Tag Archives: technical

Tech Highlights: Mercedes rear suspension tweaks

As part of a number of changes under the skin of the car to address the issues they faced last year, Mercedes have added an extension to the rear upright where the upper wishbone joins (here’s an image of it). In my analysis of the Mercedes W09 for Race Fans I mistakenly wrote that the rear upper wishbone design raises the rear roll centre. I must’ve messed up my sketches, as the raised position actually lowers the rear roll centre.

Lowering the rear roll centre loads up the rear tyre upon steering input, producing better traction and overall grip amongst other benefits. As with any of these things there are pros and cons of doing this but I won’t delve into them in too much detail here. This post mainly explores how Mercedes have achieved a lower rear roll centre.

If you don’t know about roll centres and other suspension related terms then I’ve got a blog post on it here.

IMG_2596

The above sketch shows how the roll centre (RC) is influenced by the angle and position of the upper and lower wishbones (apologies for the terrible image quality, if you’d like to buy a poor student a new iPhone then please let me know). RC1 is the reference suspension geometry, drawn in pencil.

RC2 (blue lines) depicts the effects of the raised upper wishbone Mercedes are utilising. As you can see the substantial height increase from the upright extension slightly lowers the RC compared to RC1.

RC3 (black lines) shows that the angle of the wishbones has a much greater influence on the RC, as the upper wishbone is kept in the same position at the upright but its angle to the horizontal has increased. In this case RC3 is higher than both RC1 and RC2.

The wishbone angle and position is limited by aerodynamic idealisations, keeping the mass of the car as low as possible and regulations. They all sort of play off eachother too, adding to the complication.

The teams often encase the lower wishbone and drive shafts into one aerodynamic fairing, preventing the effects of shaft rotation in freestream air from effecting the performance of the diffuser immediately behind (Google ‘Magnus effect’ for more on this). This limits the height at which the lower wishbone sits, so adjustments to the RC can only be achieved through the upper wishbone alignment and the centre of gravity (CoG). Lowering the RC can be done by angling the top wishbone upwards, but then the air would not pass perpendicularly over the entire structure and the inboard bodywork would have to be raised to cover it. This would be detrimental to the airflow over the car and also induce unwanted lift (i.e. increased drag). Aerodynamics govern the majority of the car’s performance, so we are therefore left with raising the upper wishbone to achieve the desired lower RC.

Lowering the CoG is also critical to car performance. The gearbox hosts the rear suspension mounts: machined aluminium clevises that transfer load through to, in most cases, a carbon case. With strength often comes added weight, so ideally the wishbones should be mounted as low as possible while achieving the designed suspension characteristics. It is for this reason that we have seen the likes of Williams’s impressively low gearbox case in 2011.

Finally, the location of the single exhaust exit is regulated and limits what can be done with the upper wishbone’s position. The exhaust passes over the mounting point of the trailing arm of the wishbone, but with the mounting point so high Mercedes have had to weld in a bridged section to the pipe to do so. Both aerodynamics and CoG play roles here too, as the mass of the pipe should be kept as low as possible while controlling the exhaust plume’s position and interaction with the surrounding surfaces.

Advertisements

Why Technical Reliability Holds Key to 2017 Formula One Championship

By Ben Woods

The 2017 Formula One season promises to deliver one of the closest races in the battle for the Constructors’ Championship in the last five years.

The dominance of Mercedes in recent history has seen the title become a one-sided affair, with the team winning the crown for the past three seasons on the bounce. However, the rise of Ferrari this term has provided competition at the top, with Sebastian Vettel challenging Lewis Hamilton in the Drivers’ Championship.

