Ok so I had questions like many about the legality of the new @MercedesAMGF1#W14b spec floor winglet. With the help of some friends, I did a bit of digging into the regulations to understand this better. A 🧵@Formula_Nerds@AlbertFabrega
The regulation boxes are sometimes super confusing so it's best to start with an overview of them. The below link is a good place to start to understand the regulation boxes where engineers can design within. Each reg box is controlled differently. 🧵racecar-engineering.com/articles/tech-…
So after looking at the reg boxes, these aero features can only be in these potential volumes, Front Chassis, Mid Chassis, Floor body, Floor fence, or Rear Body Work Sidepod. So now lets eliminate them 1 by 1. First it can't be fence, because these aren't floor fences 🧵
It can't be floor body, because surely they have maximized the regulation volume for the floor and did not sacrifice this critical area for a few flick-ups. And the canard is no way in this volume. So what about RBW SidePod? 🧵
Looking at the regulations, it would have to be pretty far outboard to be in the sidepod volume, and this is a heavily regulated region as well. Heavy radius regulations that these would violate. So couldn't be this. 🧵
Only thing left is the Front and Mid chassis volumes. Looking in Issue 6 of the 2023 technical regulations, you can see there are some convexity and concavity controls in the forward chassis, but in the mid? Virtually nothing! It just has to fit in the reg box!
So asking around, it seems that this is the same regulation box that is allowing teams to use winglets around the cockpit to manage cockpit losses. So pretty much anything is fair game as long as it fits in the regulation box. So how do these on the Merc fit? 🧵
Well, if you were to sacrifice a bit of your chassis front and mid volumes to create a slim no-pod type design, then you would be left with some volume to create canards and winglets! It's an open reg box to include these features, and this is how I believe these are legal. 🧵
The only downside, is that you can't extend these further out and away from the body towards the floor edge. You can see this when you observe just how close the winglet is to the chassis bodywork. 🧵
So according to my review, this new winglet, like the canard, is legal. How much they help, is unknown to anyone who doesn't have the CFD. But there must be some gains for them to have them there. Thanks to my "nameless" helpers, and I hope you enjoyed this explainer thread!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
*RB have gotten on top of the tyre "switch on" issues they had in AP
*More freedom than thought in these regulations
*Ferrari concept broadly similar to RB
*Never clear on what the potential of a concept is initially
*RB19 evolution of RB18
*CFD now gives engineers better understanding of flow details on a car
*RB team minimizes meetings and encourages communication in flat organization
*Focus on creating a culture of innovation
*overall complexity of packaging components in current F1 cars is driving larger cars
*Choice for pullrod front and pushrod rear suspensions made for aerodynamic reasons
*Without regulations, F1 cars would be ridiculously fast. (@NaturalParadigm)
*Engineers can create race cars where tyres can't handle the loads
There is this narrative going around that Checo wasn't informed enough of what Verstappen was doing, so let's dive into it and see what's what. Lap 21 Checo Pits for Hard Tyres. HB tells him on exit MV's last time on hard tyres "32.2." Lap 22 a few minor setting changes 🧵
Lap 22 SP 1.31.5, MV1.32.27. Checo asks HB on lap 23, what is MV's last lap?" HB tells him "Max was a 32.2." Lap 24 HB comes on the radio and tells SP "Max a 31.9." Checo did a 31.86 on lap 23. 🧵
Lap 24 HB asks about balance on the hard. Lap 25 HB tells Checo "Max that time a 32.1, gap 17 seconds." SP does a 31.4 on lap 24. Lap 26 HB tells SP "31.9 for Max, gap 16.6." SP did a 31.4 on lap 25. 🧵
-Rubbered in racing line side (P1 & behind) should be grippier than the other
-Alonso had the inside of T1 if he can launch well
-Perez should be ahead after short run to T1, but launch will be everything.. (cont)
-KMag at P4, a bit high, but has some real pace this weekend
-Gasley could pip KMag early, and develop a bit of a train behind him
-Russel on the slippery side needs to watch out for Leclerc who is faster.
-Both CL and MV need good starts. Could jump a place each right off…
-Drivers complained of the grip off the racing line. Passing most probable between T10-11, and T16-17.
-Tyre degradation looks better? Multiple runs on soft could mean the surface is deg friendly. 1 stop prob
-Alonso is a master at keeping position. Will be a menace. 😈…
@KyleEngineers was the first I saw to mention that this decoupled underbite scoop could be “tuned” for specific conditions in the future, and I think that’s exactly what RB have done here. Cont..
The leading edge has been raised to potentially allow you to pressurize the undercut more for better mid wake control.
With the underbite, a raised LE doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing cooling either, as you still have upper intake pulled back to pull in mass flow. Cont..
With better mid wake control from the higher LE, it’s possible the change to the outboard edge may be to soften the curl and reduce outwash that is no longer needed. Possibly some small gains that could help reduce overall drag in this region.
Good shot of the @ScuderiaFerrari double mouse hole. @KyleEngineers did a good video on how this might work to cast smaller discrete vorticity into the diffuser edge to help clean up the edge flow. Tom Talks also did a good video on this. I will link both below ⬇️
Here is the reference for the video from @KyleEngineers explaining this. Typically, smaller more discrete vortices are less prone to burst when they experience an adverse pressure gradient having their axial velocity reduced.
The video from talk talks linked here showing how the mouse hole helps to manage any vortex burst in the diffuser that would reduce your effective volume for expansion.
You can NOT seal a ground effect floor with vortices. Without sliding skirts, you WILL get inflow.
So there is no such thing as floor sealing vortices. There are, however, ways to use this inflow to your advantage.
Rear floor edge structures are created to bring some inflow vorticity into the rear floor to help stabilize and clean up the diffuser. So what can these pronounced forward edge structures do?
CFD from Latios (F1Technical)
In this study by JJN and Vyssion, these edge structures can be seen to help bring some edge load (suction) where it may not be otherwise. The core of a vortex is low pressure, so these edge vortices help with overall floor downforce.