Mercedes-AMG F1 W10 EQ Power+

[mmred]

Without power, how do you ensure that there is enough energy left to work the critical rear aerodynamic surfaces of the car by the time the air arrives there?

Vortexes hardly help creating downforce
The y250 doesn't even touch the car anymore after the bargeboards
But it is used to seal the under front with countrrrotating vortices from the inside

No you don't want more powerful than it is, from the shape of the fwing flaps it s clear you want to keep it lower as possible and softer but it cant be soft cause you need downforce and therefore huge flaps there ( also because the air s gonna meet the future anyway ) so you get this extra drag called prandtl wake vortices at the tips....

There are math equation behind its origin and keeping the geometrical discontinuity at the tips soft means you want it soft

I wasn't necessarily talking about downforce, generally, I was talking about the strength of the vortices themselves, where they are going, and why you want them to go there.

My basic understanding is, assuming we're talking about properly designed aero, there are good and bad vortices.

And sending "good" vortices over/under other aero surfaces provides certain beneficial/sought-after effects. Because these good vortices are areas of high energy flow, they can be used to combat/lessen boundary layer separation over particular wing surfaces. I thought there was value using in using these vortices to keep flow energized and attached to a wing or other aero element downstream.

And as you alluded to above, vortices can also be used seal the underfloor and manage flow direction (e.g., guiding a cleaner, more powerful flow to the critical diffuser area).

I agree with you
I am just saying it is still true
Laminar flow = no vortices > soft vortices > strong vortices > separation = turbulent flow

But apart from the leading edges of the fwing and other areas the flux over the car is all vortices... But that s another discussion

In The lower part you want to prevent turbulent flow entering the inside part of the car aero, the under tunnel, and the y 250 can do that around the nosemaking a wall but for very little cause then indeed you need bargeboards other deviators even near the nose to seal from the inside too

Basically it s beneficial in that little region but if you see it it s even too much powerful cause you can do the same separations with deviators alone and you have more little vortexes as an unwanted result so less overall drag

[Just_a_fan]

Vortices are very useful for helping to keep flow attached to surfaces too. Indeed, they're used in lots of ways to make the overall vehicle (car or airplane) more efficient even though they may, themselves, be counted as inefficient (draggy) things. Vortex Generators are seen on many vehicles for these reasons.

[mmred]

Vortices are very useful for helping to keep flow attached to surfaces too. Indeed, they're used in lots of ways to make the overall vehicle (car or airplane) more efficient even though they may, themselves, be counted as inefficient (draggy) things. Vortex Generators are seen on many vehicles for these reasons.

I explained to you that they ( vortexes ) are better than flow separation and than turbulent flow, we agreed on that lol.
In all those cases by the way
Those are other areas with counter pressure gradient not here where regulation zone imposes basically a zero gradient shape

Indeed in the y250 zone you have not a vortex that does that, you have just a powerful vortex because of regulations

On the external area turbulence detachment is already much controlled by the little flap regulators activators

So its power is not a benefit but a consequence of what front wing you can make thanks to the rules

It would still be better to have just those many tiny vortex generators flap actuators and no y250 like in the 2007 or before
But it's a fia vortex not an aerodynamicist one let s look back when front wing werent limited




See?
Less possible geometrical discontinuity means no y250, and bargeboards can do the same work at a cheaper price

I have to almost congratulate with myself, I am writing a thesis on F1 aero again in these posts

[OO7]

Prior to these 2019 technical regulations, I think it would've been permitted to install a fence at the y250 point, similar to (albeit is not as tall) the design on this 2016 Team Penske Indycar:


I can only assume F1 teams didn't follow that concept due to the value of the y250 vortex in controlling tyre wake.

[mmred]

Prior to these 2019 technical regulations, I think it would've been permitted to install a fence at the y250 point, similar to (albeit is not as tall) the design on this 2016 Team Penske Indycar:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d61f75 ... 0&fit=crop

I can only assume F1 teams didn't follow that concept due to the value of the y250 vortex in controlling tyre wake.

You have it backwards
That fence increases the geometrical discontinuity and therefore the vortex


But mostly it moves it higher toward the radiators ( but there it s good cause the radiators are lower )

But it s there for a cheaper mechanical support reason too: F1 is more advanced

[OO7]

The vortex is higher but also weaker I think.

[mmred]

The vortex is higher but also weaker I think.

Depends it s like the rear wing, do you remember when Renault putted this



to make the vortex softer and all the holes still are present now
A wall is not really a desired solution
That wall is made to clean the radiators

[godlameroso]

The best bit of that video is his confirming that the fiddly bits that so often get this forum excited are really just "aero porn". Sure, they do a little bit but it's just a little bit. The sort of "it helps and we can do It so let's do it" stuff rather than the "this makes the car a front runner" stuff.

Interesting that he keeps referring to the leading edge of the floor when discussing the Y250 vortex but also confirm the barge boards are directing outwards and enhancing it. How does it get to the leading edge of the floor if the barge boards are all pushing it outwards? A bit of verbal slight of hand by him, I think. I think he's made sure that the cape and associated structures aren't discussed as they would most likely be creating the floor's leading edge flow structures.

The top visible side of the bargeboards push air outwards, but also over(hence the slots on the vertical trailing section). Also shapes are 3 dimensional not 2, so they also get plenty of unobstructed flow underneath.

