Mercedes W13

[Just_a_fan]

W13 istn't working at all at the moment. Massive porpoising on the straight even with DRS open and also lots of problems during coernering. Hamilton had to abondon his pushlap due to all this problems.

They were trying different ride heights to see what they could get away with. A number of part run laps with changes in between and then a run of several laps with no apparent porpoising.

It's testing and they are, er, testing the car's set up.

[Just_a_fan]

And Ross works for F1 not FIA so he has NO weight when he says that. FIA are the regulators of the sport and are the ones that make the decisions on legality. So nothing can be said right now. But so far I haven't really seen anything about what could be deemed illegal? The aero parts of the mirror mounts?

but what can be said is the FIA have obvously said its ok, otherwise Mercedes wouldnt be here testing it.

they can test whatever they want. the car does not have to be legal to be allowed to get tested.

They aren't going to turn up with all of this without first having ensured, so far as they can, that it's legal. The FIA have all of the teams' designs and will they will have had lots of "we're thinking of doing this, what do you think?" type chats.

[krmx37]

but what can be said is the FIA have obvously said its ok, otherwise Mercedes wouldnt be here testing it.

they can test whatever they want. the car does not have to be legal to be allowed to get tested.

They aren't going to turn up with all of this without first having ensured, so far as they can, that it's legal. The FIA have all of the teams' designs and will they will have had lots of "we're thinking of doing this, what do you think?" type chats.

yeah of course, but the fact that they are testing does not mean, that it is legal. what u are sayin is, that everything we have ever seen during a test or practice would be legal, which clearly isnt the case.

[Marty_Y]

Andrew Priestley: It’s clear that the new Mercedes sidepod design is a game-changer in terms of aesthetics, but it will be very interesting to see if that translates into lap time. The F1 grid is a copycat environment, so expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon if an advantage is seen.

'We did not anticipate the Mercedes concept'

Andrew Benson

BBC Sport’s chief F1 writer

So, this Red Bull/Mercedes thing has all got a bit tasty this morning, hasn’t it? But let’s step back a bit. Ross Brawn, F1’s managing director, has told F1 TV: “There are some very extreme interpretations of the regulations which could lead to a lot of debate. We did not anticipate the Mercedes concept.” Brawn has been at pains to say in the lead-up to the new regulations being introduced this season that F1 is trying to stay on top of all the designs and ensure they do not take the cars too far away from the intent of the regulations.

Brawn has also been making a lot of the new voting structure around rule changes, which no longer out-laws changes within a season. So it’s possible that all this is the precursor of an attempt to get the Mercedes out-lawed. Red Bull have the option to protest at a race, which would leave it up to the stewards to decide.

But if Brawn feels the car is a step too far, he could try to use the rules to torpedo it. Changes within a season need eight out of the 10 teams to agree as well as F1 and the FIA for them to be introduced. This is likely to run for a while.

BBC Sport understands the FIA has looked at the Mercedes design and given it the all-clear. And it seems the FIA has also run it in CFD analysis and found it did not worsen the car’s wake - which is Brawn’s key concern with the regs, in terms of disrupting airflow for following cars.

[vorticism]

Undercutless. Most of the inlet air drawn from a lower Z height. The assumption for a while was the sidepod inlets should be higher to get better, 'cleaner' or faster flowing air.

Note the widest point of the floor is fairly far forward. This dimension varies per team/car. That said, the camber of thees undercutless pods don't seem to be as suited to pushing air outboard.

If the side impact structure wasn't required, do you think they'd still put a wing in that area? Or is it just making the best of a compromise?

[AeroDynamic]

So the extreme interpretation is arguably not undermining the spirit of the regs as far as the wake profile is concerned.

But teams will none the less look for angles to argue that the car's design undermines the spirit of the technical guidelines

[Just_a_fan]

they can test whatever they want. the car does not have to be legal to be allowed to get tested.

They aren't going to turn up with all of this without first having ensured, so far as they can, that it's legal. The FIA have all of the teams' designs and will they will have had lots of "we're thinking of doing this, what do you think?" type chats.

yeah of course, but the fact that they are testing does not mean, that it is legal. what u are sayin is, that everything we have ever seen during a test or practice would be legal, which clearly isnt the case.

In times of budget limits, the teams will want to be pretty sure they are testing legal stuff. What would be the point in testing an illegal design these days? They'd have to waste money making it knowing that it can't be used.

