Mercedes AMG Hyper Car

[humble sabot]

@ NoDivergence
I find some of your claims contentious:

• Lots of front end downforce from the vented "hood" and front diffusers with front wheel exits.

We must have differing opinions of the term "lots". The venting is not going to add much as it's low energy flow going into a relatively high pressure area. The diffuser is very mild from all the angles available so far.

• downforce optimal 40-45% angle of attack.

40º? what is a percent angle of attack?

• Extremely large floor surface area, probably 50-60% larger than the Valkyrie.

Larger flat area maybe? It wouldn't be fair to say that the Valkyrie has any less of the underbody actually working to create downforce, the tunnels are much much deeper, and much much longer.

• I'm sure the front air intakes also help cool the hub electric motors

The motors aren't in the hubs, also, no engineer actually looking for decent track performance would do that as that increases unsprung mass by a huge margin.

• Side mirror stalks designed to keeps flow attached to the side of the canopy.

I'll buy you a beer if you can prove that. Or whatever your poison. I really doubt those stalks are in any way beneficial, what with their closely spaced chunky wing sections, I suggest they add a not insignificant amount of drag, and offer nothing aerodynamically.

• this car will be ~7-10 seconds a lap faster than cars like the P1 and 918 despite having similar power.

Around Nordshleiffe? Or Brands Hatch? That is a seriously broad claim.

• No, it's not a Valkyrie, but that car has far less compromise for the road than this car. 70% of the people buying that car will struggle to even get in

I get so tired of this. Are people too stupid to know what to do with their bodies to get into human sized spaces? Does everyone buy cars based on their plans to someday show up at an event in a kilt?

[humble sabot]

but you've got to wonder if there aren't gaps at a lot of tracks where you don't have enough charge in the tank, so to speak, to actually put that down, and you're basically just on the ICE, and pulling around dead weight.

Did you watch Le Mans this year?

[Singabule]

Valkrie only give its performance on the hand of experienced racer, meanwhile this car is a good balance between Valkrie and chiron. Their target market is the extremely rich person, not a racer. This car also provide good balance between electrical spontan accel and grunt of turbocharged engine. This car is all about feeling. Not as heavy as chiron but May offer same feeling when you push the pedal, it is not about cornering.

[FrukostScones]

those front fascia air intakes are a state of the art design fail that has spread not only at Mercedes-Benz but seems to be a contagious design fad that has infected other car brands design too.
can't stand them on any car. pure idiocy.

[Silent Storm]

those front fascia air intakes are a state of the art design fail that has spread not only at Mercedes-Benz but seems to be a contagious design fad that has infected other car brands design too.
can't stand them on any car. pure idiocy.

Agree with this. All manufactures seem be doing a similar design and now this has infected even supercars now.

[NoDivergence]

@ NoDivergence
I find some of your claims contentious:

• Lots of front end downforce from the vented "hood" and front diffusers with front wheel exits.

We must have differing opinions of the term "lots". The venting is not going to add much as it's low energy flow going into a relatively high pressure area. The diffuser is very mild from all the angles available so far.

• downforce optimal 40-45% angle of attack.

40º? what is a percent angle of attack?

• Extremely large floor surface area, probably 50-60% larger than the Valkyrie.

Larger flat area maybe? It wouldn't be fair to say that the Valkyrie has any less of the underbody actually working to create downforce, the tunnels are much much deeper, and much much longer.

• I'm sure the front air intakes also help cool the hub electric motors

The motors aren't in the hubs, also, no engineer actually looking for decent track performance would do that as that increases unsprung mass by a huge margin.

• Side mirror stalks designed to keeps flow attached to the side of the canopy.

I'll buy you a beer if you can prove that. Or whatever your poison. I really doubt those stalks are in any way beneficial, what with their closely spaced chunky wing sections, I suggest they add a not insignificant amount of drag, and offer nothing aerodynamically.

• this car will be ~7-10 seconds a lap faster than cars like the P1 and 918 despite having similar power.

Around Nordshleiffe? Or Brands Hatch? That is a seriously broad claim.

• No, it's not a Valkyrie, but that car has far less compromise for the road than this car. 70% of the people buying that car will struggle to even get in

I get so tired of this. Are people too stupid to know what to do with their bodies to get into human sized spaces? Does everyone buy cars based on their plans to someday show up at an event in a kilt?

