Mercedes W14

[chrisc90]

F1 Aerodynamicist's take on the W14-B

[pursue_one's]

[Andi76]

Former F1 engineer breaks down the upgrades at around 7-min mark:

https://youtu.be/4TdJBzzQFME

Former F1 engineer is being generous, he was a student placement, we call those co-ops in the States. Sure they are employee's and do work, but we greatly limit what they are shown and what they do. I’d be horrified if one of ours went online and positioned himself as some sort of expert on what we do.

The W14 always had anti-dive as has been designed into Formula 1 cars going back to the late 1960s with the Lotus 72. Pitch sensitivity has always been well understood, the aerodynamicists that came into F1 int he 1970s and 1980s were from the aerospace world where pitch sensitivity is a huge component of their work, and suspension designers have been working to limit it to control the aero platform for 50 years.

If they installed “more anti-dive” it’s about angling the arms to suit the new aeroflow concept and they can work around the mechanical downsides of more anti-dive by other means.

Here is something no one has been able to answer, how much “dive” is there really on a F1 car anyway? Express it in ride height change at the front axle… it’s not much at all. What does more anti-dive do to the car while accelerating out of a corner and down a straight away? How does it control bumps? How are we changing the roll pitch and contact patch under steady state cornering? How does more anti-dive effect brake balance? Adding more anti-dive can also cause jacking issues.

It’s just not that simple

Absolutely right! What many also don't seem to understand is that the RB19 doesn't have that much anti-dive. The lower rear wishbone leg is mounted much lower than the lower front wishbone leg. This reduces the amount of anti-dive, which should be no more than around 40%. If anti-dive was the magic bullet, then any other team could simply build a suspension with 50% or even 100% anti-dive on the car. It's just ridiculous how the media is currently presenting a completely simple and well-known concept as a magic bullet, completely ignoring three things. These are that all other teams have some degree of anti-dive in their suspension anyway, that anti-dive also has negative effects, and that anti-dive is absolutely basic for suspension engineers and absolutely nothing new or revolutionary. Just as it is absolutely clear to aerodynamicists that it is important to keep the aerodynamic platform as stable as possible. Whether you do this with a stiffer suspension, and/or via more anti-dive/anti-squat - everything has its pros and cons. And neither one nor the other is magic or anything new. And certainly not the magic bullet. One has to fit the other and the suspension has to stabilise the centre of pressure shift. And every team knows and tries that all the time anyway. So it's not a magic bullet or something new for anyone. And its definetely not Red Bulls secret regarding the constantly lower ride height as Anti-Dive simply creates an opposing moment, but the vertical lift force component will also lift the chassis.

So everything is not so simple and black or white, otherwise everyone would do it. Mercedes in any case had about 15% anti-dive before. Now they definitely have more anti-dive than Red Bull. But this has also increased the front roll center, which alone leads to a stronger tendency to understeer, not to mention the other effects on tires and grip, driving feel etc. I hope that in this regard anti-dive and "Red Bull's magic suspension" finally more realism and truth comes when you see that Mercedes despite more anti-dive now is not suddenly Red Bull around the ears or has made a huge leap because they have a suspension with more anti-dive. And I emphasize "MORE." Because their front suspension, like that of every other F1 team, already had anti-dive before.

F1 Aerodynamicist's take on the W14-B

His channel name is a good bit of branding, but he had a student placement at Red Bull. He doesn't have any real F1 experience, wouldn't have seen anything sensitive at Red Bull, etc. The fact that he starts off talking about the "anti-dive" front suspension shows how little he knows and is leaning upon stuff written by other journalists who similarly don't have much of a clue.

