Mercedes W17

[Brahmal]

The top two pictures are from different cars. Everything is different between the two.

Fixed. Article had it mislabelled.

[vorticism]

Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section.

Quick sketch.

[AR3-GP]

The gray area lies in the fact that, apparently, for totally idiotic reasons, the sensor that measures the closure doesn't do it at full closure but at an intermediate point. Reason? Who knows.

@shen_lei

If this is to be believed, then the reason that Mercedes is doing this is because they have chosen to ignore the written letter of the regulations in favor of gaming the system which detects the wing closure. What we can see that does not pass the eye test, is simultaneously passing an ill-devised sensor test.

I'm not sure I buy that it's intentional. The tracking from Australia doesn't show consistency.

[PlatinumZealot]

Ferrari is now filing protest of this "two phase" flap.

I think it's pretty much in line with my deductions. Will soon hear it explained by Sky or F1 TV soon I guess.

[Stu]

Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section.

Quick sketch.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvSnJQNv/w17FWAS2.jpg

So the ‘variable’ (and quite jerky) closing could be caused by binding (due to flex in the rest of the wing structure)? It may be a trade-off due to only having the single adjustable flap (assuming that in cornering mode they have just as much DF as anyone else); the two fixed elements will have more DF when in straight mode), the forward element being cantilevered will exert a significant twisting moment on the rear pivot alignment.

[AR3-GP]

Their flaps are shaft driven, off of the static center section.

Quick sketch.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvSnJQNv/w17FWAS2.jpg

So the ‘variable’ (and quite jerky) closing could be caused by binding (due to flex in the rest of the wing structure)? It may be a trade-off due to only having the single adjustable flap (assuming that in cornering mode they have just as much DF as anyone else); the two fixed elements will have more DF when in straight mode), the forward element being cantilevered will exert a significant twisting moment on the rear pivot alignment.

In order for the system to not close, there has to be "slip" somewhere. Either gears stripping (unlikely since it's gone on so long), or leakage from the hydrualic/pneumatic system that actuates the wing. Something has to "give" if the controller actuates the wing and it doesn't move the entire motion. No different to how wheel speed must be synced to engine RPM, otherwise the clutch has slipped or the gears have lost some teeth.

[matteosc]

https://i.postimg.cc/4NwZSkb7/image.png

It's not consistent. All entries are Russell except where Antonelli is marked because the broadcast switched to his car. So it is more likely a malfunction of some kind. Either way it is not conformant to the regulations.

If it is happening consistently for both races so far, then I doubt it is malfunctioning. May be some setting that they can activate when needed.

[SB15]

It's definitely more than 0.4s and I doubt it's a "gas leak" . The timing of the 1st stop of the front wing is the same as the time it takes to close the rear wing. Here's a video:



and gif:
https://i.postimg.cc/QCXykccX/W17-Front-Wing.gif

I figured it out after reading the regulations over a few times and really taking the wording as is.

Mercedes basically found a loophole. And it's a very clever one.

I will explain in a new thread or you guys want me to explain it here?

The issue is not the variable closing speed. The issue is the total transition time between the two fixed positions (straight mode and corner mode). There is no loophole. The limit is 400ms. Any transition that is longer than 400ms is not conformant to the regulations.

https://i.postimg.cc/j284nSP6/image.png

But it does say 2 "fixed" position. Not really clarifying "where" those 2 positions should be. So there is some sort of loophole here because of how vague the rules states. Can't really knock Mercedes for doing clever things, when a lot of teams do the same.

[johnnycesup]

But it does say 2 "fixed" position. Not really clarifying "where" those 2 positions should be. So there is some sort of loophole here because of how vague the rules states. Can't really knock Mercedes for doing clever things, when a lot of teams do the same.

Sure, but the wing was in one position for almost the entire straight, without moving. That's one position right there. The wing was in a different position for the entire corner, also without moving. That's your second position.

Any position other than those 2 can only happen in the 400ms that the regulations allow you to change from the first position to the other. Where's the loophole?

[SB15]

But it does say 2 "fixed" position. Not really clarifying "where" those 2 positions should be. So there is some sort of loophole here because of how vague the rules states. Can't really knock Mercedes for doing clever things, when a lot of teams do the same.

Sure, but the wing was in one position for almost the entire straight, without moving. That's one position right there. The wing was in a different position for the entire corner, also without moving. That's your second position.

Any position other than those 2 can only happen in the 400ms that the regulations allow you to change from the first position to the other. Where's the loophole?

There is a loophole when determining the front wing's "wing angle". If it's returning back to the position for the front wing's angle original angle before returning to the adjusted angle, you can manipulate the time in order to do so.

Let's see what the FIA thinks of this because idk if this is legal but it's very clever. I believe this is only possible for front wing's on the 2nd element, and only Aston and Mercedes has this.

[SB15]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made. Only really possible for front wings fixed on the 2nd element which operates just like the flexi-wings the last 2 years.

[AR3-GP]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made.

I don't think so. There is no "active" front wing angle adjustment. That can only be done by tool in pitlane. Wing must move between corner and straight mode in under 400ms. It is clear.

[johnnycesup]

If this is the 2nd "Fixed' position, then it looks like they can return it back slowly for any front wing adjustment they made. Only really possible for front wings fixed on the 2nd element which operates just like the flexi-wings the last 2 years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_TVXBlWEAA ... name=small

Well, if the argument is that their wing flexes vastly differently in the same corner from car to car and from lap to lap but the actual mechanism is working as per the regulations, I don't think they have much of a chance of that being ruled legal.

[PlatinumZealot]

This loophole is exactly why they choose to only actuate the upper flap! because there is more space for the dancing than if you had to move both flaps.

This is a bigger impact than the Macarena wing if you ask me.

[SiLo]

https://i.postimg.cc/4NwZSkb7/image.png

It's not consistent. All entries are Russell except where Antonelli is marked because the broadcast switched to his car. So it is more likely a malfunction of some kind. Either way it is not conformant to the regulations.

Is it possible it's linked to deployment modes and regen? I agree I think there was an issue with the wing, but I want to continue my tinfoil hat wearing a little longer.