2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[SmallSoldier]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/video ... content=it

The headline is Piola: Mercedes already puts the new rules in crisis. Not directly claiming it is illegal in the headline at least but he's right, it's directly challenging what is right and wrong, and most likely revealed at this early stage to ensure they can make changes in time for the start of the season.

There is going to be a reaction to this and the reaction is likely to shape the future of this Formula.

Yes, Piola is not seeing it is illegal… But that in his opinion is going against the spirit of the rules… But, what is going against it? That they are pushing air outwards potentially with the wavy floor? Every team is doing that in one way or another… Pushing the tire wake outwards continues to be the name of the game in F1.

Furthermore, the teams have been discussing their solutions with the FIA to ensure legality, so I doubt there is anything “illegal” about it… The one thing that I find interesting is that they already brought a solution such as that one last year since testing, but they drop it with their upgrade package at Silverstone.

Well it is a blunt force bargeboard in all but name, which they are trying to move away from and everyone knows they are trying to prevent, it's not the same as using the sidepods, it sits further forward and conditions the flow lower down in exactly the area the bargeboards used to be. If it is allowed in then well done, great interpretation. I doubt other teams didn't see it but chose to not push it or to see if someone else tries it, but Mercedes rolled the dice on this one and are testing the waters nice and early.

it's no coincidence it is blunt force, it is introducing a concept and seeing how it washes, but there is no reason this area can't do a lot more and that is what would undermine the intention of the rules.

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard?

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard? When it isn’t in the bargeboard area? This is not replicating the bargeboards, if anything it replicates the flow conditioners / streaks on the floor… It isn’t doing the job the bargeboards were doing.

We will need someone way smarter than me (and knowledgeable) but I don’t even think this is to push the front wheel wake away from the car, it is simply a device to “seal the floor”… I’m sure we will see a lot of teams do this in different ways (the Alfa Romeo that was on track, was showing something of the like)

[toraabe]

What will be as important as the barge boards is the rear. How to get the outer edge of the floor as flexible as possible within the rules to make them almost touching the ground. That will be one key element to seal the tunnels.

[mwillems]

Yes, Piola is not seeing it is illegal… But that in his opinion is going against the spirit of the rules… But, what is going against it? That they are pushing air outwards potentially with the wavy floor? Every team is doing that in one way or another… Pushing the tire wake outwards continues to be the name of the game in F1.

Furthermore, the teams have been discussing their solutions with the FIA to ensure legality, so I doubt there is anything “illegal” about it… The one thing that I find interesting is that they already brought a solution such as that one last year since testing, but they drop it with their upgrade package at Silverstone.

Well it is a blunt force bargeboard in all but name, which they are trying to move away from and everyone knows they are trying to prevent, it's not the same as using the sidepods, it sits further forward and conditions the flow lower down in exactly the area the bargeboards used to be. If it is allowed in then well done, great interpretation. I doubt other teams didn't see it but chose to not push it or to see if someone else tries it, but Mercedes rolled the dice on this one and are testing the waters nice and early.

it's no coincidence it is blunt force, it is introducing a concept and seeing how it washes, but there is no reason this area can't do a lot more and that is what would undermine the intention of the rules.

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard?

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard? When it isn’t in the bargeboard area? This is not replicating the bargeboards, if anything it replicates the flow conditioners / streaks on the floor… It isn’t doing the job the bargeboards were doing.

We will need someone way smarter than me (and knowledgeable) but I don’t even think this is to push the front wheel wake away from the car, it is simply a device to “seal the floor”… I’m sure we will see a lot of teams do this in different ways (the Alfa Romeo that was on track, was showing something of the like)

It sits in front of the sidepods and comes away from the tunnels growing outwards with a flat panel that pushes air away from the sidepods. It's doing what bargeboards do in pretty much the same area, but time will tell. It may well help seal the floor but that design looks as much to shape the tunnel entrances in such a way as to direct the front wheel wash.

[Hoffman900]

Yes, Piola is not seeing it is illegal… But that in his opinion is going against the spirit of the rules… But, what is going against it? That they are pushing air outwards potentially with the wavy floor? Every team is doing that in one way or another… Pushing the tire wake outwards continues to be the name of the game in F1.

Furthermore, the teams have been discussing their solutions with the FIA to ensure legality, so I doubt there is anything “illegal” about it… The one thing that I find interesting is that they already brought a solution such as that one last year since testing, but they drop it with their upgrade package at Silverstone.

