Mercedes AMG F1 W06

[dren]

Has anyone figured out these Mercedes these wing shaped extensions of the Mercedes?
Nobody has copied it thus far...
Why aren't they shaped more like a downforce generating wing? effectively replacing the beam wing.

they are there to accelerate the air coming out of the engine cover, like they use on escape slides on airplanes, not directly for downforce but to keep the exit smaller

To me it looks like they are trying to turn/expand the air flow upwards and outwards to work with the diffuser and rear wing.

[ringo]

Its a flow augmenter, it drives the air out from under the engine cover.
What i find more interesting is the floor of the car. I think their down force advantage is coming from the floor mostly. It needs to be analyzed a bit more. Something just looks fishy about it.

[andone89]

Mercedes looks soo much more refined than others, especially from the front.
Nothing is going to beat a works Mercedes factory team in Formula 1 unless the rules change. Others are only limping behind them without any hope catching them and passing them.
That 1 victory that Ferrari got was just down to the extreme temperatures and humidity Malaysia had to offer. I bet that Mercedes will continue with 1-2 finishes untill a complete overhaul of the technical regulations.
Just wanted to spit it out

[Froggolo]

Its a flow augmenter, it drives the air out from under the engine cover.
What i find more interesting is the floor of the car. I think their down force advantage is coming from the floor mostly. It needs to be analyzed a bit more. Something just looks fishy about it.

could you please point out what you think it looks fishy about MB floor?

[l4mbch0ps]

Too many ellipses?

[PlatinumZealot]

I think the extension helps the diffuser.
It is a hbyrid of the wide tail exit and the narrow tailed one. The wide exit gives even and clean air flow to the rear but more drag. The narrow one gives less drag but is hotter and the wake is not controlled.

[bhall II]

I think the extension helps the diffuser.

I agree with that much. The smaller "vent" is formed according to the needs of internal aero, and the larger "vent" is formed according to the needs of external aero.

It's a pretty slick interpretation of the rules, too, because it would seem it's only legal if you look at from the side.

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :

a) The volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

b) The volume between 100mm and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

c) The volume between 100mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 356mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

d) The volume between 100mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 675mm above the reference plane.

The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any vertical surfaces which lie normal to the car centre line.

[diego.liv2]

According to Omnicorse, they are exploring the S-duct..i personally can't see where does that hole in the front-wing connection fit with the rest of the nose cone, despite the fact Merc have changed the anti-damaging cage for liquids (maybe changed in Canada before)

[MercAMGF1Fans]

According to Omni Cours.. Merc were trialling an "S-Duct" in the Austrian Test..

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/59259/ ... trumentato

Google Translate doesn't make sense btw..

[Matt Somers]

I wouldn't read too much into that 'S' duct article, I think Omnicorse have made the same mistake that Piola made back in Malaysia when Merc increased the pelican underbelly...



Giorgio briefly had that image posted up on F1.com with an explanation of a 'S' duct entrance behind the pelican but no proof of the exit point. He'd forgotten the tongue that protudes from the chassis, from which the turning vanes hang off though..



The cut out that Piola had drawn into the W06's nose is simply the insertion point for the tongue / turning vanes.

Don't get me wrong Mercedes were back-to-back testing nose solutions in Austria but I think this had more to do with the differing tips they were using http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/ ... nical.html...

[PlatinumZealot]

The yellow is so opaque I can't see what's behind it.

[ringo]

Too many ellipses?

I have a very informative thread to create when i get some time to teach you all a thing or two about that theory. Not sure if it may be too much math and too tiring to read.
Sometimes i much prefer sitting back and smiling at even more absurd things on this forum.
Ive had similar reactions to things like the high nose theories back in 2009, the push rod being extinct and the f duct and othe crazy theories things usually come full circle in this f1 copy cat industry.
any how i will go more in detail on the elipse thing maybe next week in the aero section.

[zioture]

Other photos, maybe S-duct

[RicME85]

Same as the picture above but this one doesnt have the silver tape over the gap.

[turbof1]

Optical illusion on the pictures aside (there is certainly no S duct slot in any of them), I think it's better to ask the simple question: does Mercedes need an S-duct in the first place?

Let's rewind to 2012: new nose regulations forced teams to adopt the typical beak noses, a consequence of the front bulkhead having a higher maximum height then the nose. Most teams kept both structures on their respective maximum height, creating the sudden, agressive step in the transaction. This however created airflow seperation, inducing boundary layer buildup on top of the chassis. Before 2012, the transaction was flat and horizontal, which made sure no boundary layer buildup was present.

pre-2012 noses:


2012 noses:

Sauber back then was the very first team to adapt the so called S-duct:

(https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/ ... auber-c31/ , definitely read the rest of Scarb's article too!)

It works as a venturi tunnel, speeding up the airflow through the duct. It then gets near horizontally injected into the boundary layer, breaking it up. This reduces drag and all kinds of airflow issues downstream.


Coming into 2014 and especially, teams are actually faced with the same issue in a different package. Most teams still have their chassis quite high, this because it allows more airflow to the rear, but the nose tip has to be quite low. Performance wise, you don't want the nose tip to be that close to the neutral section of the wing. Most teams use a very short and very agressively sloping nose, which again causes airflow seperation issues with the end result of boundary layer buildup:

Which makes some of those teams generally use an S-duct to combat the issue. Note that a S-duct brings along its own issues. It requires space in the crash structure, which already is brought to its limit since those are nowadays so short. Since the crash structure will effectively be shortened, it needs to be reinforced to pass the crash test, which increases weight. It also requires front suspension dampers redesign.

However, teams like Lotus and Mercedes have a different approach:

They angle the chassis downwards to reduce the overall slope angle of nose to a point the airflow does not seperate. The lower chassis is a downside to this, but it does mean they can reduce the crash structures dimensions and limit the weight. The much more gentle slope angle of the nose/chassis makes me believe they simply have no need for the S-duct.