Mercedes W15

[AMG.Tzan]

So Mercedes will choose their anti dive angle at each race let’s say after practice 2? Or will they choose now one configuration and use it for the whole year?

[stonehenge]

So Mercedes will choose their anti dive angle at each race let’s say after practice 2? Or will they choose now one configuration and use it for the whole year?

I think, potentially, they could use the extensive data they collected on the different configurations to predict which is the way to go ahead of every weekend. Just a guess though.

[Unc1eM0nty]

So Mercedes will choose their anti dive angle at each race let’s say after practice 2? Or will they choose now one configuration and use it for the whole year?

I first thought it would be track specific, but having just watched an interview with Allison I'm not so sure.

He said they spent time testing "things they would not be able to o do at race weekend".
Maybe this was part of it.

[AR3-GP]

So Mercedes will choose their anti dive angle at each race let’s say after practice 2? Or will they choose now one configuration and use it for the whole year?

This would seem smart right? I'm sure there's an advantage to being able to switch anti-dive from weekend to weekend.

[AR3-GP]

[atanatizante]

It seems that on the last day of testing, they changed even the front upper rear leg wishbone to test the anti-squat, as Allison said to Lawrence Barretto because it was the only chance they had this year to do this kind of testing ...

Has anyone got some pictures to prove those rear suspension changes they made?

One piece of evidence could be to spot at the rear of the car the same panel they`ve designed for the upper back arm at the front suspension ...

[chrisc90]

It seems that on the last day of testing, they changed even the front upper rear leg wishbone to test the anti-squat, as Allison said to Lawrence Barretto because it was the only chance they had this year to do this kind of testing ...

Has anyone got some pictures to prove those rear suspension changes they made?

One piece of evidence could be to spot at the rear of the car the same panel they`ve designed for the upper back arm at the front suspension ...

First mentioned here. And a few posts after that discussing.

viewtopic.php?p=1189659#p1189659

[atanatizante]

It seems that on the last day of testing, they changed even the front upper rear leg wishbone to test the anti-squat, as Allison said to Lawrence Barretto because it was the only chance they had this year to do this kind of testing ...

Has anyone got some pictures to prove those rear suspension changes they made?

One piece of evidence could be to spot at the rear of the car the same panel they`ve designed for the upper back arm at the front suspension ...

First mentioned here. And a few posts after that discussing.

viewtopic.php?p=1189659#p1189659

Could you be more specific and point me to where it was discussed about the anti-squat (which prevents rearwards pitching under acceleration) changes they made? Coz I read the second time now and didn`t get any info about that ...

[Farnborough]

So Mercedes will choose their anti dive angle at each race let’s say after practice 2? Or will they choose now one configuration and use it for the whole year?

The ultimate aim of geometry "conflict" is to keep the platform stable (obvious aerodynamic advantage could be there) while separation of this function from conventional spring rate etc to achieve it.

Obviously they are interelated, but that's the reasoning generally. In other words, IF you can keep the aero platform stable ftom this effect, then there's more room to play with spring rates for things like curb compliance etc.

Conflict in suspension ? It's making a geometry that resists, through It's geometry, the forces that are placed onto it without recourse to compression of the spring medium.

This, fully exercised, usually brings driver response of "inert" description in both cars and bikes, making it harder to fit within some driver's methodology and experience, which can go either way in pace and recognition of the real limits of adhesion as that approaches. Its a very liquid area of driver interpretation.

The best can describe this to their engineering team in ways that will then be interpreted with justified changes, a extremely nuanced response feedback loop.

Different drivers likely to feedback in possibly opposing report. A lot of thinking to do in reality, then to be checked against the clock.

It would seem unlikely to turn up to a race weekend wondering, more likely to define the effects now, then perhaps pinpoint various circuit characteristic that would enable the team to start with a bias there in prediction of that heading the chassis to favoured balance for that weekend.

[organic]

[Tzk]

My guess is that they already know which front suspension setup is the faster one. But for example the feeling of driving it is a thing that you can't simulate. The fastes car is worth nothing when the driver can't extract the performance from it...

So i suspect they wanted back to back tests to a) validate both suspension setups and b) to get some driver feedback.

[Espresso]

The ultimate aim of geometry "conflict" is to keep the platform stable (obvious aerodynamic advantage could be there) while separation of this function from conventional spring rate etc to achieve it.

The purpose of the stable platform is to keep a stable aerodynamics of the floor. Keep the suction of the car controlled so to speak.
Max suction in the corners and less at high speed.
MB had to find it out the hard way as budget constraints doesn’t give them the luxury anymore to tryout all options.
You can still see they are not there yet the way the car is still hopping. Just less but at a higher frequency. They are getting there.

[atanatizante]

...

Obviously, they are interrelated, but that's the reasoning generally. In other words, IF you can keep the aero platform stable from this effect, then there's more room to play with spring rates for things like curb compliance, etc.

...

So that implies that they could run softer spring rates now to have a car more compliant over the kerbs?

Furthermore, knowing that they`ve designed the car around the anti-dive and anti-squat concept it means they now also have the dual-rate springs/dampers that RB has been deploying since 2022, isn`t it?

[Farnborough]

The ultimate aim of geometry "conflict" is to keep the platform stable (obvious aerodynamic advantage could be there) while separation of this function from conventional spring rate etc to achieve it.

The purpose of the stable platform is to keep a stable aerodynamics of the floor. Keep the suction of the car controlled so to speak.
Max suction in the corners and less at high speed.
MB had to find it out the hard way as budget constraints doesn’t give them the luxury anymore to tryout all options.
You can still see they are not there yet the way the car is still hopping. Just less but at a higher frequency. They are getting there.

I've said that (in brackets) about aero stability, some will be remembering intentional acceptance of dropping the front to induce front wing interaction with the ground though....and one of the reason this aero rule set lifts the front wing to avoid that characteristic.

One of the primary drivers now APPEARS to be stability of the dimension at front of floor entrance in providing a linear chassis response, facilitated by geometry like this.

[Farnborough]

...

Obviously, they are interrelated, but that's the reasoning generally. In other words, IF you can keep the aero platform stable from this effect, then there's more room to play with spring rates for things like curb compliance, etc.

...

So that implies that they could run softer spring rates now to have a car more compliant over the kerbs?

Furthermore, knowing that they`ve designed the car around the anti-dive and anti-squat concept it means they now also have the dual-rate springs/dampers that RB has been deploying since 2022, isn`t it?

Thats the aim in suspension generally as I understand it. We're unlikely to get those details of course being outside that loop of technical enactment.

Things like anti roll bar, squat, dive etc all being version of mechanical conflict, the ideal optimisation of which then SHOULD allow more freedom in spring medium. How big that sphere of choice is in reality is then depending, particularly in downforce generating chassis, up for discussion. The balance between pure download and vertical compliance a very tight juggling act to work through.