Technical Mercedes GP reinvent F-duct for the Front Wing?

[Fenderman]

Nah, I'm just an amateur!

Back on topic. With regard to ride height at the end of straights. It's worth bearing in mind that the front end suspension of an F1 car is in full compression under braking due to G-forces and therefore the car is at it's lowest possible ride height. I would surmise that in most cases, especially with a low rake set up, the rear suspension would be in full compression as well.

Incidentally, a high rake angle, and thus higher than optimal centre of mass, will induce "dive" under braking. This would require an extreme set up to actually be seen in F1 and/or to be an actual problem in an F1 car. However, a visual.example is commonly seen in MotoGP when a riders' rear tyre lifts off the track surface under extreme braking. The rear wheel lifts since the front forks have compressed to their limit and the G-forces at work continue to propel the rear of the bike forward rotating about the "axis" which is the front tyre footprint on the track surface - not the axle.

Perform an emergency stop in one's own car and one can see (and feel) exactly what I mean. That is another reason why I think the ride height issue is in fact a red herring.

 

[Jos the Boss]

Nah, I'm just an amateur!

And I dont work in the MET office!

But would it not be easier to have a button which stalls it during corners?

 

[Fenderman]

But would it not be easier to have a button which stalls it during corners?

Ah, but that's where it would cross the line of legality since it would then need to have incorporated in it some kind of flap or shutter and in doing so would constitute having a "moveable aerodynamic device under the control of the driver".

 

[Jos the Boss]

Well the rules are strict thats for sure! They will just have to find a loophole of some sort

 

[Fenderman]

Yup, it looks like Mercedes have put that very hole in the front of their nose

 

[Galahad]

Schumacher was asked about the front wing at today's press conference and said that they hadn't used a new front wing in Korea.

Of course, it might have been something introduced earlier in the season, since the only visible indication (I think?) is on the underside...

 

[Tacitus]

Schumacher was asked about the front wing at today's press conference and said that they hadn't used a new front wing in Korea.

Of course, it might have been something introduced earlier in the season, since the only visible indication (I think?) is on the underside...

Q: There was quite a lot of excitement about the front wing that you used at the last race. What was it like for the driver? Did you notice the difference?
MS: Perfect.
Q: Perfect? No improvement to be made?
MS: We didn't use a different front wing, quite honestly. It was as good as before.
Q: So no change?
MS: No.

 

[Fenderman]

Bluff and counter bluff?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

... 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!

This is why you are firmly on my "followed" list. I love this stuff. I'm no engineer, one of the few successful "Jacks of all". Don't get me wrong, I have my talents, but it is this kind of collective borrowed or inherited knowledge that bolsters my armoury. Glad to be a part of this community, if not for the answers, for the questions these topics of discussion raise. CTA => You complete me

 

[ExtremeNinja]

I'm also a little too drunk to be contributing at this time. Next time we speak I shall be consuming your analysis of Ftiday practice from Barbados. Wooooooooo

[EDIT] watch out for that young chap monopolising the JD minis on the plane

 

[Josephiah]

Seems there's something to this story after all...

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/mercedes-f-duct-front-wing-operated-by-the-rear-wing-drs/

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98035

 

[FB]

That'll be banned then...

 

[Josephiah]

You mean now, or at the end of the year once everyone's spent millions perfecting it?

 

[FB]

It's the old nutmeg isn't it. If a team comes up with a invention which is within the letter of the regs and gives them and advantage should they be allowed to continue with it and let the others catch up. Or should it be banned, upsetting the balance of the car it has been designed around and putting them at an even greater disadvantage than if they hadn't bothered in the first place.

To my untrained eye you could easily interpret that as a "moveable aerodynamic device" as it is associated with the movement of the DRS wing. I wonder if the stewards in Australia will think the same.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Apparantly there is no doubt in the legality of the rear wing F-duct as teams have checked with the FIA.

 

[Blog Zbod]

Apparantly there is no doubt in the legality of the rear wing F-duct as teams have checked with the FIA.

So sayeth Charlie Whiting:

"Some teams are questioning it on the basis that they thought F-ducts were banned. Well, F-ducts are not banned...."

"What it appears some teams are doing is that when the DRS is operated, it will allow air to pass into a duct and do other things,..."

"...It is completely passive. There are no moving parts in it; it doesn't interact with any suspension. No steering, nothing. Therefore I cannot see a rule that prohibits it."

But when did that ever stop them banning anything?

 

[Porceliamone]

I'd love to see the other teams finding a way to drive a channel through their whole chassis to make the concept work - on cars that weren't designed with it in mind. Not an easy job, surely?

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

And of course, as McLaren found to their cost, what Charlie says has no bearing on legality...

So sayeth Charlie Whiting:

 

[Fenderman]

Goody, goody, another new acronym to mess with our minds ... is this device a FWFdDRSAFd (Front Wing F-duct Drag Reductioon Device Activated F-duct)?

Edit: We talked about ride height earlier in this discussion so I thought this titbit was quite interesting: http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2012/0/923.html - it's about reactive ride height suspension.

 

[tranquility2k9]

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Melbourne

"There's a bit of a row brewing here in Melbourne over the design of some teams' rear wings. Mercedes are said to have one system that helps them boost straightline speed, and which FIA race director Charlie Whiting has declared legal. But Red Bull and Ferrari - and possibly others, too - appear have a different system and I'm struggling to understand how it complies with the rules. They both have slots in the underside of their rear-wing main plane - the idea being that these help re-energise the air passing under the wing, making it easier for the high-speed, low-pressure air to stay attached to the underside of the wing and therefore increasing downforce. This is how the F-ducts of 2010 worked - and they allow teams to either run more downforce without the consequent straight-line speed penalty, or to have greater straight-line speed for the same level of downforce. The problem is that the rules dictate all concave surfaces must have a radius of no less than 100mm. And as the air passes around the inside of the wing, the inside of the forward edge of the wing is a concave surface - and it definitely has a radius smaller than that. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this subject and we'll keep you updated as we discover more over the weekend."