Technical Mercedes GP reinvent F-duct for the Front Wing?
- Thread starter tranquility2k9
- Start date
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
As long as it is a passive system with no moving parts it is legal. As for it being too late in the season, that's a bit lame of Whitmarsh (he of "the revise the car at the last minute because it's a dog" school of afterthought).Personally, I think that is the "bluff". i.e. "we won't work on that idea because it's too difficult" .... What? Coming from the inventors of the F-duct? Hmmm.
The entire system is contained within the nose cone and wing which is put onto and removed from the car as a single unit. Therefore they can experiment with the design as much as they like without having to do anything to the rest of the chassis. The limiting factor is how much of the budget they would want to expend on it.
The entire system is contained within the nose cone and wing which is put onto and removed from the car as a single unit. Therefore they can experiment with the design as much as they like without having to do anything to the rest of the chassis. The limiting factor is how much of the budget they would want to expend on it.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
How would it be activated?
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
In my earlier post: http://cliptheapex.com/threads/mercedes-gp-reinvent-f-duct-for-the-front-wing.3960/#post-87741
I rather inadequately described how the system would become more effective at speed, so I'll go a but further. Scarbs uses a bit of techno-babble so I'll try to use plain English!
Firstly, and this is the important bit as far as the regulations are concerned, the device is active as soon as the car is in forward motion. It is referred to as a passive system since there are no moving parts and the driver has no physical control over it's activation.
Air is forced into the slot in the nose as the car moves forward and is effectively compressed as it is pushed through the narrower pipework (ducts). It therefore exits the slots ion the wing at higher pressure and therefore faster rate than it entered the nose hole.
As the car increases in speed so does the quantity, pressure and speed of the air through the ducts and out of the wing slots. That part of the process really is that simple.
The complexity comes in the design of the inlet slot in terms of it's shape and size; the dimensions of the ducts regarding their diameter and route through the assembly; and the slots in the wing with regard to their location and size of the outlets.
I don't think that those issues are very much of a challenge for the designers using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software.
I rather inadequately described how the system would become more effective at speed, so I'll go a but further. Scarbs uses a bit of techno-babble so I'll try to use plain English!
Firstly, and this is the important bit as far as the regulations are concerned, the device is active as soon as the car is in forward motion. It is referred to as a passive system since there are no moving parts and the driver has no physical control over it's activation.
Air is forced into the slot in the nose as the car moves forward and is effectively compressed as it is pushed through the narrower pipework (ducts). It therefore exits the slots ion the wing at higher pressure and therefore faster rate than it entered the nose hole.
As the car increases in speed so does the quantity, pressure and speed of the air through the ducts and out of the wing slots. That part of the process really is that simple.
The complexity comes in the design of the inlet slot in terms of it's shape and size; the dimensions of the ducts regarding their diameter and route through the assembly; and the slots in the wing with regard to their location and size of the outlets.
I don't think that those issues are very much of a challenge for the designers using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
So its always on basically? even in corners?
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Indeed. In the corners you want as much down force as possible so, as the system is less effective at lower speeds, it's a matter of having tuned the set up of the wings to mitigate against the residual effect of the system. Again that's the complicated bit in terms of designing the shape of the exit slots and the direction the air is being channelled as it can't be turned off completely.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Having read Scarb's piece properly this morning, I think it's worth noting his comments about tuning the set up of the car with regards to "centre of pressure" and how the Front wing F-duct (FWFD, I'll call it) enables finer tuning of the car's handling. I did refer to this in simpler terms in my earlier post but it bears repeating, that the main advantage of the system is in giving engineers the ability to more finely tune the set up of the car.
As I mentioned earlier, the set up for any given circuit is always a compromise because of the variety of corners. In theory the FWFD will allow the engineers to minimise the compromises they have to make between setting a car up for high speed straight line performance and cornering agility.
To this end the engineers want to make the cars cut through the air with the least drag possible yet have plenty of down-force for whatever types of corner there are on the particular track. I won't go over that again as I think I covered that adequately in my earlier post as does Scarbs - a link to his article is in there as well, but I'm happy to continue this dialogue and answer (to the best of my ability) other questions folk's might have.
