Mercedes W17

[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.

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.

Per side. A wishbone or A-arm is comprised of two arms. In this example (the W17) we appear to have:

Top row: pushrod, arm, arm
Bottom row: arm, arm, driveshaft, trackrod

6 suspension elements, 1 drivetrain element, 7 fairings. 7 would be the maximum permissible, although I’m used to seeing 6 as the trackrod or one of the arms usually shares a fairing with the driveshaft.

[PlatinumZealot]

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:
https://i.postimg.cc/QCXykccX/W17-Front-Wing.gif

I figured it out after reading the regulations over a few times and really taking the wording as is.

Mercedes basically found a loophole. And it's a very clever one.

I will explain in a new thread or you guys want me to explain it here?

[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:
https://i.postimg.cc/QCXykccX/W17-Front-Wing.gif

I figured it out after reading the regulations over a few times and really taking the wording as is.

Mercedes basically found a loophole. And it's a very clever one.

I will explain in a new thread or you guys want me to explain it here?

The issue is not the variable closing speed. The issue is the total transition time between the two fixed positions (straight mode and corner mode). There is no loophole. The limit is 400ms. Any transition that is longer than 400ms is not conformant to the regulations.

[PlatinumZealot]

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:
https://i.postimg.cc/QCXykccX/W17-Front-Wing.gif

I figured it out after reading the regulations over a few times and really taking the wording as is.

Mercedes basically found a loophole. And it's a very clever one.

I will explain in a new thread or you guys want me to explain it here?

The issue is not the variable closing speed. The issue is the total transition time between the two fixed positions (straight mode and corner mode). There is no loophole. The limit is 400ms. Any transition that is longer than 400ms is not conformant to the regulations.

https://i.postimg.cc/j284nSP6/image.png

You failed to read my post. Lol.

Are you sure there is no loophole?

Do your eyes deceive you?

[vorticism]

I think what we're seeing is the FWAS in fail-safe mode. The initial incomplete actuation is within the spec operation window, the slow close afterward is the passive fail-safe return force.

[PlatinumZealot]

See thread here explaining what I think is the loophole.

viewtopic.php?t=32563

[AR3-GP]

It was also doing this in australia

[vorticism]

How often?

[AR3-GP]

How often?

You have a point. On lap 4 it closes slowly into T11 and on lap 5 it closes quickly into T11. I think it's malfunctioning on lap 4 and then working like it should on lap 5. As you suggested, the "slow" close might be the passive return system when the powered close malfunctions.

Lap 4:


Lap 5:

[AR3-GP]

[AR3-GP]

It's not consistent. All entries are Russell except where Antonelli is marked because the broadcast switched to his car. So it is more likely a malfunction of some kind. Either way it is not conformant to the regulations.

[vorticism]

+1 on all those, good analysis. Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section. If it's not simply that the actuator itself is malfunctioning, it could be due to binding of the driveshafts as the assembly flexes. Or unrelated binding of the hinges or fishplates at either ends.

The middle part of the front wing is fix. Maybe the actuators are in the endplates or the entire mechanism is in this fix part.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_lEqL4WwAA ... name=small

Good catch, I was just noticing that as well. There's a central pylon beneath the nosecone that intersects the static third element. My guess would be that there is a bellcrank within that pylon, acting upon torsion-arms/extension-shafts within the static center section that extend to the pivot axis on the flaps.

[Brahmal]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ars-design

[Stu]

https://d3cm515ijfiu6w.cloudfront.net/w ... nstall.jpg

https://d3cm515ijfiu6w.cloudfront.net/w ... ension.jpg

https://d3cm515ijfiu6w.cloudfront.net/w ... d-nose.jpg

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ars-design

The top two pictures are from different cars. Everything is different between the two.

[AR3-GP]

The middle picture is Cadillac.