Williams FW36 Mercedes

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
LookBackTime
LookBackTime
472
Joined: 19 Feb 2013, 20:33

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

Williams gearbox:

Image

Sevach
Sevach
1082
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 17:00

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

Quite a bit bigger, but with an 8th gear plus the fact that the exhaust is going to be on top of it there was no reason to keep it small.

marcush.
marcush.
159
Joined: 09 Mar 2004, 16:55

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

The Leading Edge flap with its Limited range of airspeeds wehre is would work is something worth developing methinks. My Impression is you want to be able to Feed the Maximum Air Maß at lower Speeds But be able to Redirect the Surplus not needed at full Speed making it do other work( Helbing Keep Flow attached on the sidepods?)

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

Gridlock wrote:Another silly question; is it usual to have a detachable footplate like all those noses demonstrate? Not a familiar sight to me, noses with no FW attached - I assumed they were generally one piece, to reduce weight.
It saves time and resources when manufacturing parts, especially those likely to have high rates of development. You're allowed more flexibility if you don't have to fabricate an entire nose/wing assembly just to update a portion of the wing. The big change in regulations governing those components means specifications for both are likely to change frequently as the team hones the overall design of the car.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

The other benefit is that you can just replace the wing section if it gets damaged on track. If the wing and nose were all one piece then you'd have to scrap the entire nose cone too.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Owen.C93
Owen.C93
177
Joined: 24 Jul 2010, 17:52

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

bhallg2k wrote:
Gridlock wrote:Another silly question; is it usual to have a detachable footplate like all those noses demonstrate? Not a familiar sight to me, noses with no FW attached - I assumed they were generally one piece, to reduce weight.
It saves time and resources when manufacturing parts, especially those likely to have high rates of development. You're allowed more flexibility if you don't have to fabricate an entire nose/wing assembly just to update a portion of the wing. The big change in regulations governing those components means specifications for both are likely to change frequently as the team hones the overall design of the car.
You'll notice the floor around the rear tyre is detachable too for the same reason.
Motorsport Graduate in search of team experience ;)

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Williams Mercedes F1 Team 2014

Post

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks.
humble sabot wrote:I was hoping it would be lighter than the dark blue in testing, hopefully it would reveal something. And reveal it has.Image

I was sure there was a little more going on at the nose than we could see in the dark paint.
Looks like a continuation of a theme seen on last year's FW35 and others.
Image
I used to think it was intended to create a bit of downforce, since the narrowing gap likely creates a Venturi effect. But, now I think it's probably more about increasing mass flow between the pylons, even though the mechanism is exactly the same.

(Incidentally, you can see that the wing could be detached from the nose then, too. Weight's not really an issue there, because teams generally use the neutral center-section of the wing to hold ballast anyway.)
Last edited by bhall on 13 Mar 2014, 01:06, edited 1 time in total.

Owen.C93
Owen.C93
177
Joined: 24 Jul 2010, 17:52

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

Damn those old noses look weird now.
Motorsport Graduate in search of team experience ;)

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

I had the same reaction earlier today when I saw this.

trinidefender
trinidefender
317
Joined: 19 Apr 2013, 20:37

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

marcush. wrote:The Leading Edge flap with its Limited range of airspeeds wehre is would work is something worth developing methinks. My Impression is you want to be able to Feed the Maximum Air Maß at lower Speeds But be able to Redirect the Surplus not needed at full Speed making it do other work( Helbing Keep Flow attached on the sidepods?)
Be careful how you word it, there are many variations of leading edge devices. For this please use leading edge slot because that is what it is.

Unfortunately they don't work like that. Air will still be pulled through the slot as a result of lower pressure above the sidepods and higher pressure in the ram air sidepod intake. The only way, that I can see at least, for your idea of diverting more cooling air at low speeds then at higher speeds having more air going through the slot would be with mover able aero which is obviously banned.

Maybe some sort of pressure switch can be designed with the pressure ratio from inside the intake to on top the sidepod but I think it will be hard to design and without to much benefit.

Here is a diagram to show a few various types of devices fitted to some wings.

Image

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

It doesn't make sense pulling air out of the intake and directing it over the sidepod, oit's not like you need to avoid the sidepod to stall or anything like that.

I'd make a wild guess and say it's just a bunch of different intake cowlings, with different opening sizes, that do not fit that well to the sidepod but are intended on running tests on heat dissipation.

trinidefender
trinidefender
317
Joined: 19 Apr 2013, 20:37

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

rjsa wrote:It doesn't make sense pulling air out of the intake and directing it over the sidepod, oit's not like you need to avoid the sidepod to stall or anything like that.

I'd make a wild guess and say it's just a bunch of different intake cowlings, with different opening sizes, that do not fit that well to the sidepod but are intended on running tests on heat dissipation.
That is exactly what you need to avoid, remember if the airflow stalls flowing around the sidepods then the airflow instantly becomes turbulent. Wings and other downforce generating devices can do very little with turbulent air. Note that turbulent air is not necessarily the same thing as spinning vortex airflow. However usually after a vortex breaks down it leaves a large amount of turbulent air in its wake.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

But there is no AOA to make it worth it. People just don't pull slats on low AOA flight configurantions.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

trinidefender wrote:[...]

Unfortunately they don't work like that. Air will still be pulled through the slot as a result of lower pressure above the sidepods and higher pressure in the ram air sidepod intake. The only way, that I can see at least, for your idea of diverting more cooling air at low speeds then at higher speeds having more air going through the slot would be with mover able aero which is obviously banned.

[...]
You mean air will be pushed through the slot, i.e. flow from inside the sidepod to outside the sidepod?

In any case, my view is that the slots probably help regulate pressure within the sidepod. If pressure is too high or too low, you get inefficient cooling and a lot of drag. If you get it just right, you get efficient cooling and the Meredith effect, i.e. an effectively drag-free sidepod.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Williams FW36 Mercedes

Post

Too convoluted, there would always be a low pressure zone after the slot, air would always be pulled there, the only practical effect being to reduce the effective intake area.