He certainly has more F1 experience than 99% of us, having studied aerodynamics and gained experience in an F1 team. This practical experience, the insights he could collect directly on Formula 1 cars themselves, certainly gives him a knowledge that is superior to anyone else who has not worked in a Formula 1 team. Therefore, to be honest, I find such comments that obviously question his knowledge and analysis, quite questionable, presumptuous and inappropriate. Sometimes it seems to me as if one or the other here, as soon as he hears something he doesn't like, has to discredit the person who says it.
And this should not happen in a technical forum that should be based on factual and technical arguments.

i have not watched the video yet, but thats not important. He is an aerodynamicist, not a suspension engineer. Pure aerodynamicists often have no idea about suspension. That's why the McLarens had 0% anti-dive and anti-squat in the early 1990s, namely because their chief aerodynamicist had so much influence that he dictated the suspension points and as he didn't believe in "anti-dive"... There is a nice story Steve Nichols told about when he came back to McLaren, he couldn't believe that they didn't use any anti-dive or anti-squat. But anyway, the aerodynamic qualifications and knowledge of this "F1 aerodynamicist" should not be up for debate. He is certainly ahead of most others in this respect and has more experience and knowledge in this regard as 99,9% In this forum. Because very few here have ever even set foot in a F1 factory....

[JonoNic]

Former F1 engineer breaks down the upgrades at around 7-min mark:

https://youtu.be/4TdJBzzQFME

Former F1 engineer is being generous, he was a student placement, we call those co-ops in the States. Sure they are employee's and do work, but we greatly limit what they are shown and what they do. I’d be horrified if one of ours went online and positioned himself as some sort of expert on what we do.

The W14 always had anti-dive as has been designed into Formula 1 cars going back to the late 1960s with the Lotus 72. Pitch sensitivity has always been well understood, the aerodynamicists that came into F1 int he 1970s and 1980s were from the aerospace world where pitch sensitivity is a huge component of their work, and suspension designers have been working to limit it to control the aero platform for 50 years.

If they installed “more anti-dive” it’s about angling the arms to suit the new aeroflow concept and they can work around the mechanical downsides of more anti-dive by other means.

Here is something no one has been able to answer, how much “dive” is there really on a F1 car anyway? Express it in ride height change at the front axle… it’s not much at all. What does more anti-dive do to the car while accelerating out of a corner and down a straight away? How does it control bumps? How are we changing the roll pitch and contact patch under steady state cornering? How does more anti-dive effect brake balance? Adding more anti-dive can also cause jacking issues.

It’s just not that simple

Absolutely right! What many also don't seem to understand is that the RB19 doesn't have that much anti-dive. The lower rear wishbone leg is mounted much lower than the lower front wishbone leg. This reduces the amount of anti-dive, which should be no more than around 40%. If anti-dive was the magic bullet, then any other team could simply build a suspension with 50% or even 100% anti-dive on the car. It's just ridiculous how the media is currently presenting a completely simple and well-known concept as a magic bullet, completely ignoring three things. These are that all other teams have some degree of anti-dive in their suspension anyway, that anti-dive also has negative effects, and that anti-dive is absolutely basic for suspension engineers and absolutely nothing new or revolutionary. Just as it is absolutely clear to aerodynamicists that it is important to keep the aerodynamic platform as stable as possible. Whether you do this with a stiffer suspension, and/or via more anti-dive/anti-squat - everything has its pros and cons. And neither one nor the other is magic or anything new. And certainly not the magic bullet. One has to fit the other and the suspension has to stabilise the centre of pressure shift. And every team knows and tries that all the time anyway. So it's not a magic bullet or something new for anyone. And its definetely not Red Bulls secret regarding the constantly lower ride height as Anti-Dive simply creates an opposing moment, but the vertical lift force component will also lift the chassis.

So everything is not so simple and black or white, otherwise everyone would do it. Mercedes in any case had about 15% anti-dive before. Now they definitely have more anti-dive than Red Bull. But this has also increased the front roll center, which alone leads to a stronger tendency to understeer, not to mention the other effects on tires and grip, driving feel etc. I hope that in this regard anti-dive and "Red Bull's magic suspension" finally more realism and truth comes when you see that Mercedes despite more anti-dive now is not suddenly Red Bull around the ears or has made a huge leap because they have a suspension with more anti-dive. And I emphasize "MORE." Because their front suspension, like that of every other F1 team, already had anti-dive before.

So with this revised anti-dive front geometry, the forward cabin that Hamilton has been complaining about all season, and the way the w14 was wildly from the crane (seems like there's more weight at the back). Isn't this w14 going to be a nightmare to set up for a GP weekend?