Well it is a blunt force bargeboard in all but name, which they are trying to move away from and everyone knows they are trying to prevent, it's not the same as using the sidepods, it sits further forward and conditions the flow lower down in exactly the area the bargeboards used to be. If it is allowed in then well done, great interpretation. I doubt other teams didn't see it but chose to not push it or to see if someone else tries it, but Mercedes rolled the dice on this one and are testing the waters nice and early.

it's no coincidence it is blunt force, it is introducing a concept and seeing how it washes, but there is no reason this area can't do a lot more and that is what would undermine the intention of the rules.

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard?

When is a bargeboard not a bargeboard? When it isn’t in the bargeboard area? This is not replicating the bargeboards, if anything it replicates the flow conditioners / streaks on the floor… It isn’t doing the job the bargeboards were doing.

We will need someone way smarter than me (and knowledgeable) but I don’t even think this is to push the front wheel wake away from the car, it is simply a device to “seal the floor”… I’m sure we will see a lot of teams do this in different ways (the Alfa Romeo that was on track, was showing something of the like)

I think the caveat to the rules discussion is that the FIA has allowed an opening for themselves to close what appears to be gaps in the spirit of the rules. It’s like the old NASCAR thing, “fair play, but don’t show up with this again or else”.

[mwillems]

From F1.com

"The inlet for these tunnels appears to be tiny but much higher up than on other cars we’ve seen. This combination implies a strong suction effect into that tunnel, maximising the speed of the airflow through them as well as influencing the airflow around the inlet, which will allow it to be directed either towards those channels down the side or out-washed further out."

Suggesting is is doing one or the other, sealing or pushing the out wash further away. But having looked there isn't much by way of rules of how those tunnel entrances can be developed.

Edit: In fact reading the car thread itself and it seems to a be an opinion put up by many, a floor sculptured into a sidepod.

[Big Tea]

So has George changed his number or was that a nod to Grojean?

nope, just a 63.

Or a stylised GR ?

[adrianjordan]

This was what I was referring to when I asked about George's number. That really isn't clear as a 63 if it's supposed to be!!

[adrianjordan]

So has George changed his number or was that a nod to Grojean?

nope, just a 63.

Or a stylised GR ?

On his helmet the design is basically exactly that. In fact I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that George chose 63 because it can be stylised as a looking like GR.

[SmallSoldier]

From F1.com

"The inlet for these tunnels appears to be tiny but much higher up than on other cars we’ve seen. This combination implies a strong suction effect into that tunnel, maximising the speed of the airflow through them as well as influencing the airflow around the inlet, which will allow it to be directed either towards those channels down the side or out-washed further out."

Suggesting is is doing one or the other, sealing or pushing the out wash further away. But having looked there isn't much by way of rules of how those tunnel entrances can be developed.

Edit: In fact reading the car thread itself and it seems to a be an opinion put up by many, a floor sculptured into a sidepod.

Maybe we are talking about 2 different things?

The red circle is where the bargeboards would be… The yellow circle shows where the ondulation on the floor is located… Very different locations and purpose:

[wogx]

Or a stylised GR ?

That's a stylised GR:



And that's just an 8:



Mercedes design is really bad in that case

[Big Tea]

Or a stylised GR ?

That's a stylised GR:

https://i.imgur.com/cHP01LV.jpeg

And that's just an 8:

https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... sNxS8m.jpg

Mercedes design is really bad in that case

What does the 8 represent? Are they allowed to display any number other than the driver number? (asking?)

[mwillems]

From F1.com

"The inlet for these tunnels appears to be tiny but much higher up than on other cars we’ve seen. This combination implies a strong suction effect into that tunnel, maximising the speed of the airflow through them as well as influencing the airflow around the inlet, which will allow it to be directed either towards those channels down the side or out-washed further out."

Suggesting is is doing one or the other, sealing or pushing the out wash further away. But having looked there isn't much by way of rules of how those tunnel entrances can be developed.

Edit: In fact reading the car thread itself and it seems to a be an opinion put up by many, a floor sculptured into a sidepod.

Maybe we are talking about 2 different things?

The red circle is where the bargeboards would be… The yellow circle shows where the ondulation on the floor is located… Very different locations and purpose:

https://i.imgur.com/a2BTyxi.jpg

Ahh yes we are. I'm not talking about the undulation, I'm talking about the entrances to the tunnels in red. These entrances are designed to be much larger than they need to be to get air to the floor - they are very large, are sculptured to push air away from the front wheel and are also channelling air directly to the edge of the floor through a channel running on top the central area of the tunnel entrance.

Is there a better phrase than tunnel entrance? But anyway, it's effectively doing much the same as what a bargeboard did and is to all intents and purposes now a very crude bargeboard where other teams have a much smaller turning vane. It is perfectly legal but have taken the concept further than others and I wonder where is the line that someone would step in. They were trying to prevent that outwash I think.