Due to the performances of the German and team-mate Kimi Raikkonen, the Italian outfit have pressed Mercedes at the top of the Constructors’ Championship, and are now down to 10/3 in the F1 betting to secure the crown this season, which may represent good value when used in conjunction with bookmakers’ £50 free bet offers. The quality of the teams and drivers involved will ensure that the battle will go down to the wire.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the race for both awards will be the reliability of the vehicles, which has already played a significant role thus far. Continue reading

Tech Highlights: Mercedes/Red Bull ‘energy recovery’ suspension

If you haven’t heard already, F1 is set to ban the hydraulic heave springs that many teams (notably Mercedes) have been playing with over the past 12-15 months. Although it is not an official ban as yet, a technical directive has been issued to the teams addressing the claims that Ferrari raised in a recent letter to the FIA. Ferrari claims that the component can be classed under the ‘moveable aerodynamics’ catch-all phrase in the regulations, and although it has been discussed in great length over the year it is only now that the Scuderia have chosen to make a formal move against the competition. In this blog post we will aim to cover what the hydraulic heave element does and why a ban at this stage of the 2017 developments could have an impact on the pecking order. Continue reading

Tech Highlights: Mercedes S-duct

One of the key design features of this year’s Mercedes W07 is the introduction of an S-duct. The S-duct was first seen in 2012, with Sauber using it as a way to manage airflow over the stepped nose. The idea was that airflow would be less likely to detach from the chassis if air was introduced behind the step. This was done by channeling airflow from underneath the car to a vent exiting backwards above the front bulkhead via an s-shaped duct in the nosebox, hence the term S-duct.

Continue reading

Tech Analysis of ALL 2016 cars!

As you may (or may not) know, all of my technical analysis pieces for the 2016 F1 cars are up on F1 Fanatic this year. However I’ve made it really easy for you to find your favourite car/team by linking them all in this post! So here you are – enjoy!

  • Mercedes W07 – Can the World Champions continue their winning streak?
  • Ferrari SF16-H – Ferrari’s bold winter strategy could bring them a step closer to the Mercs
  • Williams FW38 – The FW38 is arguably the most important car for Williams in a long time
  • Red Bull RB12 – 2016 may be a stop-gap for the Bulls, but don’t discount them for a podium
  • Force India VJM09 – Will Force India be able to keep pace with the bigger budget teams?
  • Renault R.S.16 – It’s Renault’s first year back as a Constructor, so how will the R.S.16 fare?
  • Toro Rosso STR11 – Arguably the boldest car on the grid, Toro Rosso mean business in 2016
  • Sauber C35 – Sauber have their eyes on 2017, but the C35 is nonetheless a solid evolution
  • McLaren MP4-31 – Time to step up, McLaren, and the new car shows it
  • Manor Racing MRT05 – Now with Mercedes propulsion, can Manor fight for points?
  • Haas VF-16 – Debutants Haas have gone down the listed parts strategy. And it could work!

Note: This post will be updated as the articles are released.

Analysis: Will 2016 exhausts be louder?

Originally published on Richland F1

On the very first test outing of the current generation V6 turbo hybrid power units back in February 2014, photographers and journalists got their first taste of the sound of the future of F1. Needless to say, the paddock was split. They are far from the screaming naturally aspirated engines of the past but do arguably offer a much deeper and richer blend of tones, albeit at a substantially lower volume.

There have been complaints from a lot of fans about the lack of decibels over the past year and a half, which is why the FIA have decided to take action ahead of the 2016 season. This involves splitting the wastegate and engine exhaust gases into two separate systems.

At the moment, the exhaust gases from the engine (via the turbocharger) and from the wastegate system all exit through a single exit pipe at the back of the car. The single exhaust pipe layout allows the wastegate gases to escape the bodywork cleanly and prevent internal overheating although this does slightly hinder the overall volume of the exhaust tone.

For 2016 the FIA have decided to divide the ICE and wastegate gases into two sets of pipework, whereby the teams must retain the single, large exhaust exit for the former and up to two smaller outlets – straddling either side the central exit – for the latter. The motorsport governing body think that by splitting the two systems the engine sound will be louder than before, although it is actually more likely to change its tone. Regardless of whether it works or not, at least we won’t be seeing the ‘trumpet’ exhaust tested last year!

Another interesting topic that has emerged from the regulation change is whether it will have any aerodynamic benefits. We have witnessed the power of exhaust gases when it comes to generating downforce when Red Bull pioneered the EBD (exhaust blown diffuser), but will we something similar next year? Continue reading