The Toyota Mkiii Eagle made 10000 lbf of downforce with a flat floor and front and rear diffusers. The rear diffuser is a double diffuser, but three times the size of anything the 2009 F1 cars used. Current F1 cars must be idiotic to run S ducts as it generates very little downforce. This is like 10 times bigger volume of airflow. Don't know what you are talking about with the floor. The whole floor is low pressure and it's wetted area is generating downforce. All of the airflow under the floor is lower pressure than what's above the body. It's literally the reason why Mercedes went with a long wheelbase on the 2017 F1 car. Diffuser volume is what is important, not necessarily just the angle. Yeah, 40-45 degree AOA is optimum for downforce for a flap. The electric motors are not in hub, my mistake. But they are independent for each wheel, allowing electric torque vectoring. I'll offer you more than a beer that those mirrors do more than no benefit, but just adding drag. Their F1 car does have arrangements like this for the side mirror. I think on a track like Nordschleiffe, it'll be more like 20-30 seconds a lap faster. Around tighter tracks, 7 seconds.

The Valkyrie is not something you want to get in and out of often. Especially with a passenger. It's like trying to contort yourself into a large suitcase, sure it's human sized. But it's not ideal. Even the Ford GT is too tight for comfort. The Valkrie is even tighter

The distance of the Valkryie tunnel is signifcant from the ground. Downforce is a function of distance of the floor to the ground. There's no point of the Valkyrie floor that's as close as the Project One's

[wesley123]

I'm not so sure with the mirrors, they don't seem to have a surface or anything to influence. You compare it to F1 cars, where the elements do little to none and are more about bringing as little interference as possible than actually providing a positive aerodynamic effect.

[NoDivergence]

I'm not so sure with the mirrors, they don't seem to have a surface or anything to influence. You compare it to F1 cars, where the elements do little to none and are more about bringing as little interference as possible than actually providing a positive aerodynamic effect.

Mirror stalks in F1 are clearly airfoil shaped and will affect airflow with yaw angle, if not at 0 degrees AOA anyway. Ideally, you wouldn't have a huge mirror hanging off the end, but without mirrors, you'd still want aerodynamic elements there. In the case of the Project One, they are likely designed that way to manage the airflow coming out of the front venting and around the side of the cockpit

[humble sabot]

The mirrors are a red herring. They're designed that way to visually echo the F1 designs, but if you look closer I'm sure you're smart enough to see where you were wrong. You know, aside from the fact that a 40cm tall stick perpendicular to the surface in question isn't about to help flow stay attached. Those things are draggy as hell as presented. Really, look again and see how the two part stalk is made of two wing sections with relatively thick profiles in close proximity to eachother, this is a perfect example of how not to put airfoils close together.

Pure ground effect is a function both of sealing and proximity. Pure ground effect from a flat floor is also pitch sensitive (not something you want on a car for a downforce newb). It's also a matter of controlling flow. There's nothing innovative about the aero on the Project One.

And i'll continue to characterize complaints about getting into the Valkyrie as laziness.

I've selected a spot in this video where you can see exactly what i'm on about as far as the mirror stalks
https://youtu.be/_EweITyYbfA?t=319

[NoDivergence]

The mirrors are a red herring. They're designed that way to visually echo the F1 designs, but if you look closer I'm sure you're smart enough to see where you were wrong. You know, aside from the fact that a 40cm tall stick perpendicular to the surface in question isn't about to help flow stay attached. Those things are draggy as hell as presented. Really, look again and see how the two part stalk is made of two wing sections with relatively thick profiles in close proximity to eachother, this is a perfect example of how not to put airfoils close together.

Pure ground effect is a function both of sealing and proximity. Pure ground effect from a flat floor is also pitch sensitive (not something you want on a car for a downforce newb). It's also a matter of controlling flow. There's nothing innovative about the aero on the Project One.

And i'll continue to characterize complaints about getting into the Valkyrie as laziness.

I've selected a spot in this video where you can see exactly what i'm on about as far as the mirror stalks
https://youtu.be/_EweITyYbfA?t=319

I see two stalks that are high aspect ratio with twist in them and they are already at an angle of attack to the centerline of the car, inferring they actually are not purely aero neutral.

Good thing that the Mercedes F1 team with their low rake/large floor area/soft damper setup is one of the least pitch sensitive cars on the grid and that this car with very sophisticated active aero won't have many of those issues.

Yes, there is very little that is truly innovative of this car, and even of the Valkyrie. Not sure what you are getting at here. They just take the implementations of their respective aero philosophies to the road.

The Valkyrie has a sill that is like 2 feet high and 1.25 feet wide. Drivers already bitch about the 650S to the point where McLaren completely modified the chassis to reduce the width of the sill and height, and that's a car with a traditional seating position, not even a reclined one like the Project One or Valkyrie. In the Valkyrie, you pretty much have to sit on the sill and the swing your legs into the car and try not to drop onto the center divide. Or step onto your 2 million dollar car's seats and risk smashing your head on the top of the chassis

[NoDivergence]

The mirrors are a red herring. They're designed that way to visually echo the F1 designs, but if you look closer I'm sure you're smart enough to see where you were wrong. You know, aside from the fact that a 40cm tall stick perpendicular to the surface in question isn't about to help flow stay attached. Those things are draggy as hell as presented. Really, look again and see how the two part stalk is made of two wing sections with relatively thick profiles in close proximity to eachother, this is a perfect example of how not to put airfoils close together.

