Williams FW37 Mercedes Speculation Thread

[turbof1]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

[LookBackTime]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

I would add to your article one more aspect:

Williams solution allows the lower part of front wing "to behave" at full potential, so the airflow is not obstructed by the two pillars !

my 2 cents

P.S. I said Williams solution., but it is more a Mercedes Team solution

[turbof1]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

I would add to your article one more aspect:

Williams solution allows the lower part of front wing "to behave" at full potential, so the airflow is not obstructed by the two pillars !

my 2 cents

Yes correct. I did mention at the end that other factors are at play. I might do a different article on that once more noses have been released.

[FrukostScones]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

thanks for the article, but isn't it a bit too early to compare the nose design, the FINDIA one looks too much of a mock-up (probably made from the 2014 nose)...

[Sevach]

I'm no engineer however Pat Symonds mentioned that they had a decent amount of weight to play with in the design of the FW37 as the FW36 was underweight and the weight limit has increased. Could they have switched to a air to water intercooler to reduce the size of the side pods? Also the larger intake below the airbox might be for cooling as well to help minimise the sidepod intake size.

It's possible, i mean the factory team had it (water intercooler) and was pretty good (understatement) with it.

It's definitely something worth a look.

[Polemik]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

very nice article ... but your comparison is not accurate, because there is a difference in front wing mounting on the nosepillars.

[turbof1]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

very nice article ... but your comparison is not accurate, because there is a difference in front wing mounting on the nosepillars.

No, that part is accurate. Both areas where the air goes underneath the nose is boxed in by the neutral section of the front wing, of which the height is fixed by regulations. Williams' front wing is simply put more forward (as shown on the drawings), but this on its own will not influence max air volume achievable underneath the wing. For the rest the article follows the contours of the nosepillars. Differences in mounting have been accounted for.

[dren]

It looks like Williams is going for the most efficient, least blocking solution. The FI looks to try some interaction between the lower side of the nose and the neutral part of the wing. Either that or they didn't spend the resources to achieve a short nose like Williams did.

[LookBackTime]

It looks like Williams is going for the most efficient, least blocking solution. The FI looks to try some interaction between the lower side of the nose and the neutral part of the wing. Either that or they didn't spend the resources to achieve a short nose like Williams did.

Craig Scarborough:
...
The nose's thumb tip meets the new rules by creating the first minimum cross section (9000mm2 at 50mm behind the nose tip) and the wide secondary leading edge forms the second regulatory cross section (20,000mm2 at 150mm behind the nose tip). This lifts the nose as clear of the front wing as possible to free up airflow under the front of the car.

Making such a short nose meet the more stringent crash tests will have been a challenge. Not every team will have had the resources to conform to the rules with a nose at its minimum length.

These new nose rules for 2015 not only affect the nose shape, but also the slope of chassis from the front bulkhead upwards to the towards the cockpit.
...

Source:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117419

[f1316]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

Or a lousy job...

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Pilatus]

Indeed, when you compare the sidepod cooling intakes and the turbo air intake size, this no good news for Merc's rivals...
http://www.motorsport-total.com/bilder/ ... 842169.jpg

With lessons learned in 2014., all 2015 cars will very probably have smaller cooling intakes.

[turbof1]

We are not going to allow any linking to ripped magazines or the like. Posting a link to a ripped magazine is probably with good intent, but in the end the publisher, journalists, etc behind it do have to make a living from selling these items. I'm removing the first post and also the follow-ups.

For the record to what is allowed:
-Images, as long they don't have any possible watermarks removed or be claimed as your own.
-"Free-to-get" articles, with a link back to the publisher's page or at the very least mention of the publisher
-Quoted snippets from a paid/subscribed article.

[PlatinumZealot]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

I suggest you do a CFD analysis because there is a high pressure zone at the leading edge of the front wing that may make the assumption that the Williams brings in more air in both straight on and in yaw, moot. The guide vanes under the nose can also make up for any deficits if any.

[turbof1]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

I suggest you do a CFD analysis because there is a high pressure zone at the leading edge of the front wing that may make the assumption that the Williams brings in more air in both straight on and in yaw, moot. The guide vanes under the nose can also make up for any deficits if any.

I don't think you have properly readed the article . My point wasn't that "Williams brings in more air both ln straight and in yaw", it was that it brought more air in a straight, but a tiny bit less when in yaw, vs the supposed 2015 FI nose.

I don't have any experience in cfd work, nor the time for the foreseeable future to learn and make cfd renders. And the issue with normal cfd work is that it's mostly steady-state, which has been proven in the past to be quite unreliable to predict real world situations. Rather, my intent here was to add the concept of yaw to air volume underneath the nose, which changes the real dimensions of the obstruction of the airflow.

[trinidefender]

A small comparative analysis from me, between the FW37 nose and VJM08 nose: http://www.f1technical.net/features/19883. A big thanks has to go to Steven for grammar and spelling, which I admittingly did a louzy a job at!

I suggest you do a CFD analysis because there is a high pressure zone at the leading edge of the front wing that may make the assumption that the Williams brings in more air in both straight on and in yaw, moot. The guide vanes under the nose can also make up for any deficits if any.

I don't think you have properly readed the article . My point wasn't that "Williams brings in more air both ln straight and in yaw", it was that it brought more air in a straight, but a tiny bit less when in yaw, vs the supposed 2015 FI nose.

I don't have any experience in cfd work, nor the time for the foreseeable future to learn and make cfd renders. And the issue with normal cfd work is that it's mostly steady-state, which has been proven in the past to be quite unreliable to predict real world situations. Rather, my intent here was to add the concept of yaw to air volume underneath the nose, which changes the real dimensions of the obstruction of the airflow.

Turbo I'm sorry to say but your analysis here is far to simplistic to judge which nose works better in which conditions. The problems are:
A. You don't know the yaw angles involved.
B. You can't tell how airflow moves around the finger and the pylons and any turbulence/vortices that are given off intentionally or unintentionally by them.
C. You are looking at the simple space provided underneath the nose and between the nose pylons.
D.you can't tell how the rest of the nose effects airflow going underneath and around it.
E. Here is the major one, you completely ignored the mass of airflow that flows inside of the front wing over the neutral portion. Basically between the inside edge of the front wing and the outside of the pylons.

Something I have noticed that started for 2014 with the trend of lowering the noses. The front wing pylon design has become a far more integral part of the general design of the front of the car. As you can see last year Williams ran wing pylons that had a significant bend inwards in them. At first glance in would seem it reduces the airflow going under the nose but what is not looked at is how those inwards portions help to direct flow from either side of the front wing pylons to then flow underneath the wing.

It is my humble suggestion that these types of analyses be more biased to towards figuring out how different parts of a car works and what parts do as opposed to which is a better design. I say this because without hard data it is almost I possible for us to say which is a better design, especially when you introduce variables like yaw into the equation.