Mercedes W17

[SB15]

This loophole is exactly why they choose to only actuate the upper flap! because there is more space for the dancing than if you had to move both flaps.

This is a bigger impact than the Macarena wing if you ask me.

Bingo! There's less "risks" when approaching this type of design as well.

[SB15]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made.

I don't think so. There is no "active" front wing angle adjustment. That can only be done by tool in pitlane. Wing must move between corner and straight mode in under 400ms. It is clear.

https://i.postimg.cc/CKdpBdq8/image.png

The front wing can be adjusted and absolutely must be fixed, but it said nothing about "where" it should be fixed...
Mercedes must've cleverly designed their wing at the lowest wing possible so that any "angle" above the original fixture allows for the wing to go slowly back to its "adjusted" position.

It really not clear because if Mercedes had a wing similar to Ferrari, I seriously doubt they would've went with this approach. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Aston does the same

[SB15]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made. Only really possible for front wings fixed on the 2nd element which operates just like the flexi-wings the last 2 years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_TVXBlWEAA ... name=small

Well, if the argument is that their wing flexes vastly differently in the same corner from car to car and from lap to lap but the actual mechanism is working as per the regulations, I don't think they have much of a chance of that being ruled legal.

No, no you missed understood what I meant.

The front wing looks to be designed to the lowest angle possible, that is technically their "fixed" position. I was wondering why Mercedes front wing looked the skinniest vs the whole grid at first and I thought it was designed for more straight line speed, looks like the they did it exactly because of this. Since the rules said nothing about the "adjusted" position after the fixed position.

Operating sort of like the flexi wings the last 2 years, is what I meant.

So credit to Mercedes because that is definitley some very clever engineering.

[johnnycesup]

No, no you missed understood what I meant.

The front wing looks to be designed to the lowest angle possible, that is technically their "fixed" position. I was wondering why Mercedes front wing looked the skinniest vs the whole grid at first and I thought it was designed for more straight line speed, looks like the they did it exactly because of this. Since the rules said nothing about the "adjusted" position after the fixed position.

Operating sort of like the flexi wings the last 2 years, is what I meant.

So credit to Mercedes because that is definitley some very clever engineering.

Sorry, I don't understand anything then (i'm not a native English speaker, maybe that's the problem).

The Merc wing's 3rd flap is doing something like the chart below, when switching from straight mode to corner mode at Time=1s



Could you explain to me what are their "fixed" positions, as per the regulations? I thought it had to be angle 0 and 20, right?

[matteosc]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made. Only really possible for front wings fixed on the 2nd element which operates just like the flexi-wings the last 2 years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_TVXBlWEAA ... name=small

Well, if the argument is that their wing flexes vastly differently in the same corner from car to car and from lap to lap but the actual mechanism is working as per the regulations, I don't think they have much of a chance of that being ruled legal.

No, no you missed understood what I meant.

The front wing looks to be designed to the lowest angle possible, that is technically their "fixed" position. I was wondering why Mercedes front wing looked the skinniest vs the whole grid at first and I thought it was designed for more straight line speed, looks like the they did it exactly because of this. Since the rules said nothing about the "adjusted" position after the fixed position.

Operating sort of like the flexi wings the last 2 years, is what I meant.

So credit to Mercedes because that is definitley some very clever engineering.

The rule define 2 fixed positions. There is no "adjusted" position. You adjust the two fixed position in the box, then the wing needs to transition from one fixed position to the other in 0.4 s maximum. You cannot "adjust" the flap on the fly.

[vorticism]

Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section.

Quick sketch.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvSnJQNv/w17FWAS2.jpg

So the ‘variable’ (and quite jerky) closing could be caused by binding (due to flex in the rest of the wing structure)? It may be a trade-off due to only having the single adjustable flap (assuming that in cornering mode they have just as much DF as anyone else); the two fixed elements will have more DF when in straight mode), the forward element being cantilevered will exert a significant twisting moment on the rear pivot alignment.

May be one explanation. I'd tend to think more along the lines of transverse droop/sag from downforce could alter how the shafts perform, or how the linkages perform. There needs to be some sort of linkage to translate the shaft rotation to the flap rotation at 10deg or whatever. Could also be unrelated to this unique central mechanism, and simply be binding of the fishplates or hinges at either ends.

Or it could simply be something upstream like the actuator itself. Toto said something about a leak, apparently. Or some other fault.

The fact that it's intermittent isn't being acknowledged. Lots of "not sure about the regs say but what I think is..." "I might be wrong but..." "i feel like..." AR3-GP's posts went ignored. Does cursory research. Posts actual content. Posts data. No upvotes. Just slop replies. Pearls before swine.

Literally writes "It's not consistent" and then someone replies to him, "Well, if it's happening consistently..."

[SB15]

Well, if the argument is that their wing flexes vastly differently in the same corner from car to car and from lap to lap but the actual mechanism is working as per the regulations, I don't think they have much of a chance of that being ruled legal.

No, no you missed understood what I meant.