As I mentioned earlier, the set up for any given circuit is always a compromise because of the variety of corners. In theory the FWFD will allow the engineers to minimise the compromises they have to make between setting a car up for high speed straight line performance and cornering agility.
To this end the engineers want to make the cars cut through the air with the least drag possible yet have plenty of down-force for whatever types of corner there are on the particular track. I won't go over that again as I think I covered that adequately in my earlier post as does Scarbs - a link to his article is in there as well, but I'm happy to continue this dialogue and answer (to the best of my ability) other questions folk's might have.
tranquility2k9
Podium Finisher
ScarbsF1 has now written an update on his blog about the F-duct. Even though he goes into quite in-depth technical detail, I think I really understand what he is getting at in his latest take on the major benefits of it.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/update-mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/
In very simple terms, it will allow cars to run lower ride heights, specifically at the front-end. This is because the f-duct front wing will essentially lift the wing at the end of the long straights at max speed, where it usually lowers and thus causes for a sub-optimal ride height at lower speeds (when ride height is most beneficial). This also means that teams having to run a steep back-end, creating a rake that lowers the front, will now be able to lower their back-end but keep their front in a similar position relative to the plane below. The lower the back-end the better, especially now EBDs are outlawed.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/update-mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/
In very simple terms, it will allow cars to run lower ride heights, specifically at the front-end. This is because the f-duct front wing will essentially lift the wing at the end of the long straights at max speed, where it usually lowers and thus causes for a sub-optimal ride height at lower speeds (when ride height is most beneficial). This also means that teams having to run a steep back-end, creating a rake that lowers the front, will now be able to lower their back-end but keep their front in a similar position relative to the plane below. The lower the back-end the better, especially now EBDs are outlawed.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Remember, at this point in time Scarbs is only speculating so it's worth bearing in mind some observations ...
This season the rake angle of the Mercedes has not been anything like as pronounced as on the Red Bull so I'm not sure that has very much to do with what Brawn and his design team have been up to. With regard to the flexing of the wing, again this was something seen on the Red Bull but has been less evident even on that car this year. Again the grounding of the splitter seems to have been more of a problem for RBR than Mercedes following suspicion raised about the wear patterns recently photographed on Vettel's car.
Scarbs suggests that the ride height increases on the straight due to the wing stalling. However, this idea neglects the increased ground effect conferred by the FFD accelerating air beneath the car to the rear diffuser. If that effect (as suggested by other observers) is part of the equation then it would mitigate against the stalling of the wing with regard to changing the ride height. Therefore, I would suggest that any effect with regard to ride height is a by-product rather than a primary consideration of the designers and engineers.
It's only my opinion, of course, so I could be very wrong.
This season the rake angle of the Mercedes has not been anything like as pronounced as on the Red Bull so I'm not sure that has very much to do with what Brawn and his design team have been up to. With regard to the flexing of the wing, again this was something seen on the Red Bull but has been less evident even on that car this year. Again the grounding of the splitter seems to have been more of a problem for RBR than Mercedes following suspicion raised about the wear patterns recently photographed on Vettel's car.
Scarbs suggests that the ride height increases on the straight due to the wing stalling. However, this idea neglects the increased ground effect conferred by the FFD accelerating air beneath the car to the rear diffuser. If that effect (as suggested by other observers) is part of the equation then it would mitigate against the stalling of the wing with regard to changing the ride height. Therefore, I would suggest that any effect with regard to ride height is a by-product rather than a primary consideration of the designers and engineers.
It's only my opinion, of course, so I could be very wrong.
tranquility2k9
Podium Finisher
Remember, at this point in time Scarbs is only speculating so it's worth bearing in mind some observations ...
This season the rake angle of the Mercedes has not been anything like as pronounced as on the Red Bull so I'm not sure that has very much to do with what Brawn and his design team have been up to. With regard to the flexing of the wing, again this was something seen on the Red Bull but has been less evident even on that car this year. Again the grounding of the splitter seems to have been more of a problem for RBR than Mercedes following suspicion raised about the wear patterns recently photographed on Vettel's car.
