Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[mep]

Also, Ross had said in a recent interview on Autosport that the Short wheel-base design didn't pay off, largely due to, yep you guessed it.. EBD, or OTBD etc,this hurt the tyres massively. Cos the EBD took away the disadvantage of the Longer wheelbase.Short wheel base meant higher CoG, and that's why the race pace was appalling with the higher fuel loads.

Short wheelbase does not necessarily mean higher CoG.
It appears to be obvious so people start to claim that also the team might pick up this point to get a simple explanaitonto the fans why they lack performance. CofG height is quite easy to predict with CAD and the magnitude of influence can be figured out even with simple simulations. It is very unlikely they got that wrong.

Just lately I got a better understanding of the wheelbase effect on downforce. Obviously vortices are feed under the floor to generate downforce with their low pressure but only at the front of the floor. As they disturb the flow to the diffusor this goes along with a loss of rear downforce. So the amount of vortices you feed into the floor are a tool to balance the downforce between front and rear where of course the length of the floor plays a significant role.
Newey played that game a bit better. By using the exhaust he managed to improve the flow at the rear with a longer floor. Mercedes was then caught out once again with a bad design.

[Ferraripilot]

Autonomy Virage software. Can anyone tell me the advantage to using this software? Does it employ some sort of metric or metric-finding ability other software is not capable of? I know MB announced they will be using this software for next season but I'm still unsure of its significance.

[marcush.]

Also, Ross had said in a recent interview on Autosport that the Short wheel-base design didn't pay off, largely due to, yep you guessed it.. EBD, or OTBD etc,this hurt the tyres massively. Cos the EBD took away the disadvantage of the Longer wheelbase.Short wheel base meant higher CoG, and that's why the race pace was appalling with the higher fuel loads.

Short wheelbase does not necessarily mean higher CoG.
It appears to be obvious so people start to claim that also the team might pick up this point to get a simple explanaitonto the fans why they lack performance. CofG height is quite easy to predict with CAD and the magnitude of influence can be figured out even with simple simulations. It is very unlikely they got that wrong.

Just lately I got a better understanding of the wheelbase effect on downforce. Obviously vortices are feed under the floor to generate downforce with their low pressure but only at the front of the floor. As they disturb the flow to the diffusor this goes along with a loss of rear downforce. So the amount of vortices you feed into the floor are a tool to balance the downforce between front and rear where of course the length of the floor plays a significant role.
Newey played that game a bit better. By using the exhaust he managed to improve the flow at the rear with a longer floor. Mercedes was then caught out once again with a bad design.

The question is if one can hang up a sucess or failed concept solely on a short wheelbase .Aerodynamically the 10(?)inches difference ,do they really have a significant impact on underfloor performance -insurmountable with development ? I don´t see that.
A longer car almost inevitably will grow weight unless you can simply move wheels it will add substance to the car and as the bar gets longer you need to add material to arrive at the same stiffness figures.

[ell66]

Also, Ross had said in a recent interview on Autosport that the Short wheel-base design didn't pay off, largely due to, yep you guessed it.. EBD, or OTBD etc,this hurt the tyres massively. Cos the EBD took away the disadvantage of the Longer wheelbase.Short wheel base meant higher CoG, and that's why the race pace was appalling with the higher fuel loads.

Short wheelbase does not necessarily mean higher CoG.
.

All things being the same it most certainly does. Just look at how much shorter it is compared to the mclaren which shars the same engine. Im sure they had there reasons to being with, but ultimately a poor choice.

[marcush.]

The difference due to having to package the rads differently in terms of coff G height seems to be almost zero .
The one thing that could make a difference is the fueltank which is quite a bit shorter and has to gain height to offer the same volume .so filling her up to the max has a bigger negative impact then on Mclarens concept..but was Mercedes closer to Macs on low fuel ? Not really .We saw them running very well at the start of the races ..and dropping back later...Maybe some of rosbergs early fireworks were just owed to a deliberate low fuelload compensating for the lower overall performance and as a matter of fact making it necessary to cut down on fuel consumption later in the race to bring her home...

[PlatinumZealot]

Also, Ross had said in a recent interview on Autosport that the Short wheel-base design didn't pay off, largely due to, yep you guessed it.. EBD, or OTBD etc,this hurt the tyres massively. Cos the EBD took away the disadvantage of the Longer wheelbase.Short wheel base meant higher CoG, and that's why the race pace was appalling with the higher fuel loads.

Short wheelbase does not necessarily mean higher CoG.
It appears to be obvious so people start to claim that also the team might pick up this point to get a simple explanaitonto the fans why they lack performance. CofG height is quite easy to predict with CAD and the magnitude of influence can be figured out even with simple simulations. It is very unlikely they got that wrong.

