Mercedes W17

[FW17]

Isnt this how you make a double diffuser?

[sucof]

well .....
the front brakes will still be braking up to the limit of the grip of the front tyres ....
so we could say that the 'strain' on the front brakes isn't relieved

ok it's relieved to the extent of the all-round reduced tyre grip due to the reduced aero DF

I disagree. The aim in the braking zone will not be to slow the car at the fastest possible rate like before, it will be to regenerate as much energy as possible. The way to do that will be to maximise the 350 kW regen for the most amount of time. The more energy you absorb at the front brakes the less energy you can harvest at the rear. There will therefore be less energy going through the front brakes which equals less brake cooling required.

That is true, but it would be slower in that specific corner. It may be faster overall, but that depends on a lot of factor and it will likely be different in qualifying vs race. Bottomline, the front brakes may be designed to break at the limit.

Another thing to remember is that this year's cars are lighter, which should help.

I think it is quite logical you would want to give the driver first, the maximum breaking possibility.
Just second is that you want to regenerate as much power as possible.
So an active system will try to achieve both, and will be possibly influenced by how much the driver is breaking. So at max breaking pedal force, the system will prioritise max stopping force, anything under that will it try to make the most of the energy.
And the drivers will learn how to drive with the most of the regen or the fastest in a corner.

[sucof]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_SeMGCXMAA ... ame=medium

Isnt this how you make a double diffuser?

I do not think this qualifies as a double diffuser. That was a different device. This will just help the diffuser a bit, by managing the tyre wake, and the airflow inside the single diffuser.

[Goblin42]

https://x.com/Varyzia/status/2014604254971941133

[NickD]

Attached, if it loaded OK, is a copy of the render plan view with an overlay of W16 lines. It provides a very clear illustration of the difference between this years and last years car.

Method: W16 model lines generated by photogrammetry. Front wing is 2024 though. Rear wing is early season. Wheel base narrowed to meet Ymax = +/- 950 mm. Wheelbase shorteded to 3400mm. W16 lines aligned with front axle.

Main points are:

- Monocoque alignment forward of the cockpit very similar to W16.
- Side pods are narrowed. Amount measured at about 50mm, consistent with reduction in overall lift
- As noted elsewhere, sidepods sweep in much more strongly than W16
- Cockpit width the same but after of halo lines are slimmed down.
- Airbox a similar size
- Gearbox crash structure is no longer visible from above.
- Rear wing has moved backwards
- Side pod starts in the same place but leading edge is swept backwards
- Rear wing chord longer than W16

As noted elsewhere, this is the render so it differs from the car. And of course a lot of the changes noted above are driven by the regs rather than design choice.

[NickD]

This is the image that should have posted!

[Farnborough]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_SeMGCXMAA ... ame=medium

Isnt this how you make a double diffuser?

I do not think this qualifies as a double diffuser. That was a different device. This will just help the diffuser a bit, by managing the tyre wake, and the airflow inside the single diffuser.

THE double diffuser pulled vacuum from two areas under the same floor containment "void" whereas this is pulling air in from above floor surface, which ultimately mitigates production of downforce.

Like the mousehole, it looks to mitigate the higher/top of underfloor vacuum curve in accumulation at max effectiveness, possibly to avoid those nasty potential to oscillations, AKA bouncing.

Could keep underfloor flow in realistic range when running as close to the track surface as possible. Potential to promote flow reattaching under braking with rear lift present.

[NickD]

With the exception of the front wing, Differences are difficult to see from the front, particularly as the floor area is so dark. Clearly the front wing is very different. The "proper" part of the wing is very much smaller than the rather old version 2024 version in this picture.

The other area of difference is the intake geometry. In this picture the overlay is a w15 rather than the W16 because the two share a similar concept. In the render the intake is wider. All of which is academic, as the car at Silverstone had completely different sidepods!

PS the previous view very clearly shows the W17 has a longer nose.