[Andi76]

Former F1 engineer is being generous, he was a student placement, we call those co-ops in the States. Sure they are employee's and do work, but we greatly limit what they are shown and what they do. I’d be horrified if one of ours went online and positioned himself as some sort of expert on what we do.

The W14 always had anti-dive as has been designed into Formula 1 cars going back to the late 1960s with the Lotus 72. Pitch sensitivity has always been well understood, the aerodynamicists that came into F1 int he 1970s and 1980s were from the aerospace world where pitch sensitivity is a huge component of their work, and suspension designers have been working to limit it to control the aero platform for 50 years.

If they installed “more anti-dive” it’s about angling the arms to suit the new aeroflow concept and they can work around the mechanical downsides of more anti-dive by other means.

Here is something no one has been able to answer, how much “dive” is there really on a F1 car anyway? Express it in ride height change at the front axle… it’s not much at all. What does more anti-dive do to the car while accelerating out of a corner and down a straight away? How does it control bumps? How are we changing the roll pitch and contact patch under steady state cornering? How does more anti-dive effect brake balance? Adding more anti-dive can also cause jacking issues.

It’s just not that simple

Absolutely right! What many also don't seem to understand is that the RB19 doesn't have that much anti-dive. The lower rear wishbone leg is mounted much lower than the lower front wishbone leg. This reduces the amount of anti-dive, which should be no more than around 40%. If anti-dive was the magic bullet, then any other team could simply build a suspension with 50% or even 100% anti-dive on the car. It's just ridiculous how the media is currently presenting a completely simple and well-known concept as a magic bullet, completely ignoring three things. These are that all other teams have some degree of anti-dive in their suspension anyway, that anti-dive also has negative effects, and that anti-dive is absolutely basic for suspension engineers and absolutely nothing new or revolutionary. Just as it is absolutely clear to aerodynamicists that it is important to keep the aerodynamic platform as stable as possible. Whether you do this with a stiffer suspension, and/or via more anti-dive/anti-squat - everything has its pros and cons. And neither one nor the other is magic or anything new. And certainly not the magic bullet. One has to fit the other and the suspension has to stabilise the centre of pressure shift. And every team knows and tries that all the time anyway. So it's not a magic bullet or something new for anyone. And its definetely not Red Bulls secret regarding the constantly lower ride height as Anti-Dive simply creates an opposing moment, but the vertical lift force component will also lift the chassis.

So everything is not so simple and black or white, otherwise everyone would do it. Mercedes in any case had about 15% anti-dive before. Now they definitely have more anti-dive than Red Bull. But this has also increased the front roll center, which alone leads to a stronger tendency to understeer, not to mention the other effects on tires and grip, driving feel etc. I hope that in this regard anti-dive and "Red Bull's magic suspension" finally more realism and truth comes when you see that Mercedes despite more anti-dive now is not suddenly Red Bull around the ears or has made a huge leap because they have a suspension with more anti-dive. And I emphasize "MORE." Because their front suspension, like that of every other F1 team, already had anti-dive before.

So with this revised anti-dive front geometry, the forward cabin that Hamilton has been complaining about all season, and the way the w14 was wildly from the crane (seems like there's more weight at the back). Isn't this w14 going to be a nightmare to set up for a GP weekend?

Not necessarily. Especially with regard to the weight, this is prescribed anyway up to 12 kg in the direction of front/rear. I don't see too many problems there. As for the set-up, we don't really know what Mercedes has done to minimize the negative effects. There must have been one or two problems on Friday, but that's normal with these changes and they got it under control quickly, which is positive. That's all we can say at the moment.

[bluechris]

Former F1 engineer is being generous, he was a student placement, we call those co-ops in the States. Sure they are employee's and do work, but we greatly limit what they are shown and what they do. I’d be horrified if one of ours went online and positioned himself as some sort of expert on what we do.

