Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Reading on auto motor und sport that Haug is downplaying speculated innovations on the w03.

The reasons given are as before, more time to fine tune the car.
Also, and separate to this, I hear no news of the car passing its crash test. Could Mercedes be waiting to see what is allowed, before commuting itself to a crash test.
Sounds crazy, but even at this late stage some change is possible, albeit small.

[xpensive]

@JET
I would xpect the mercury-hydraulic leveling-system, as described with the sketch on that blog twenty pages back,
would be rather easy to take off and on without tinkering with anything fundamental on the car, why I agree with you.

A crash-test with the mercury-hydraulics would be interesting indeed, but perhaps you don't need to include that?

[Richard]

A crash-test with the mercury-hydraulics would be interesting indeed, but perhaps you don't need to include that?

x - I'm disappointed that you've not being paying attention. The chassis is crash tested in its raw form without any body panels or equipment.

Of course you knew that from watching the USF1 videos didn't you?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Personally I think Mercedes are waiting to see what others have come up with regarding the exhausts. As brawn and di montezemolo have said, there are grey areas here.
Maybe the have an idea, and are waiting to see if others have similar....

I get the feeling merc just don't want to be caught out like they were in 2010 and 2011.

[Cocles]

Since this thread is about pre-launch speculations I`ll sum up some rumors on other forums regarding novelties on W03:
1. Sidepods will be curved and also have a very slope angle (side viewing):
a) to maintain a clean path of the airflow to the beam wing;
b) to create DF as near as possible to the CoG;
c) this arrangement is design bearing in mind the crash structure requirements.
2. Air intakes will be very low, very small in width but also very wide and practically has the same width like the floor does. This low position benefits from the clean air which is channeled via the fins under the FW and also from the barge boards under the nose.
3. The lower side of the air intake has a curved shape, in order to channel and accelerate the airflow like STR did last year with their double floor.
4. There are no air box intake over the driver`s head because they will reinstate their blade roll hoop. The air box intake will be splitted in two channels which goes on each side of the driver`s cell of survival. They are starting from the sidepods air intake level and go around the back of the driver towards the engine.
5. They will blow the fins placed on the rear break ducts.
6. The exhausts covers and the rear wing will have a linear connection. These exhaust covers are angled like RB6 nose fins, in order to divert the airflow towards both ends of the rear wing.
7. Last but not least, they will have a legal RRH system

Cool, interesting stuff. Do you have the sources, so we can read more?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ atanatizante

Point number 4 is interesting. Would fit in with a lower and wider concept to keep the drag down, and CoG in check.

[Blackout]

Inverted

[dren]

Looks like a normal car with a lower droopy nose.

[Ferraripilot]

OMG an actual 3 element front wing!!!! Miracles DO happen every day!

[Ferraripilot]

The nose has a seperate bib looping under it which the front wing pylons are mounted to. I wonder if this is where the f-duct will be........

[xpensive]

The nose has a seperate bib looping under it which the front wing pylons are mounted to. I wonder if this is where the f-duct will be........

No, but the mercury-hydraulic leveling system, as low as possible for CoG reasons.

[Richard]

The nose has a seperate bib looping under it which the front wing pylons are mounted to. I wonder if this is where the f-duct will be........

Do you mean the bit that looks like a snow plough?

[Ferraripilot]

The nose has a seperate bib looping under it which the front wing pylons are mounted to. I wonder if this is where the f-duct will be........

Do you mean the bit that looks like a snow plough?

correct. It looks as if the wing pylons are mounted that it rather than the underside of the nose itself. IOW, it's not a snow plow but rather a loop under the nose which not only directs air behind it, but mounts the wing pylons, and possibly has a seperate bib on the back end directing air at the tea tray. This would answer the issue of not being able to direct air through the nose to the front wing and would also allow the air to travel with one less turn which of course initiated at the nose intake itself

[jav]

I need a clear understanding of what is happening with the Total individual wheel loads when related to this discussion. I use the word Total to avoid any discussion of what loads might be considered part of the Total. Just trying to keep this part simple.

In my test example, ALL thinks are exactly the same during a braking test. For one brake test the mercury system is functional, the system's slave cylinders moving, and in a second brake test, the system in not functional (but still in place), the system's slave cylinders DO NOT move. It is my CLAIM that the loads measured at a wheel, in the same location/corner, will be the same value in both tests.

Point by point-

You brought up the idea of total wheel loads in your controlled braking example. I expanded on that and conceded that yes- total loads are a function of mass and acceleration but INDIVIDUAL wheel loads (not "total" individual wheel loads) are a function of the dymanics of the car with respect to the suspension system and contact patch.

To further expand on this, lets say braking loads in your example peak at 1.6G (arbitrary number). If all 4 wheels are in contact with the ground, each wheel will contribute some variable portion to that 1.6G - but the sum of all 4 wheels contributiuon will equal 1.6G. Now -if you can still generate 1.6g while braking and you only have 3 wheels in contact with the ground, that 1.6G is divided by 3, not 4, so individual loads can change despite total loads staying the same.

Note that the 3 wheeled example was given only to show that you can have the same total loads but differing individual loads. That "proportionality" of loads changes for a whole host of reasons including tire temps, suspension geometry effects on tire contact patch, damping, change in attitude of the car- and many other factors. This is the difference I believe exists and thought you did too... now I'm not so sure.

Agree or disagree? IF you disagree what is the cause of your proposed difference in wheel loads in these highly controlled tests? Remember, all things are equal except the functionality of the mercury system during these tests.
Brian

Disagree- see above explanation but to expand on that. If you concede that the mercury system would change the attitude of the car by reducing dive- then the proportional loads on any individual corner can also change for a whole host of reasons as stated above.

[Joie de vivre]

where did you get that picture from