Scarbs suggests that the ride height increases on the straight due to the wing stalling. However, this idea neglects the increased ground effect conferred by the FFD accelerating air beneath the car to the rear diffuser. If that effect (as suggested by other observers) is part of the equation then it would mitigate against the stalling of the wing with regard to changing the ride height. Therefore, I would suggest that any effect with regard to ride height is a by-product rather than a primary consideration of the designers and engineers.
It's only my opinion, of course, so I could be very wrong.
You're right that Mercedes have not been prolific in the rear-end rake philosphy, but that is not to say that it is not something it has been considering for its 2012 car. The point Scarbs is making is that by using this Front-Wing F-duct, teams may avoid having to go down that route, which isn't easy to get working and actually raising the rear of the car causes a significant loss of downforce unless the whole of the rest of the package is designed around of it, as with the RB7. The other thing to make note of is that with the very powerful exhaust blown diffusers this year, teams can get away with running a steep angled rake and a high rear but next year, I don't think they'll be able to so easily. The other way of getting the front-wing closer to the ground is with the splitter solution, but as you say Mercedes don't seem to have been able to get this working and are obviously looking down a different route, plus the FIA looks set to become even stricter on it. I think the fact you outlined that Mercedes do not have these things currently compared to Red Bull for example, speaks for itself in that Mercedes is looking for an alternative method of achieving a lower front-wing, which Red Bull obviously hold an advantage over everyone currently.
The second thing you say I don't really understand? The point Scarbs is making is that usually when setting up the car you have to set the ride-height further away from the ground than is optimal because other wise at the end of straights at top speed, the car would literally ground and the plank underneath would fail the FIA tests after the race. So the splitter/wing lowers at the end of the straight, however, with the front wing F-duct, this could essentially stop that from happening. He doesn't suggest the ride height will increase, but more that the usual effect of it lowering at top speeds will actually not happen if the system is set up correctly. If this was achievable then it would be significant for car setup and would allow teams to run a lower overall ride-height round the full length of track, which without doubt would give a performance advantage.
I'm not trying to argue with you by the way and I know Scarbs may well be completely wrong and is only summarising what the potential benefits could be, but to me, his latest analysis looks very sound and it adds up in my mind.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
I would agree with Scarbs with regard to ride height and height of the wing were it not for the fact that the FIA stipulates the minimums for these and that those minimum heights are higher than teams would like to (or could) use anyway. The issues related to the excessive wear and unusual pattern seen on Vettel's car sparked debate around whether or not Red Bull have found a way around the reg's to enable their splitter to deform more than the legal tolerances. As far as I know the Mercedes has a normal plank and splitter. Scarbs has an excellent article about that issue in his blog as well.
Doh.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
How do you know all this?! 
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
... good question!How do you know all this?!
1) Life-time interest in all things motorsports, engineering, technology, and science
2) I read a lot. Mostly interested in the tech' side of F1 rather than particular individuals so I follow all the design and engineering stuff I can get my hands on. I can also visualise the flow of fluids, gases and air across shapes. Weird, I know.
3) Lot's of very bright people on Clip to cross-fertilise ideas with.
That's just me. Other peep's are trained!
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
... good question!
1) Life-time interest in all things motorsports, engineering, technology, and science
2) I read a lot. Mostly interested in the tech' side of F1 rather than particular individuals so I follow all the design and engineering stuff I can get my hands on. I can also visualise the flow of fluids, gases and air across shapes. Weird, I know.
3) Lot's of very bright people on Clip to cross-fertilise ideas with.
That's just me. Other peep's are trained!
Answer this honestly, are you or are you not... Ross Brawn?
Tee, hee, I wish!
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Adrian Newey? Roary Byrne? Sam Michael? The guy that designs the HRT's?
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Unfortunately, I am just not that good!. Hopeless at the math's. Needed to know at least as much as I do now thirty years ago. In addition, I should have spent much less time becoming a community development bloke!
Edit: Sorry, just realised that in responding I am helping to take us seriously off-topic. Sorry, Tranquility. Mod's feel free to delete or move.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Well you can be the CTA chief technical director! You can join the useless jobs like me the weatherman!
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