Just lately I got a better understanding of the wheelbase effect on downforce. Obviously vortices are feed under the floor to generate downforce with their low pressure but only at the front of the floor. As they disturb the flow to the diffusor this goes along with a loss of rear downforce. So the amount of vortices you feed into the floor are a tool to balance the downforce between front and rear where of course the length of the floor plays a significant role.
Newey played that game a bit better. By using the exhaust he managed to improve the flow at the rear with a longer floor. Mercedes was then caught out once again with a bad design.

The question is if one can hang up a sucess or failed concept solely on a short wheelbase .Aerodynamically the 10(?)inches difference ,do they really have a significant impact on underfloor performance -insurmountable with development ? I don´t see that.
A longer car almost inevitably will grow weight unless you can simply move wheels it will add substance to the car and as the bar gets longer you need to add material to arrive at the same stiffness figures.

You can make more downforce with a longer car (or wider car too if the rules alowed) and you can get better transitioning air flow with a longer car. There is some limit where shortness is a disadvantage, and the same for length. But in general. See the Mclaren f1-GTR "long tail" the longer car has better aero performance.

[xpensive]

I find it difficult to see how an xperienced F1-engineer would find compelling reasons to go for a 250 mm shorter wheelbase just like that, why I'm afraid the idea came from elsewheres, perhaps from the same source that conceived the flat-12?

A naive idea like "A flat engine haz a lower CG, zat's it!" or "A short car iz lighter, zey must all be idiots!"

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Greetings from a frozen Bilgoraj, Poland.


Had an epic 26 hour journey from Southampton that took roughly 19 hours driving in my trusty 1 litre Yaris!
En Route my journey took me through Brackley, and I made a turn and spoke to the guard who naturally wouldnt let me in, but did tell me that all three guys were working on Wednesday...Bell, Willis and Costa. Amusingly, Costa's blood red Ferrari 599 was clearly evident in the car park...I assume its his!

Anyway, The new simulator for the W03 is housed in a new building that is massive. Not sure what software it runs as that is all I could extract from the guard. He ushered me off when I suggested a 50 quid bribe...but I'll make another turn there on the 3rd of January and keep you guys posted if I bump into any other staff

[Boost]

You can make more downforce with a longer car (or wider car too if the rules alowed) and you can get better transitioning air flow with a longer car. There is some limit where shortness is a disadvantage, and the same for length. But in general. See the Mclaren f1-GTR "long tail" the longer car has better aero performance.

The long tail was came about as it allowed the length of the diffuser to be extended. The rules only allowed a diffuser from the rear axle line to the end of the body work, which on the McLaren F1 only allowed a very short diffuser due to the stubby rear bodywork. Increasing the length of the nose increases the load on the front tyres for a given level of downforce.

[marcush.]

more is not always a net gain ...but as x suggested the gains in wheelbase of recent years came not by chance .
Inreality the long cars do not carry a significant penalty in any area or on any track but you can´t discuss away the nece4ssary bits and pieces that need to be packaged.As formula 1cars are tightly packaged already you will have to compromise more and stack parts higher up.
As your main components are fixed and are all mounted in the same ways on all cars -engine ,driver,tank ,gearbox ,KERS,Ballast there are only the minor components you can juggle around with and these do not have a big impact on cofg height.Everything helps but this is a tenth or two in terms of lap times but not seconds.

[xpensive]

True marcush, 250 mm length of composite tub and some wiring is not much of a weight penalty really.

[Ferraripilot]

Greetings from a frozen Bilgoraj, Poland.


Had an epic 26 hour journey from Southampton that took roughly 19 hours driving in my trusty 1 litre Yaris!
En Route my journey took me through Brackley, and I made a turn and spoke to the guard who naturally wouldnt let me in, but did tell me that all three guys were working on Wednesday...Bell, Willis and Costa. Amusingly, Costa's blood red Ferrari 599 was clearly evident in the car park...I assume its his!

Anyway, The new simulator for the W03 is housed in a new building that is massive. Not sure what software it runs as that is all I could extract from the guard. He ushered me off when I suggested a 50 quid bribe...but I'll make another turn there on the 3rd of January and keep you guys posted if I bump into any other staff

bah. 50 quid won't get you much. Offer a few hundred next time

So, did MB make a new building specifically for W03 simulator?? Why? Confused.

[Mr.S]

The simulator is like a building. That is the case,it is huge. Ferrari have invested in it too, I heard Luca & he said it is the size of a building. Apparently renault's is & maybe all of the rest too. Maybe Simulations,the one's used in Formula are actually huge.

[Tyler]

So ironic - the FIA bans testing to cut costs, so what does everyone do? - build huge, expensive simulators!
It would have been cheaper to just carry on testing - at least some young drivers would get a chance to drive too.
Unless the FIA says this is how much you can spend and police it properly the teams will always find a way around it.
I wonder what Schumacher thinks of the new simulator, I remember he didn't use the old one because it gave him motion sickness.
Wouldn't that have been a huge handicap for him?

[godlameroso]

Well look on the bright side all that simulator tech will eventually trickle down to us.