Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[Big Tea]

I don't know how I rate on your knowledgeable scale, but, from a strictly geometric POV, yes, rake raises the CG.

In olden F1 times they were so worried about CG that they were choosing engine architecture to minimize the CG height of the engine! With the cars being so aero dominated that old way of thinking has given way to prioritizing aero efficiency / gain.

Cheers,

Jon

Thanks for replying. What I wanted to know is the loss gain point for this. It seems everyone is pushing for it then complaining of cornering. Has it become the modern version of the emperors new clothes? Is it 'fad or fact'?
It obviously works, but what are the costs.

[wesley123]

Then why isn't Mercedes running it? It's a concept that isn't anything new. Seems weird to not apply a solution that is so incredibly amazing.

Simple, their aero philosophy is quite different - in F1, teams usually converge on the optimal solution, Mercedes is the only team left running low rake, everyone else has decided that high rake is a more efficient aero platform. This is one area Mercedes are not leading - I'm not saying they havent done an outstanding job, they have. I'm just saying I personally think them sticking with low rake is going to cost them performance compared to RBR & Ferrari.

As others have said, it's not as simple as jacking up the rear ride height, it's an entire aero philosphy that needs to be in-sync to work.

That said, I think Spa and Monza will either validate or invalidate my theory.

I don't think their aero philosophy is all that much different, apart from the floor, there isn't anything 'weird' about it.

And considering how they have had 5+ years to apply this to the car, I doubt the godlike idea behind it. Mercedes has really focused on suspension, applying a much more complex layout, a large part of this is driven by aerodynamics. Reducing pitch can have a large effect on the car.

The large amount of rake is fairly draggy, as the frontal area is increased compared to zero rake. This can be solved by a softer rear, which will squat under speed. The softer rear can also help with traction, and imo the amount of rake is driven because of traction, a desire to run a soft rear, rather than primarely aero driven.

[makecry]

Then why isn't Mercedes running it? It's a concept that isn't anything new. Seems weird to not apply a solution that is so incredibly amazing.

Simple, their aero philosophy is quite different - in F1, teams usually converge on the optimal solution, Mercedes is the only team left running low rake, everyone else has decided that high rake is a more efficient aero platform. This is one area Mercedes are not leading - I'm not saying they havent done an outstanding job, they have. I'm just saying I personally think them sticking with low rake is going to cost them performance compared to RBR & Ferrari.

As others have said, it's not as simple as jacking up the rear ride height, it's an entire aero philosphy that needs to be in-sync to work.

That said, I think Spa and Monza will either validate or invalidate my theory.

I don't think their aero philosophy is all that much different, apart from the floor, there isn't anything 'weird' about it.

And considering how they have had 5+ years to apply this to the car, I doubt the godlike idea behind it. Mercedes has really focused on suspension, applying a much more complex layout, a large part of this is driven by aerodynamics. Reducing pitch can have a large effect on the car.

The large amount of rake is fairly draggy, as the frontal area is increased compared to zero rake. This can be solved by a softer rear, which will squat under speed. The softer rear can also help with traction, and imo the amount of rake is driven because of traction, a desire to run a soft rear, rather than primarely aero driven.

Last year, McLaren and RedBull were using trick suspension to squat their car. ofcourse it has been banned now.

[wesley123]

Simple, their aero philosophy is quite different - in F1, teams usually converge on the optimal solution, Mercedes is the only team left running low rake, everyone else has decided that high rake is a more efficient aero platform. This is one area Mercedes are not leading - I'm not saying they havent done an outstanding job, they have. I'm just saying I personally think them sticking with low rake is going to cost them performance compared to RBR & Ferrari.

As others have said, it's not as simple as jacking up the rear ride height, it's an entire aero philosphy that needs to be in-sync to work.

That said, I think Spa and Monza will either validate or invalidate my theory.

I don't think their aero philosophy is all that much different, apart from the floor, there isn't anything 'weird' about it.

And considering how they have had 5+ years to apply this to the car, I doubt the godlike idea behind it. Mercedes has really focused on suspension, applying a much more complex layout, a large part of this is driven by aerodynamics. Reducing pitch can have a large effect on the car.

The large amount of rake is fairly draggy, as the frontal area is increased compared to zero rake. This can be solved by a softer rear, which will squat under speed. The softer rear can also help with traction, and imo the amount of rake is driven because of traction, a desire to run a soft rear, rather than primarely aero driven.

Last year, McLaren and RedBull were using trick suspension to squat their car. ofcourse it has been banned now.

It's not really a trick though, rather it is just physics. All they're doing is run a softer rear, which will squat under speed

[makecry]

I don't think their aero philosophy is all that much different, apart from the floor, there isn't anything 'weird' about it.

