Mercedes W17

[organic]

The wing clearly performs a two-phase motion: an initial instantaneous step followed by a slow secondary movement.

Look at the video at x0.25 speed

Seems bluntly illegal to me, to be honest.

I'm surprised that no one protested it.

No guarantee that other teams spotted it.

[.poz]

The wing clearly performs a two-phase motion: an initial instantaneous step followed by a slow secondary movement.

Look at the video at x0.25 speed

Seems bluntly illegal to me, to be honest.

As far as I understand, there are no rules stating that the closing speed must be linear, nor that it must be the same in every corner; there is only the 400ms limit (which, to the naked eye, seems to be exceeded).

[mzso]

The wing clearly performs a two-phase motion: an initial instantaneous step followed by a slow secondary movement.

Look at the video at x0.25 speed

Seems bluntly illegal to me, to be honest.

As far as I understand, there are no rules stating that the closing speed must be linear, nor that it must be the same in every corner; there is only the 400ms limit (which, to the naked eye, seems to be exceeded).

Feels like, by a good margin.

[Partymood]

I had initially thought the actuator was underperforming and perhaps the reason for Antonelli's lockup towards the end of the race. However I later realised both cars had been doing this all race. It appears to function at its slowest rate at the car's highest speed.

That's when the air resistance is at its greatest so no wonder it takes longer. Doesn't mean that it's intentional, might just need to beef the mechanism up a little.

Never the less, if it takes longer then 0.4 of a second from point A to point B, fully open to fully closed, it can't be legally run in a race or qualifying.

[LM10]

I had initially thought the actuator was underperforming and perhaps the reason for Antonelli's lockup towards the end of the race. However I later realised both cars had been doing this all race. It appears to function at its slowest rate at the car's highest speed.

That's when the air resistance is at its greatest so no wonder it takes longer. Doesn't mean that it's intentional, might just need to beef the mechanism up a little.

Were the other cars driving in a vacuum? Like it was said, weird that no team protested, but they might have not spotted it.

[Stu]

0.4s is quite a long time (they cover quite a big distance in that time span).

[Lasssept]

Xavier Gàzquez

[vorticism]

The driveshaft has its own dedicated fairing. Six suspension arms. Seven discrete aero elements. The driveshaft fairing must be heavier, stronger than the others, since it wouldn't be able to contact the driveshaft along that half meter span. It couldn't be a simple thin skin like the others.

[Martin Keene]

The 400ms is an interesting rule, because is that 400ms when the car is stationary or when running, because surely as the aero load builds on the wing during the closing process, the wing will likely slowdown. Very, very fractionally slow down, but when there is a rule measure in ms, details matter.

There is nothing in the rules that mentions whether it is stationary or at speed, so therefore, it must apply in both conditions.

[Farnborough]

The driveshaft has its own dedicated fairing. Six suspension arms. Seven discrete aero elements. The driveshaft fairing must be heavier, stronger than the others, since it wouldn't be able to contact the driveshaft along that half meter span. It couldn't be a simple thin skin like the others.

Normally eight arms (effectively two wishbone each side) plus pushrod, plus halfshaft fairing, non load bearing.

They're all in there, but orientation is not easy from camera's angle of approach in that image.

[Brahmal]

The 400ms is an interesting rule, because is that 400ms when the car is stationary or when running, because surely as the aero load builds on the wing during the closing process, the wing will likely slowdown. Very, very fractionally slow down, but when there is a rule measure in ms, details matter.

There is nothing in the rules that mentions whether it is stationary or at speed, so therefore, it must apply in both conditions.

"Under all operating conditions" is definitely stipulated in the aero rules, but I don't have time to look it up right now.

[Farnborough]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD9RoiSXEAA ... name=large
Xavier Gàzquez

I've got the following arrangement:- the main diagonal link (foremost on car, furthest from camera) as pushrod, and going through the orifice on engine cover to top of torsion bar location.

The two links, immediately closer to camera and above/below that pushrod, are the top wishbone effectively, with large vertical displacement for anti-squat etc.

The two lowest links, in front of and behind the driveshaft cowl/fairing, are effectively the bottom wishbone, with rearmost on car (closest to camera) the rear "toe" link.

Total of 4 links for geometry, 1 for pushrod spring damper actuation, 1 cowl for driveshaft .... and obviously repeated opposite side of chassis.

What do others see ?

[JRodrigues]

The 400ms is an interesting rule, because is that 400ms when the car is stationary or when running, because surely as the aero load builds on the wing during the closing process, the wing will likely slowdown. Very, very fractionally slow down, but when there is a rule measure in ms, details matter.

There is nothing in the rules that mentions whether it is stationary or at speed, so therefore, it must apply in both conditions.

It is compliant under ambient temperature

[AR3-GP]

0.4s is quite a long time (they cover quite a big distance in that time span).

It's definitely more than 0.4s and I doubt it's a "gas leak" . The timing of the 1st stop of the front wing is the same as the time it takes to close the rear wing. Here's a video:



and gif:

[AR3-GP]

edit: or not, see later post.

A source from a rival team indicated to PlanetF1.com that it is commonplace for teams to delay the activation and deactivation of straight-line mode between the front and rear of the car.

However, this usually sees the front wing close later than the rear wing in order to reduce the potential for bottoming and skid wear.

The source added that this critical balance limitation definitely increases the risk of instability in combined braking events.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-ham ... uch%20more!