The front wing looks to be designed to the lowest angle possible, that is technically their "fixed" position. I was wondering why Mercedes front wing looked the skinniest vs the whole grid at first and I thought it was designed for more straight line speed, looks like the they did it exactly because of this. Since the rules said nothing about the "adjusted" position after the fixed position.

Operating sort of like the flexi wings the last 2 years, is what I meant.

So credit to Mercedes because that is definitley some very clever engineering.

The rule define 2 fixed positions. There is no "adjusted" position. You adjust the two fixed position in the box, then the wing needs to transition from one fixed position to the other in 0.4 s maximum. You cannot "adjust" the flap on the fly.

I never said anything about "adjusting on the fly". I said it like returning back to the original state that "was" adjusted. While the 2nd position is the non-adjusted position.

[SB15]

Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section.

Quick sketch.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvSnJQNv/w17FWAS2.jpg

Can you give a detail analysis on this? Especially the benefits with the wing on the 2nd element.

[matteosc]

No, no you missed understood what I meant.

The front wing looks to be designed to the lowest angle possible, that is technically their "fixed" position. I was wondering why Mercedes front wing looked the skinniest vs the whole grid at first and I thought it was designed for more straight line speed, looks like the they did it exactly because of this. Since the rules said nothing about the "adjusted" position after the fixed position.

Operating sort of like the flexi wings the last 2 years, is what I meant.

So credit to Mercedes because that is definitley some very clever engineering.

The rule define 2 fixed positions. There is no "adjusted" position. You adjust the two fixed position in the box, then the wing needs to transition from one fixed position to the other in 0.4 s maximum. You cannot "adjust" the flap on the fly.

I never said anything about "adjusting on the fly". I said it like returning back to the original state that "was" adjusted. While the 2nd position is the non-adjusted position.

The wing must return in its fixed position withing 0.4 s. If it returns to its "non-adjusted" position and then keeps moving to a different position, than it's not legal. What you are stating it that it is OK for the wing to have 3 fixed position, which again, it is not legal. The angle of attack must be constant for each of the 2 fixed position.
No grey areas.

[matteosc]

Quick sketch.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvSnJQNv/w17FWAS2.jpg

So the ‘variable’ (and quite jerky) closing could be caused by binding (due to flex in the rest of the wing structure)? It may be a trade-off due to only having the single adjustable flap (assuming that in cornering mode they have just as much DF as anyone else); the two fixed elements will have more DF when in straight mode), the forward element being cantilevered will exert a significant twisting moment on the rear pivot alignment.

May be one explanation. I'd tend to think more along the lines of transverse droop/sag from downforce could alter how the shafts perform, or how the linkages perform. There needs to be some sort of linkage to translate the shaft rotation to the flap rotation at 10deg or whatever. Could also be unrelated to this unique central mechanism, and simply be binding of the fishplates or hinges at either ends.

Or it could simply be something upstream like the actuator itself. Toto said something about a leak, apparently. Or some other fault.

The fact that it's intermittent isn't being acknowledged. Lots of "not sure about the regs say but what I think is..." "I might be wrong but..." "i feel like..." AR3-GP's posts went ignored. Does cursory research. Posts actual content. Posts data. No upvotes. Just slop replies. Pearls before swine.

Literally writes "It's not consistent" and then someone replies to him, "Well, if it's happening consistently..."

Not ignoring the post about it not being consistent, but (1) it is still possible that it is "not consistent" because it is needed only in certain situation (and in any case we have too little data to be sure about anything) and (2) even is due to a malfuncioning, it is still illegal.

If something does not work according to the rule, it usually results in penalty or disqualifications, no matter if that happens by design or by malfunctioning. I think it is still worth discussing wether it is legal or not and what are the technical reasons of this behaviour.

[mzso]

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?

Looking at the frames in this it's 880ms, but at least 800.

[michl420]

What would be the reason for this "complicated" mechanism? Less skid block wear?

[matteosc]

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?

Did you end up creating another thread? Or did I miss the post here?

[Lasssept]

[john downforce]

What would be the reason for this "complicated" mechanism? Less skid block wear?

the cars spark most when the active aero comes back, with this slow return you can reduce plank wear and therefore run a lower static front ride height (or soften front suspension). you also prevent the endplates making ground contact during the transient by returning the load gradually (you can see on some cars sparks from the endplates at the start of big braking zones), which will give you improved aero performance towards the end of races through lessened aero wear. you may notice from the gif that the slow return only occurs at the end of the main straight into the hairpin, the biggest braking zone on the track, where the most ground contact occurs.

unless they have found some loophole which allows the transition time to exceed 400ms, this is not legal maybe an automated system is adjusting the transition profile based on the braking zone to minimise plank wear (there is nothing in the rules to suggest that the transitions must be consistent, only that they must happen between the same two static positions), and a hard cap of 400ms was not coded in (properly). I doubt anything will be done about this, but maybe from the next race we will no longer see these transition times, which will be the indicator that mercedes realised they messed up.