The W14 always had anti-dive as has been designed into Formula 1 cars going back to the late 1960s with the Lotus 72. Pitch sensitivity has always been well understood, the aerodynamicists that came into F1 int he 1970s and 1980s were from the aerospace world where pitch sensitivity is a huge component of their work, and suspension designers have been working to limit it to control the aero platform for 50 years.

If they installed “more anti-dive” it’s about angling the arms to suit the new aeroflow concept and they can work around the mechanical downsides of more anti-dive by other means.

Here is something no one has been able to answer, how much “dive” is there really on a F1 car anyway? Express it in ride height change at the front axle… it’s not much at all. What does more anti-dive do to the car while accelerating out of a corner and down a straight away? How does it control bumps? How are we changing the roll pitch and contact patch under steady state cornering? How does more anti-dive effect brake balance? Adding more anti-dive can also cause jacking issues.

It’s just not that simple

Absolutely right! What many also don't seem to understand is that the RB19 doesn't have that much anti-dive. The lower rear wishbone leg is mounted much lower than the lower front wishbone leg. This reduces the amount of anti-dive, which should be no more than around 40%. If anti-dive was the magic bullet, then any other team could simply build a suspension with 50% or even 100% anti-dive on the car. It's just ridiculous how the media is currently presenting a completely simple and well-known concept as a magic bullet, completely ignoring three things. These are that all other teams have some degree of anti-dive in their suspension anyway, that anti-dive also has negative effects, and that anti-dive is absolutely basic for suspension engineers and absolutely nothing new or revolutionary. Just as it is absolutely clear to aerodynamicists that it is important to keep the aerodynamic platform as stable as possible. Whether you do this with a stiffer suspension, and/or via more anti-dive/anti-squat - everything has its pros and cons. And neither one nor the other is magic or anything new. And certainly not the magic bullet. One has to fit the other and the suspension has to stabilise the centre of pressure shift. And every team knows and tries that all the time anyway. So it's not a magic bullet or something new for anyone. And its definetely not Red Bulls secret regarding the constantly lower ride height as Anti-Dive simply creates an opposing moment, but the vertical lift force component will also lift the chassis.

So everything is not so simple and black or white, otherwise everyone would do it. Mercedes in any case had about 15% anti-dive before. Now they definitely have more anti-dive than Red Bull. But this has also increased the front roll center, which alone leads to a stronger tendency to understeer, not to mention the other effects on tires and grip, driving feel etc. I hope that in this regard anti-dive and "Red Bull's magic suspension" finally more realism and truth comes when you see that Mercedes despite more anti-dive now is not suddenly Red Bull around the ears or has made a huge leap because they have a suspension with more anti-dive. And I emphasize "MORE." Because their front suspension, like that of every other F1 team, already had anti-dive before.

So with this revised anti-dive front geometry, the forward cabin that Hamilton has been complaining about all season, and the way the w14 was wildly from the crane (seems like there's more weight at the back). Isn't this w14 going to be a nightmare to set up for a GP weekend?

I don't think there's more weight at the back, it's the cabin more forward and for this reason i suppose the grab hole in the roolhop is also more forward and this gave us what we saw. Either way i don't remember any f1 car ever that is raised with a crane to be total level, all goes nose high.

[atanatizante]

Multilink upper arms suspension resembles RB16B from a couple of years ago, according to Piola...

[Sieper]

Absolutely right! What many also don't seem to understand is that the RB19 doesn't have that much anti-dive. The lower rear wishbone leg is mounted much lower than the lower front wishbone leg. This reduces the amount of anti-dive, which should be no more than around 40%. If anti-dive was the magic bullet, then any other team could simply build a suspension with 50% or even 100% anti-dive on the car. It's just ridiculous how the media is currently presenting a completely simple and well-known concept as a magic bullet, completely ignoring three things. These are that all other teams have some degree of anti-dive in their suspension anyway, that anti-dive also has negative effects, and that anti-dive is absolutely basic for suspension engineers and absolutely nothing new or revolutionary. Just as it is absolutely clear to aerodynamicists that it is important to keep the aerodynamic platform as stable as possible. Whether you do this with a stiffer suspension, and/or via more anti-dive/anti-squat - everything has its pros and cons. And neither one nor the other is magic or anything new. And certainly not the magic bullet. One has to fit the other and the suspension has to stabilise the centre of pressure shift. And every team knows and tries that all the time anyway. So it's not a magic bullet or something new for anyone. And its definetely not Red Bulls secret regarding the constantly lower ride height as Anti-Dive simply creates an opposing moment, but the vertical lift force component will also lift the chassis.