And considering how they have had 5+ years to apply this to the car, I doubt the godlike idea behind it. Mercedes has really focused on suspension, applying a much more complex layout, a large part of this is driven by aerodynamics. Reducing pitch can have a large effect on the car.

The large amount of rake is fairly draggy, as the frontal area is increased compared to zero rake. This can be solved by a softer rear, which will squat under speed. The softer rear can also help with traction, and imo the amount of rake is driven because of traction, a desire to run a soft rear, rather than primarely aero driven.

Last year, McLaren and RedBull were using trick suspension to squat their car. ofcourse it has been banned now.

It's not really a trick though, rather it is just physics. All they're doing is run a softer rear, which will squat under speed

I meant trick suspension to control ride height. It was reported on AMuS. Yeah, softer suspension will basically do what we are talking about here but I clearly remember AMuS reporting that they were doing something sneaky.

[Just_a_fan]

The large rake cars get to run softer rear ends which helps rear tyre life. Mercedes, having less rake, can't run as soft and are struggling accordingly. They have to run stiffer rear end because, with less rake to start with, they have less "spare" ground clearance.

[Shakeman]

Everything I've read on high rake vs low rake suggests there's absolutely nothing in it between the competing philosophies and there are as many pro and cons for each. High rake is not a silver bullet and I've heard Costa say Merc prefer their way as it provides better stability under braking where a lot of lap time can be found.

There's very likely a more prosaic reason why Ferrari has outperformed Merc this season by the tiniest margin is because Merc's engineers didn't think the hyper soft tyre would make a great race tyre after preseason testing and they've had to live with that decision to date.

The fact that Bottas was well ahead of Hamilton screams that Canada was about getting the tyres in the right window, Merc didn't because they didn't have enough sets to test on Friday.

[wesley123]

I do believe that Merc has overcome some defecits, and aerodynamically their car would be more consistent, but they definitely seem to struggle with traction. It was really visible out of the hairpin, for example. Merc has to rely more on the tires to provide the traction than other teams do, and are more hurt when they can't get the tires in the right window.

[muramasa]

The large rake cars get to run softer rear ends which helps rear tyre life. Mercedes, having less rake, can't run as soft and are struggling accordingly. They have to run stiffer rear end because, with less rake to start with, they have less "spare" ground clearance.

Isnt it rather opposite? High rake is more susceptible to ride height change because its front end floor tip is closer to the ground and gets choked easily by bumps kerbs etc. Less rake provides more consistent aero characteristics and softer suspension.
Wide nose and high rake seems to be easier to exploit and perhaps cheaper than narrow nose and low rake. The former uses wing supports and nose as vanes to regulate air, while the latter let air through to the back at the point of nose and regulate the airflow with various vanes after that. The narrow nose / low rake concept looks more tricky and expensive to make it work but if it works there are range of benefits like consistent aero, less drag, more freedom for vehicle side, etc.

[Big Tea]

The large rake cars get to run softer rear ends which helps rear tyre life. Mercedes, having less rake, can't run as soft and are struggling accordingly. They have to run stiffer rear end because, with less rake to start with, they have less "spare" ground clearance.

Isnt it rather opposite? High rake is more susceptible to ride height change because its front end floor tip is closer to the ground and gets choked easily by bumps kerbs etc. Less rake provides more consistent aero characteristics and softer suspension.
Wide nose and high rake seems to be easier to exploit and perhaps cheaper than narrow nose and low rake. The former uses wing supports and nose as vanes to regulate air, while the latter let air through to the back at the point of nose and regulate the airflow with various vanes after that. The narrow nose / low rake concept looks more tricky and expensive to make it work but if it works there are range of benefits like consistent aero, less drag, more freedom for vehicle side, etc.

Can someone clarify for me please, do the dimensions being taken from a 'reference plane' (plank?) to the height of the lower edge of the front wing. As the car is raked, does this reference plane account for the angle gradient?

[Jolle]

The large rake cars get to run softer rear ends which helps rear tyre life. Mercedes, having less rake, can't run as soft and are struggling accordingly. They have to run stiffer rear end because, with less rake to start with, they have less "spare" ground clearance.

Isnt it rather opposite? High rake is more susceptible to ride height change because its front end floor tip is closer to the ground and gets choked easily by bumps kerbs etc. Less rake provides more consistent aero characteristics and softer suspension.
Wide nose and high rake seems to be easier to exploit and perhaps cheaper than narrow nose and low rake. The former uses wing supports and nose as vanes to regulate air, while the latter let air through to the back at the point of nose and regulate the airflow with various vanes after that. The narrow nose / low rake concept looks more tricky and expensive to make it work but if it works there are range of benefits like consistent aero, less drag, more freedom for vehicle side, etc.

