Mercedes AMG F1 W03

[raymondu999]

Rosberg says there is more to come from the exhaust upgrade.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMlscEoKd_k[/youtube]

Fixed it for you

[Vasconia]

A new floor or diffuser are expected, and some small pieces, all of them in order to improve the use of the new exhaut.

[Forza]

Also the drag reduction device will be tested again at Suzuka

Brawn also revealed that Mercedes will test its so-nicknamed "DRD" concept in free practice in Japan in two weeks.
"We could use it in practice and at the moment I think it’s very unlikely that we will see it in the race just yet," he said.

[Pierce89]

Diffuser maybe, rear wing is actually pretty good

How do you come to this conclusion? None of us know quite how good or bad any individual wing is.

Look at the top team's wings, those are much more complicated and curved, especially at the lower regions. Of course the more it is complicated the more harder to set it up and make the best of it, but it is also a sign that you are working on it and trying to make it better.

Merc do not fine tune it although they should do it as they are changing the car's other parts which means the airflow changed more or less around the back of the car.

I'm very confident we will see an upgraded rear wing from Merc in the next couple of races and as I read the new diffuser now confirmed.

I was actually asking Mantikos how he came to the conclusion that the rear wing is "good" and only the diffuser needs changing. With a mediocre(and sometimes downright poor) car, how does one come to the conclusion that the rear wing specifically is "pretty good", especially considering this car is widely though(at F1T anyways) to lack rear downforce?
@adamski I get your line of thought but complexity doesn't necessarily mean quality
Edit: Because of the "three quote rule", I had to edit four times to get the quotes right. I hate forum quoting, but whenever I fail to quote,invariably, the wrong person responds.

[mantikos]

[quote="AdamskiI was actually asking Mantikos how he came to the conclusion that the rear wing is "good" and only the diffuser needs changing. With a mediocre(and sometimes downright poor) car, how does one come to the conclusion that the rear wing specifically is "pretty good", especially considering this car is widely though(at F1T anyways) to lack rear downforce?
@adamski I get your line of thought but complexity doesn't necessarily mean quality
Edit: Because of the "three quote rule", I had to edit four times to get the quotes right. I hate forum quoting, but whenever I fail to quote,invariably, the wrong person responds.

1. Because I have never heard anything negative about the rear wing anywhere
2. Because the rear wing seems to have as much detail as other wings on the grid
3. Because I can ask you what makes you think its is not a good wing, point it out on a pic

Rear grip is not solely a rear wing's job the lack of rear downforce comes from the diffuser being not as good as the rest...

[Pierce89]

[quote="AdamskiI was actually asking Mantikos how he came to the conclusion that the rear wing is "good" and only the diffuser needs changing. With a mediocre(and sometimes downright poor) car, how does one come to the conclusion that the rear wing specifically is "pretty good", especially considering this car is widely though(at F1T anyways) to lack rear downforce?
@adamski I get your line of thought but complexity doesn't necessarily mean quality
Edit: Because of the "three quote rule", I had to edit four times to get the quotes right. I hate forum quoting, but whenever I fail to quote,invariably, the wrong person responds.

1. Because I have never heard anything negative about the rear wing anywhere
2. Because the rear wing seems to have as much detail as other wings on the grid
3. Because I can ask you what makes you think its is not a good wing, point it out on a pic

Rear grip is not solely a rear wing's job the lack of rear downforce comes from the diffuser being not as good as the rest...

I never said it wasn't a good wing. I was just pointing to the problems of claiming a single part of a mediocre car is "good". Realistically, we only know that they thought the exhaust wasn't up to snuff, but claiming the rear wing is good, while the diffuser is bad is overreaching. You have no facts to back it up. I'm not saying you're wrong, simply because none of us have enough info to really analyze the situation.

In summary, its not good to make technical proclamation like your's without having some info to back it up? Lastly, while you're accurate in saying the rear wing isn't solely responsible for rear downforce, it is indeed the main contributor. The diffuser generates a good portion of its downforce under the leading edge of the floor, so it's much less rear biased than the rear wing.

[FoxHound]

Even if you had the required data, how would you know the W03 wing was deficient to other cars in terms of down force?

[Adamski]

[quote="AdamskiI was actually asking Mantikos how he came to the conclusion that the rear wing is "good" and only the diffuser needs changing. With a mediocre(and sometimes downright poor) car, how does one come to the conclusion that the rear wing specifically is "pretty good", especially considering this car is widely though(at F1T anyways) to lack rear downforce?
@adamski I get your line of thought but complexity doesn't necessarily mean quality
Edit: Because of the "three quote rule", I had to edit four times to get the quotes right. I hate forum quoting, but whenever I fail to quote,invariably, the wrong person responds.