The result is air moves slower over and around them than the air going underneath. As we learned as wee lads, that creates low pressure, or down force.

The outer edge of the bargeboards also makes a strong vortex which merges with the one coming off the outer leading edge of the floor, especially under yaw.

In effect the bargeboards both produce meaningful downforce on their own, and the vortecies the downforce creates also help seal the floor.

Look at the slots on the footplate and the T tray device directly behind the barge boards. Why are there slots and vortex generators aiming airflow under the car? Why are the vortex generators on the underside of the floor leading edge not perfectly straight, but somewhat toe'd in? If you look at the outer edge of the floor you'll see why.



Look at the area right behind the side pod deflectors



Im dying to see what Mercedes has done here for their t tray extension.

[gandharva]

I suspect the whole assumption that a stronger y250 vortex is what you want is plain wrong.

Well, Willem Toet (professor, aerodynamics specialist and aerodynamics engineer at Benetton, Ferrari, BAR and Sauber) absolutely disagrees with you.
https://youtu.be/qXKQezyl2Oo?t=79

While you are correct with your theoretical physics pov regarding: "The best vortex is no vortex", you are wrong with your statements about Y250. E.g.:

From the y250 I can. Say they don't make it stronger (the flaps actually are shaped to make it softer ) they do guide it trough the whole car with bargeboard.
It also gets stronger cause inevitably accumulates other vortexes that prevent fwing from stalling

They want it stronger, not weaker and the other generators are there for one purpose: To retain it's strenght up until the end of the car.

The y250 doesn't even touch the car anymore after the bargeboards

Of course not, as it's used to push the tire wake away from the car.

But it is used to seal the under front with countrrrotating vortices from the inside

No. The main purpose of the counterrotating fw endplate vortex is to help the Y250 in managing tire wake outwards. The fw endplate vortex is rotating outwards and by that, the rotation pulls the tire wake away from the car.

[mmred]

I suspect the whole assumption that a stronger y250 vortex is what you want is plain wrong.

Well, Willem Toet (professor, aerodynamics specialist and aerodynamics engineer at Benetton, Ferrari, BAR and Sauber) absolutely disagrees with you.
https://youtu.be/qXKQezyl2Oo?t=79

While you are correct with your theoretical physics pov regarding: "The best vortex is no vortex", you are wrong with your statements about Y250. E.g.:

From the y250 I can. Say they don't make it stronger (the flaps actually are shaped to make it softer ) they do guide it trough the whole car with bargeboard.
It also gets stronger cause inevitably accumulates other vortexes that prevent fwing from stalling

They want it stronger, not weaker and the other generators are there for one purpose: To retain it's strenght up until the and of the car.

The y250 doesn't even touch the car anymore after the bargeboards

Of course not, as it's used to push the tire wake away from the car.

But it is used to seal the under front with countrrrotating vortices from the inside

No. The main purpose of the counterrotating fw endplate vortex is to help the Y250 in managing tire wake outwards. The fw endplate vortex is rotating outwards and by that, the rotation pulls the tire wake away from the car.

The conversation has become too long
Let s agree to disagree
Also putting two countrrrotating vortices one inside a laminar flow zone one outside is actually sealing the laminar zone

As for toet citation I obviously respect every thing he says but he is just simplifiying For TV purpose.

the thing as I explained is more complex, it has to do with rules basically opposed to a no y250 rule solution... reread above if you wanna understand why, you ll see cars 2003 -2007 that try to eliminate it, not for fun.

They do use it to expell other wakes, since it s there it's good, but bargeboards don't even better at cheaper price... More little vortexes are Better than a strong one as the same Merc bargeboard proves

[gandharva]

Sorry, you are not explaining anything more complex. You now try to make it look "complex" as you mixed up alot of things in your statements and are now backpeddling.

[mmred]

Sorry, you are not explaining anything more complex. You now try to make it look "complex" as you mixed up alot of things in your statements and are now backpeddling.

I won't even consider this insult as part of a civil conversation

I wrote 5 posts about this, the complexity is explained there, from your initial language you are not simply worth a direct answer, go find one in those 5 posts, if you don't find it it s not my business

I ll stay fine with my experience anyway

[Just_a_fan]

mmred, you haven't really explained anything - you've just said everyone is wrong and you and your professor are right.

[mmred]

mmred, you haven't really explained anything - you've just said everyone is wrong and you and your professor are right.

Too bad u join the party of not understanding

I even presented you wings in f1 where the y250 vortex was eliminated

Problem is Fia doesn't want too much efficient cars so it banned them
You still think there aren't better solutions than that vortex to get rid of other wakes?
You still think more powerful is what they want when examining the shape of the flaps they want it lower and less powerful

When I say you should examine the shape of the flaps these words have a big weight: u Need aero expertise to understand them

I can't make you a full aero course
I don't see you guys interested in the explanation

Btw of course since they have that power they use it, so I agree with toet in that.... But it s a consequence not a choice

[godlameroso]

Weak but numerous vortecies are weaker but more consistent than one strong one. So with 5 weaker vortecies you can have the strength of 2 strong ones but if you lose 1 of 5 vortex in yaw it'll make a smaller difference than if you lose 1 of 2.