Pure ground effect is a function both of sealing and proximity. Pure ground effect from a flat floor is also pitch sensitive (not something you want on a car for a downforce newb). It's also a matter of controlling flow. There's nothing innovative about the aero on the Project One.

And i'll continue to characterize complaints about getting into the Valkyrie as laziness.

I've selected a spot in this video where you can see exactly what i'm on about as far as the mirror stalks
https://youtu.be/_EweITyYbfA?t=319

I see two stalks that are high aspect ratio with twist in them and they are already at an angle of attack to the centerline of the car, inferring they actually are not purely aero neutral.

Good thing that the Mercedes F1 team with their low rake/large floor area/soft damper setup is one of the least pitch sensitive cars on the grid and that this car with very sophisticated active suspension won't have many of those issues. It also has an active front splitter, active rear wing, and active wheel louvre's with which to adjust the CoP of the car

Yes, there is very little that is truly innovative of this car, and even of the Valkyrie. Not sure what you are getting at here. They just take the elevated implementations of their respective aero philosophies to the road. It's Toyota MkIII Eagle vs Allard J2X

The Valkyrie has a sill that is like 2 feet high and 1.25 feet wide. Drivers already bitch about the 650S to the point where McLaren completely modified the chassis to reduce the width of the sill and height, and that's a car with a traditional seating position, not even a reclined one like the Project One or Valkyrie. In the Valkyrie, you pretty much have to sit on the sill and the swing your legs into the car and try not to drop onto the center divide. Or step onto your 2 million dollar car's seats and risk smashing your head on the top of the chassis

[OO7]

The Toyota Mkiii Eagle made 10000 lbf of downforce with a flat floor and front and rear diffusers. The rear diffuser is a double diffuser, but three times the size of anything the 2009 F1 cars used. Current F1 cars must be idiotic to run S ducts as it generates very little downforce. This is like 10 times bigger volume of airflow. Don't know what you are talking about with the floor. The whole floor is low pressure and it's wetted area is generating downforce. All of the airflow under the floor is lower pressure than what's above the body. It's literally the reason why Mercedes went with a long wheelbase on the 2017 F1 car. Diffuser volume is what is important, not necessarily just the angle. Yeah, 40-45 degree AOA is optimum for downforce for a flap. The electric motors are not in hub, my mistake. But they are independent for each wheel, allowing electric torque vectoring. I'll offer you more than a beer that those mirrors do more than no benefit, but just adding drag. Their F1 car does have arrangements like this for the side mirror. I think on a track like Nordschleiffe, it'll be more like 20-30 seconds a lap faster. Around tighter tracks, 7 seconds.

The Valkyrie is not something you want to get in and out of often. Especially with a passenger. It's like trying to contort yourself into a large suitcase, sure it's human sized. But it's not ideal. Even the Ford GT is too tight for comfort. The Valkrie is even tighter

The distance of the Valkryie tunnel is signifcant from the ground. Downforce is a function of distance of the floor to the ground. There's no point of the Valkyrie floor that's as close as the Project One's

The Toyota Eagle MkIII had venturi tunnels that extended significantly forward of the rear wheel centreline. The leading edge of the tunnels commenced 900mm behind the rear edge of the front wheels.

I don't understand the use of a double diffuser concept (if that is what it is) for the Project One, it was a method used in F1 to circumvent the tech regs, ideally the lower deck wouldn't exist. I guess Project One could employ the double diffuser concept as a method to balance the car aerodynamically, with the leading edge of the upper deck extending very forward to provide a more front bias down force and the lower deck providing rear down force.

[SectorOne]

[wesley123]

I don't understand the use of a double diffuser concept (if that is what it is) for the Project One, it was a method used in F1 to circumvent the tech regs, ideally the lower deck wouldn't exist. I guess Project One could employ the double diffuser concept as a method to balance the car aerodynamically, with the leading edge of the upper deck extending very forward to provide a more front bias down force and the lower deck providing rear down force.

My thought is that the intake in front of the rear wheel feeds this area above the rear diffuser

[humble sabot]

That kind of makes sense, but i do highly doubt that it's in hardworking high energy flow fashion. More likely is that it's a pick up for cooling air that is vented out the engine compartment, with a little bit of brake cooling air siphoned off somewhere inside there.