Were there further development here on the conditioning and direction of the flow then I'm not sure how you'd avoid calling it a bargeboard.

Teams have found different ways with the sidepods to handle that wake, Ferrari have utilised a unique design that takes the flow over a sidepod and energises it in order to avoid having to contemplate that type of solution which many felt was essentially outlawed, and can you imagine their faces when they saw this design...

[AeroDynamic]

The stylised GR is wack. He should take note from Norris’ logo.

[SmallSoldier]

From F1.com

"The inlet for these tunnels appears to be tiny but much higher up than on other cars we’ve seen. This combination implies a strong suction effect into that tunnel, maximising the speed of the airflow through them as well as influencing the airflow around the inlet, which will allow it to be directed either towards those channels down the side or out-washed further out."

Suggesting is is doing one or the other, sealing or pushing the out wash further away. But having looked there isn't much by way of rules of how those tunnel entrances can be developed.

Edit: In fact reading the car thread itself and it seems to a be an opinion put up by many, a floor sculptured into a sidepod.

Maybe we are talking about 2 different things?

The red circle is where the bargeboards would be… The yellow circle shows where the ondulation on the floor is located… Very different locations and purpose:

https://i.imgur.com/a2BTyxi.jpg

Ahh yes we are. I'm not talking about the undulation, I'm talking about the entrances to the tunnels in red. These entrances are designed to be much larger than they need to be to get air to the floor - they are very large, are sculptured to push air away from the front wheel and are also channelling air directly to the edge of the floor through a channel running on top the central area of the tunnel entrance.

Is there a better phrase than tunnel entrance? But anyway, it's effectively doing much the same as what a bargeboard did and is to all intents and purposes now a very crude bargeboard where other teams have a much smaller turning vane. It is perfectly legal but have taken the concept further than others and I wonder where is the line that someone would step in. They were trying to prevent that outwash I think.

Were there further development here on the conditioning and direction of the flow then I'm not sure how you'd avoid calling it a bargeboard.

Teams have found different ways with the sidepods to handle that wake, Ferrari have utilised a unique design that takes the flow over a sidepod and energises it in order to avoid having to contemplate that type of solution which many felt was essentially outlawed, and can you imagine their faces when they saw this design...

That makes sense! Ha… I had a feeling that we were talking about different things!

Didn’t think about the entrance to the tunnels… I’m of the thought that if it fits in within the regulations as they are written, it’s a valid solution… It’s a compromise, they are utilizing air that they could use for downforce from the tunnels to clean air going to the floor.

I’m going to have to think more about it!

[mwillems]

Maybe we are talking about 2 different things?

The red circle is where the bargeboards would be… The yellow circle shows where the ondulation on the floor is located… Very different locations and purpose:

https://i.imgur.com/a2BTyxi.jpg

Ahh yes we are. I'm not talking about the undulation, I'm talking about the entrances to the tunnels in red. These entrances are designed to be much larger than they need to be to get air to the floor - they are very large, are sculptured to push air away from the front wheel and are also channelling air directly to the edge of the floor through a channel running on top the central area of the tunnel entrance.

Is there a better phrase than tunnel entrance? But anyway, it's effectively doing much the same as what a bargeboard did and is to all intents and purposes now a very crude bargeboard where other teams have a much smaller turning vane. It is perfectly legal but have taken the concept further than others and I wonder where is the line that someone would step in. They were trying to prevent that outwash I think.

Were there further development here on the conditioning and direction of the flow then I'm not sure how you'd avoid calling it a bargeboard.

Teams have found different ways with the sidepods to handle that wake, Ferrari have utilised a unique design that takes the flow over a sidepod and energises it in order to avoid having to contemplate that type of solution which many felt was essentially outlawed, and can you imagine their faces when they saw this design...

That makes sense! Ha… I had a feeling that we were talking about different things!

Didn’t think about the entrance to the tunnels… I’m of the thought that if it fits in within the regulations as they are written, it’s a valid solution… It’s a compromise, they are utilizing air that they could use for downforce from the tunnels to clean air going to the floor.

I’m going to have to think more about it!

Yeah I sort of agree, but I don't want to see that area turn into an over developed clunky bargeboard mess again, I like these simpler designs and more fluid curves.

But speaking from a legality point of view, it's legal but Brawn made very clear that anyone found breaking the spirit of the rules would be dealt with, and agreed powers for the FIA to do so. So not really sure about it all really. I'm not sure this is enough to warrant action but if it got developed much more I think the FIA would intervene. I expect to see this design on the Mclaren and AM in the near future.