1. Because I have never heard anything negative about the rear wing anywhere
2. Because the rear wing seems to have as much detail as other wings on the grid
3. Because I can ask you what makes you think its is not a good wing, point it out on a pic

Rear grip is not solely a rear wing's job the lack of rear downforce comes from the diffuser being not as good as the rest...

Mantikos, I disagree with you. As I said for me the Merc rear wing is too simple. As you mentioned it has as much detail as others in the field. Well, it depends on what you call details. Yes, it was a well designed and well engineered wing with nice details when they debuted it last year on the W02. But how do they think it is still working as perfect on a new car?



That was a shot from the W02 debut. I think the car is very identical, although it's a 2 and a half year old picture. For me, it's the same situation what they did with the front wing. They run for more than 2 years the same two element front wing. This year they get rid of the old front wing but seems they don't have enough resources until now to make modifications on the back of the car.

But now with the Coanda styled exhaust and with triple DRS it's time to move on from this basic setup. And they will as it is confirmed.

[yener]

They should have work on the basic from the start. The DRS is screwing up their data en they keep concentrating for a 3DRS.

It's really simple: McLaren Ferrari and especially RedBull had a basic car with more grip in comparision then topspeed.

MGP had topspeed but less grip and downforce. There most be somebody walking around and think about that.

[Stradivarius]

I don't think it makes sense to deem one specific part like the rear wing as good or bad. Optimizing a wing is quite simple and relies on old, well-known technology. The aerofoil designs for subsonic speeds have not changed much for decades and the aerodynamic efficiency (the ratio between lift and drag) has changed even less.

The challenge in formula 1 is to make the enitre car work as well as possible, and the rear wing is typically a device that is affected significantly by what happens further towards the front of the car. In theory, you might well se a modified rear wing as part of an upgrade that increases the performance of the car, but reduces the efficency of the rear wing itself. If you make some changes on the front which increases the efficency of the diffuser, but alters the air flow of the rear wing as well, you might have to modify the rear wing in order to limit the losses. The net results may be more downforce, due to improved diffuser performance, but the rear wing might perform worse than before. Would that be a better or worse rear wing than the old one which isolated performed better?

I wouldn't put too much into the complexity and details and interpret that as a better design. When Ferrari dominated in the first half of the previous decade, their cars were in many aspects among the most traditional designs. Their rivals felt that they were forced to explore new/unknown solutions to catch up. I especially remember Williams' nose in 2004. But in the end it turned out that the traditional nose worked better and Williams later changed back to the traditional nose with a major upgrade on the car.

[Pierce89]

Even if you had the required data, how would you know the W03 wing was deficient to other cars in terms of down force?

Who said the wing was deficient? I'm saying we can't make those judgements from our position.

[godlameroso]

Did anyone see any pictures of the exhaust flames in Singapore at night?

[mantikos]

I think only the diffuser and the rear wing is still too simple compared to the top teams.

Someone did say the rearwing wasn't good enough

[Forza]

Mercedes introduced its version of the Coander exhaust, as pioneered pre-season by Ferrari, McLaren, Sauber and Red Bull. It uses the Coander effect to take the exhaust flow down over the rear brake ducts (1) and around the side of the diffuser, helping to aerodynamically seal that diffuser by reducing leakage from the gap between it and the track. The exhaust exits into an unusual square-sided body cut-out. There are small vortex generators (2) ahead of the rear tyre,
fashioned in aluminium. There was also a twisted-cascade outboard flap on the front-wing endplate.

GARY Anderson: This exhaust layout is more like Ferrari’s than McLaren’s, in that the exhaust bodywork housing itself is bulkier and higher up,but allows more of the Coke-bottle profile of the lower body to be retained. Where it differs from any of them is in having a square-edged outlet through which the exhaust pokes – and the underside of that outlet, where it meets with the Coke-bottle lower body, actually goes to a blade. It’s a tidy, neat solution. However, the exhaust plume through a circle isn’t a constant flow, but fast pulses – and this causes that plume to rotate. When you then enclose the pipe in a square-edged section like this the plume can no longer rotate – and that takes energy out of it. So I’d doubt if the effect is as powerful as it could be. The Mercedes has perhaps the most intricate and aerodynamically sophisticated rear brake ducts of any of this season’s cars, with a sliding skirt connecting them to the bodywork and a shape that underneath turns and twists around the tyre. They will be very powerful anyway and it could be that adding exhaust flow to them won’t dramatically multiply the effect. The improvised vortex generators will just be helping to divert more energy into that part of the floor.

Source: Autosport

[ForMuLaOne]

Quite remarkable that autosport journalists are unable to spell coanda right...