Can someone clarify for me please, do the dimensions being taken from a 'reference plane' (plank?) to the height of the lower edge of the front wing. As the car is raked, does this reference plane account for the angle gradient?

no it doesn't. the "plank" is what everything is measured at. of you have a rake of 10 degrees, your fw would be legally drag across the tarmac.

[Big Tea]

Isnt it rather opposite? High rake is more susceptible to ride height change because its front end floor tip is closer to the ground and gets choked easily by bumps kerbs etc. Less rake provides more consistent aero characteristics and softer suspension.
Wide nose and high rake seems to be easier to exploit and perhaps cheaper than narrow nose and low rake. The former uses wing supports and nose as vanes to regulate air, while the latter let air through to the back at the point of nose and regulate the airflow with various vanes after that. The narrow nose / low rake concept looks more tricky and expensive to make it work but if it works there are range of benefits like consistent aero, less drag, more freedom for vehicle side, etc.

Can someone clarify for me please, do the dimensions being taken from a 'reference plane' (plank?) to the height of the lower edge of the front wing. As the car is raked, does this reference plane account for the angle gradient?

no it doesn't. the "plank" is what everything is measured at. of you have a rake of 10 degrees, your fw would be legally drag across the tarmac.

That is what I was asking, but did not phrase it very well. A reference plane must be a plane so it must follow the line of the plank, yes? so if the front of the plank is closer to the track than the back...
Not just the front wing, but dimensions above would be 'angled' too.

Edit. I obviously have not got this right, according to common sense, but if the plank can be angled, can it still be a usable reference plane for the car and the track?

[Jolle]

Can someone clarify for me please, do the dimensions being taken from a 'reference plane' (plank?) to the height of the lower edge of the front wing. As the car is raked, does this reference plane account for the angle gradient?

no it doesn't. the "plank" is what everything is measured at. of you have a rake of 10 degrees, your fw would be legally drag across the tarmac.

That is what I was asking, but did not phrase it very well. A reference plane must be a plane so it must follow the line of the plank, yes? so if the front of the plank is closer to the track than the back...
Not just the front wing, but dimensions above would be 'angled' too.

Edit. I obviously have not got this right, according to common sense, but if the plank can be angled, can it still be a usable reference plane for the car and the track?

The track is irrelevant for the rules. The plank is the reference. The hight/angle/whatever between plank and road are free, as long as you don't scrape to much off the plank during the race. In the rule making of the plank (during the '94 season) rakes weren't "invented" yet. Those days it was normal to have the whole bottom as low to the ground as you dared.

[Big Tea]

no it doesn't. the "plank" is what everything is measured at. of you have a rake of 10 degrees, your fw would be legally drag across the tarmac.

That is what I was asking, but did not phrase it very well. A reference plane must be a plane so it must follow the line of the plank, yes? so if the front of the plank is closer to the track than the back...
Not just the front wing, but dimensions above would be 'angled' too.

Edit. I obviously have not got this right, according to common sense, but if the plank can be angled, can it still be a usable reference plane for the car and the track?

The track is irrelevant for the rules. The plank is the reference. The hight/angle/whatever between plank and road are free, as long as you don't scrape to much off the plank during the race. In the rule making of the plank (during the '94 season) rakes weren't "invented" yet. Those days it was normal to have the whole bottom as low to the ground as you dared.

But are not other parts measured reference to the plank? If the plank has an incline of (say) 50mm, which part of the plank can they reference? Any part? this would not seem to make sense, so I must be considering it incorrectly.

[Jolle]

That is what I was asking, but did not phrase it very well. A reference plane must be a plane so it must follow the line of the plank, yes? so if the front of the plank is closer to the track than the back...
Not just the front wing, but dimensions above would be 'angled' too.

Edit. I obviously have not got this right, according to common sense, but if the plank can be angled, can it still be a usable reference plane for the car and the track?

The track is irrelevant for the rules. The plank is the reference. The hight/angle/whatever between plank and road are free, as long as you don't scrape to much off the plank during the race. In the rule making of the plank (during the '94 season) rakes weren't "invented" yet. Those days it was normal to have the whole bottom as low to the ground as you dared.

But are not other parts measured reference to the plank? If the plank has an incline of (say) 50mm, which part of the plank can they reference? Any part? this would not seem to make sense, so I must be considering it incorrectly.

The plank/reference plane is a straight line and the technical bottom of the car. if the FW has to be 100 mm above the reference plane, you can imagine getting the wheels off the car, standing it on the plank on a level floor and then the FW has to be 100mm from the floor.