave an opinion. Nothing more. If there is a post race protest, it’s the stewarts that male the verdict, not the FIA.