So everything is not so simple and black or white, otherwise everyone would do it. Mercedes in any case had about 15% anti-dive before. Now they definitely have more anti-dive than Red Bull. But this has also increased the front roll center, which alone leads to a stronger tendency to understeer, not to mention the other effects on tires and grip, driving feel etc. I hope that in this regard anti-dive and "Red Bull's magic suspension" finally more realism and truth comes when you see that Mercedes despite more anti-dive now is not suddenly Red Bull around the ears or has made a huge leap because they have a suspension with more anti-dive. And I emphasize "MORE." Because their front suspension, like that of every other F1 team, already had anti-dive before.

So with this revised anti-dive front geometry, the forward cabin that Hamilton has been complaining about all season, and the way the w14 was wildly from the crane (seems like there's more weight at the back). Isn't this w14 going to be a nightmare to set up for a GP weekend?

I don't think there's more weight at the back, it's the cabin more forward and for this reason i suppose the grab hole in the roolhop is also more forward and this gave us what we saw. Either way i don't remember any f1 car ever that is raised with a crane to be total level, all goes nose high.

Ofcourse. Because these cars are totally balanced (hopefully) but that is with an 80kg driver in the cockpit. Take driver out and the car will be rear heavy.

[BlueCheetah66]

So with this revised anti-dive front geometry, the forward cabin that Hamilton has been complaining about all season, and the way the w14 was wildly from the crane (seems like there's more weight at the back). Isn't this w14 going to be a nightmare to set up for a GP weekend?

I don't think there's more weight at the back, it's the cabin more forward and for this reason i suppose the grab hole in the roolhop is also more forward and this gave us what we saw. Either way i don't remember any f1 car ever that is raised with a crane to be total level, all goes nose high.

Ofcourse. Because these cars are totally balanced (hopefully) but that is with an 80kg driver in the cockpit. Take driver out and the car will be rear heavy.

The dry weight distribution of the car is regulated, and I am fairly sure that is excluding the driver. Obviously fuel would alter this distribution but I assume teams would place the fuel tank in a position as close to the CoG to keep it consistent in different fuel loads. The car hanging in different manner to the other cars could just be a function of other factors like the attachment point from the crane

[Sieper]

I don't think there's more weight at the back, it's the cabin more forward and for this reason i suppose the grab hole in the roolhop is also more forward and this gave us what we saw. Either way i don't remember any f1 car ever that is raised with a crane to be total level, all goes nose high.

Ofcourse. Because these cars are totally balanced (hopefully) but that is with an 80kg driver in the cockpit. Take driver out and the car will be rear heavy.

The dry weight distribution of the car is regulated, and I am fairly sure that is excluding the driver. Obviously fuel would alter this distribution but I assume teams would place the fuel tank in a position as close to the CoG to keep it consistent in different fuel loads. The car hanging in different manner to the other cars could just be a function of other factors like the attachment point from the crane

For sure, the Merc has the driver sit quite far forward. So, as others have said, the mounting point for the hoist is further forward too.

[El_KaPpa]

Red Bull's floor showcases Newey's preference for stepped expansion over gradual. What's particularly intriguing is their implementation of this approach in three dimensions, with noticeable stepped transitions evident throughout the flow paths.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not a preference. It's mastery!

Check out the B Sport video analysis on it. Basically the steps create certain flow effects that allow the floor to work under a wider range of conditions and also to drop it's drag coefficient when the rear wing is open. However there is an extremely fine line of getting the design wrong.

[zioture]

Video comparison Suspenson W14 VS W14B

[AR3-GP]

I have not seen it mentioned, but aren't the "wrinkles" in the inboard section of the front upper wishbone curious?

[F1Krof]

Nice recap of the upgrade analysis done by 'The Race'