Mercedes W11

[Just_a_fan]

Nice image. Compare the gaps to the image i posted above. only two washers touch.
Whereas in the image you posted the washers are all touching each other.

Probably a bit of droop going in all the images we see with the cars up on stands. Would they necessarily run pre load when off the ground?

You'd want to be able to disassemble the thing without it throwing bits everywhere, wouldn't you? As you say, on the stands the weight of the uprights, brakes etc will be sufficient to fully unload the spring.

[e36jon]

Here's some composite spring info from the manufacturers to inform the discussion:

https://www.mw-ind.com/composite-spring-capabilities/

https://www.abssac.co.uk/p/Wound+Spring ... maQEnOSkuU

Also, I don't think losing pre-load on the heave element is a big deal since the corners still have their own springs / dampers. Or not. I'm not an expert...

Cheers,

Jon

[saviour stivala]

Very interesting and informative information. Thanks for sharing.

[ringo]

Thanks for the link.
Learned a lot.

See here for more:

https://www.mw-ind.com/composite-spring-capabilities/

[Giblet]

It's not just "sure".

A longer car is not inherently unbalanced.

It Is less balanced because
Compared to the same car with shorter wheelbase It Is less balanced on sharp turns.

Any comparison in every field Is Always done fixing other factors according to the Superposition principle. It s an engeneering first year fundamental

Tuning more factors, mainly suspension geometry, you can compensate the unbalance. But that doesnt change that you could have an even Better balance reducing the axial distance, so It Always give an advantage.... Design Is compromising

Each car has exactly ONE perfect radius, every other one is a compromise.

[mmred]

It's not just "sure".

A longer car is not inherently unbalanced.

It Is less balanced because
Compared to the same car with shorter wheelbase It Is less balanced on sharp turns.

Any comparison in every field Is Always done fixing other factors according to the Superposition principle. It s an engeneering first year fundamental

Tuning more factors, mainly suspension geometry, you can compensate the unbalance. But that doesnt change that you could have an even Better balance reducing the axial distance, so It Always give an advantage.... Design Is compromising

Each car has exactly ONE perfect radius, every other one is a compromise.

That doesnt change our comparison.

You can have a perfect radius that maximizes the performance of that car but the same car with a shorter wheelbase Is more stable on sharp turns.
And It can go faster even overall, and usually It Is so, and i explain you why.


Indeed Since stability on fast corners Is mainly given by aerodinamic characteristics, while the mechanical ones play a Key role in sharp turns you end up with an overall more stable car on most turns.

To make an example a longer wheelbase Is more adapt to the 130 r, but aerodynamics keep you on track in that corner not mechanical balance , while you cant turn properly at Antony nogues. What s the Better overall car? If aero Is not a limiting factor, the sharp turns make the difference while the long turns are full throttle for both versions of the same car.

A longer wheelbase gains other advantages tough, aerodinamic ones, less drag that gives you the ability to choose more Wing and so aerodinamic stability, but those are other factors, useful in very different and rare tracks.

I said in a side by side comparison a shorter wheelbase gives an advantages in sharp turns. Without other factors. I repeat that.

I add It Is usually better also overall. But It costs you drag so the design choice Is a compromise

[zibby43]

Another nice top-down shot of the Merc, highlighting the packaging efforts, floor area, and slim nose:



via F1

[izzy]

Another nice top-down shot of the Merc, highlighting the packaging efforts, floor area, and slim nose:

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fo ... /image.jpg

via F1

Nice. It's a flying floor really

I'm not surprised F1 wanted to shorten them for next year, they could make them a bit narrower again too, they'd look a bit more rational. But this is just packed with cleverness isn't it, from the DAS to the aero rear suspension and imo a bit of rear steering, via the hot coolant and mini radiators and everything else

[MtthsMlw]

According to AMuS Merc has to rework (before Melbourne) the suspension air inlet as it's placed too high and not conform with TD 014/20

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... egal-2020/

[kimetic]

According to AMuS Merc has to rework (before Melbourne) the suspension air inlet as it's placed too high and not conform with TD 014/20
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/M ... 677714.jpg
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... egal-2020/

No ducts more than 160mm above the wheel centreline, for some reason. Shame, as it looks so elegant.

[gandharva]

The FIA offers two solutions to the teams that now have to rebuild their rear wheel carriers in a hurry: Either an outlet is created at the rear end of the frame which is as large as the forbidden inlet. This way the air is simply conducted to the rear.

Alternatively, the duct can simply be closed completely. This solution can also ensure that no air is diverted for brake or rim cooling. However, if you prefer the second, "simpler" variant, you may only do this as a temporary solution for the first two races. After that, the FIA expects a new, rule-compliant design of the wheel carriers and brake ventilation systems.

Off topic:
RP could also be affected, as FIA wording is about teams and not team. But RP looks legal to me.

[RZS10]

Isn't this a similar solution to what they had last season where the FIA said it was perfectly legal?
Wonder when exactly they published that TD but as it looks they left Merc in the belief that the solution was fine only to ban it just in time for the first race ....

[El Scorchio]

Isn't this a similar solution to what they had last season where the FIA said the solution was legal?
Wonder when exactly they published that TD but as it looks they left Merc in the belief that the solution was fine only to ban it just in time for the first race ....

From what I saw (correct me if I'm wrong) Red Bull queried this, which led to the TD being issued. So perhaps they picked strategically the best time to lodge their query to cause the most inconvenience. Excellent gamesmanship if so!

[RZS10]

That would mean that they asked for clarification after testing and that the FIA then (given how long they usually take, especially when it comes to another team) instantly banned it just in time for the race.

Main issue is though: why did they suddenly change their mind? Why haven't they already banned it for 2020 when the legality was questioned last year, thus allowing the affected teams to properly prepare?

[bosyber]

Isn't this a similar solution to what they had last season where the FIA said the solution was legal?
Wonder when exactly they published that TD but as it looks they left Merc in the belief that the solution was fine only to ban it just in time for the first race ....

From what I saw (correct me if I'm wrong) Red Bull queried this, which led to the TD being issued. So perhaps they picked strategically the best time to lodge their query to cause the most inconvenience. Excellent gamesmanship if so!

That seems to me the likeliest scenario too, and a very F1-type start of the year, destabilising your opponent shortly before the first race; a protest at the last race, or query during testing would have been less effective in giving the opponent time to optimise a new solution.

The article mentions that the FIA notes Mercedes' solution has three prongs, which do all have a mechanical support function (but now doesn't think it's just that but instead the shape is chosen for mainly aero benefit) - that hints that the reason it was allowed last year was bc. Merc. convincingly argued that's why the shapes were. I guess Red Bull now made a good argument that other shapes would have had that function w/o the aero benefit, and this time FIA agreed.

The photo of the Racing Point seems to indicate to me that there they may have used the '2nd' option (so have work to do before the 3rd race then), but also that they should be okay for Melbourne then.