Nick

[gromajor]

for me, the most surprising feature of the Mercedes is that the pillars of the front wing are connected to the second element, not the first.
that would mean only the third element is mobile, so more drag in straight line.
strange...

[Gridlock]

that would mean only the third element is mobile, so more drag in straight line.
strange...

If they're running different FWs at different circuits then you'd expect a high-DF draggy wing at Barcelona, right? Which is what they're shaking-down for.

[NickD]

The final post for now. A comparison from the Silverstone shakedown.

The low angle on the front wing shows how much deeper the centre section of the front wing is compared to the old wing regs.

The body is again W16. What is so striking, as someone noted earlier, is just how little volume there is at the rear of the car. The bodywork is at least 50mm smaller laterally at the front of the sidepod and then waists to very slim at the back. All the length reduction of 200mm also occurs in the rear half of the car further reducing the available volume. This view highlights the consequences of this well.

The airbox intake looks very similar but the shark fin and the way the airbox feeds down are very different, shorter and slimmer.

Finally the rear wing is really slim, even allowing for the high camber nature of the wing I used to illustrate the difference. The trailing edge seems to be higher though this may just be residual photogrammetry error. The actuator is higher that the old DRS.

Nick

[NickD]

I fibbed. This view also emphasises the much shorter airbox and sharkfin.

It shows the difference in both front and rear wing endplates.

The loss of the bodywork associated with the floor is also clear, particularly the central bib and fences.

Finally the transition from the back of the halo and some detailed changes to the halo are also apparent.

Nick

[matteosc]

Isnt this how you make a double diffuser?

I do not think this qualifies as a double diffuser. That was a different device. This will just help the diffuser a bit, by managing the tyre wake, and the airflow inside the single diffuser.

THE double diffuser pulled vacuum from two areas under the same floor containment "void" whereas this is pulling air in from above floor surface, which ultimately mitigates production of downforce.

Like the mousehole, it looks to mitigate the higher/top of underfloor vacuum curve in accumulation at max effectiveness, possibly to avoid those nasty potential to oscillations, AKA bouncing.

Could keep underfloor flow in realistic range when running as close to the track surface as possible. Potential to promote flow reattaching under braking with rear lift present.

Why would they want to run close to the track (at the rear)? It seems to me that they would rather look at some rake to increase diffuser expansion. Also the bouncing should not be an issue with these rules (flat floor).

[Farnborough]

I do not think this qualifies as a double diffuser. That was a different device. This will just help the diffuser a bit, by managing the tyre wake, and the airflow inside the single diffuser.

THE double diffuser pulled vacuum from two areas under the same floor containment "void" whereas this is pulling air in from above floor surface, which ultimately mitigates production of downforce.

Like the mousehole, it looks to mitigate the higher/top of underfloor vacuum curve in accumulation at max effectiveness, possibly to avoid those nasty potential to oscillations, AKA bouncing.

Could keep underfloor flow in realistic range when running as close to the track surface as possible. Potential to promote flow reattaching under braking with rear lift present.

Why would they want to run close to the track (at the rear)? It seems to me that they would rather look at some rake to increase diffuser expansion. Also the bouncing should not be an issue with these rules (flat floor).

And what was MB chassis philosophy prior to GE 2022 rule set ?

Rear "slammed" and quite the opposite to RB rake exaggerated stance.

One reason is to stall the diffuser at maximum suspension compression, to reduce drag and increase speed. Then to re-attatch airflow as rear comes up in braking to bring down force back on stream at corner entry.

[PlatinumZealot]

Been digging through old threads and archives to look for earlier indications of this so called "mousehole" idea. Found this old post for others wondering like me:

https://x.com/dr_obbs/status/1629094645 ... 0&ref_url=

It has been around.. There was a cut floor being done in 2009 by McLaren. Then that evolved in the mousehole in following years. In 2010 mcLaren put a ramp sloping down from the floor to the corner of the diffuser throat.. And it evolved from there. It's really to add energy to boundary layer flows in the diffuser.