[NathanOlder]

And Ross works for F1 not FIA so he has NO weight when he says that. FIA are the regulators of the sport and are the ones that make the decisions on legality. So nothing can be said right now. But so far I haven't really seen anything about what could be deemed illegal? The aero parts of the mirror mounts?

but what can be said is the FIA have obvously said its ok, otherwise Mercedes wouldnt be here testing it.

they can test whatever they want. the car does not have to be legal to be allowed to get tested.

yes but the point is, Mercedes would have asked for clarification on the legality of their car before spending all the money designing and maufacturing the car. Its been checked by the FIA before today , and obviously the FIA said its ok up to this point.

[AeroDynamic]

[Marty_Y]

Personally I think it looks really good, let's hope it's fast as well as aesthetically pleasing.

[mwillems]

And Ross works for F1 not FIA so he has NO weight when he says that. FIA are the regulators of the sport and are the ones that make the decisions on legality. So nothing can be said right now. But so far I haven't really seen anything about what could be deemed illegal? The aero parts of the mirror mounts?

but what can be said is the FIA have obvously said its ok, otherwise Mercedes wouldnt be here testing it.

Well FIA/F1 isn't that simple though. They can say whatever they want but once a protest is sent then the decision is taken. But yeah I agree. But still I don't even understand what would could be illegal about it? Don't think there is any worries as Mercedes at all.

More that the spirit of the rules wants to prevent too much dirty air pushed behind and bargeboards were limited as they were a prime culprit. So to see bargeboards v2 raises potential questions about how much is too much.

Is there a too much? Have Mercedes already asked the FIA about where the line might be drawn? Do the FIA even care?

I think they will see the racing first and decide later if clarification is required!

[Marty_Y]

but what can be said is the FIA have obvously said its ok, otherwise Mercedes wouldnt be here testing it.

Well FIA/F1 isn't that simple though. They can say whatever they want but once a protest is sent then the decision is taken. But yeah I agree. But still I don't even understand what would could be illegal about it? Don't think there is any worries as Mercedes at all.

More that the spirit of the rules wants to prevent too much dirty air pushed behind and bargeboards were limited as they were a prime culprit. So to see bargeboards v2 raises potential questions about how much is too much.

Is there a too much? Have Mercedes already asked the FIA about where the line might be drawn? Do the FIA even care?

I think they will see the racing first and decide later if clarification is required!

'We did not anticipate the Mercedes concept'

Andrew Benson

BBC Sport’s chief F1 writer

So, this Red Bull/Mercedes thing has all got a bit tasty this morning, hasn’t it? But let’s step back a bit. Ross Brawn, F1’s managing director, has told F1 TV: “There are some very extreme interpretations of the regulations which could lead to a lot of debate. We did not anticipate the Mercedes concept.” Brawn has been at pains to say in the lead-up to the new regulations being introduced this season that F1 is trying to stay on top of all the designs and ensure they do not take the cars too far away from the intent of the regulations.

Brawn has also been making a lot of the new voting structure around rule changes, which no longer out-laws changes within a season. So it’s possible that all this is the precursor of an attempt to get the Mercedes out-lawed. Red Bull have the option to protest at a race, which would leave it up to the stewards to decide.

But if Brawn feels the car is a step too far, he could try to use the rules to torpedo it. Changes within a season need eight out of the 10 teams to agree as well as F1 and the FIA for them to be introduced. This is likely to run for a while.

BBC Sport understands the FIA has looked at the Mercedes design and given it the all-clear. And it seems the FIA has also run it in CFD analysis and found it did not worsen the car’s wake - which is Brawn’s key concern with the regs, in terms of disrupting airflow for following cars.

[krmx37]

They aren't going to turn up with all of this without first having ensured, so far as they can, that it's legal. The FIA have all of the teams' designs and will they will have had lots of "we're thinking of doing this, what do you think?" type chats.

yeah of course, but the fact that they are testing does not mean, that it is legal. what u are sayin is, that everything we have ever seen during a test or practice would be legal, which clearly isnt the case.

In times of budget limits, the teams will want to be pretty sure they are testing legal stuff. What would be the point in testing an illegal design these days? They'd have to waste money making it knowing that it can't be used.

well, what was the point of the first car in Spain then? perhaps Plan A and Plan B ? Who knows.

[AeroDynamic]

[Avtandil]

Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.