Mercedes W13

[Quantum]

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

It literally forms part of the crash structure. If we extend your interpretation we may as well forget about innovation and focus on spec cars.

[AeroDynamic]

FlowViz on the front wing and frontal

[tpe]

So, it's only me that the new design of W13 reminds me the DDG1000?

[vorticism]

It's a compromised wing though. I bet they'd omit it if they could. Mirrors don't make great aero devices either, but they have to be there. They'd omit them if they could.

[Avtandil]

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

It literally forms part of the crash structure. If we extend your interpretation we may as well forget about innovation and focus on spec cars.

In your opinion yes, Show that wing like shroud to anyone and ask them if they think it the same part as the "sidepod". While the flick-ups on top of the crush structure can very much be justified as they are allowed to be there just as the crush structure, the wing behind that is attached to the front of the sidepod will not be "bodywork" for a regular observer and you know what they say: if it looks like a duck...

[mrluke]

While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.

If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

While criminal law sets the bar at beyond reasonable doubt, civil law is more likely than not. I'd argue that in F1 the rules are interpreted more in line with the former.

[wesley123]

It’s the side impact structure with some bodywork around it, not a wing. Wouldn’t that be the Merc interpretation?

This. Apart from it not even having a wing-like trailing edge on the inside of the element I doubt the element itself is the most ideal shape.

And as for the vertical elements; everyone does something similar that is clearly beyond just providing a structural connection, and iic Alpha Tauri does something very similar to Mercedes without raising eyebrows. So the complaints doesn't hold much merit.

And even if it does, they got the green light for the FIA, threw development time and funds at it, I sincerely doubt the FIA is going to back down on its words

[shamyakovic]

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

It literally forms part of the crash structure. If we extend your interpretation we may as well forget about innovation and focus on spec cars.

Agree

[Andi76]

I doubt Mercedes are showing anywhere near the real pace of the car yet, especially if their gains are as massive as reported. The teams don't want to draw attention in terms of performance yet.

I doubt any of the teams are showing the real pace of their car. The only thing you can say by now i think, is that Ferrari is the only team that does quick laps always. Does this say they are Nr. 1? I do not think so, but it i think it tells us that their car is working as intended and definetely no dog. Also that all teams now run a stiff-suspension set-up like Ferrari did already at the first minute in Barcelona suggests that Ferrari may understood these regulations better than others and is maybe really two months ahead, like Lewis said in Barcelona.

Looked like the porpoising has been fixed, just saw the car on straight and didnt seem to be doing it with the small rod attatched to the edge of the floor

Did not really look like that to me. There is still porpoising if you look closely. Timo Glock, who comments on Sky Germany also noticed that the Mercedes is still suffering more than others from porpoising.

[Avtandil]

If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

While criminal law sets the bar at beyond reasonable doubt, civil law is more likely than not. I'd argue that in F1 the rules are interpreted more in line with the former.

I wish, F1 the rules are interpreted in a very arbitrary fashion at worst and based on team/driver preference at best. So the future of the wing like element behind the crush structure is completely dependent on the political pressure other teams might be able to apply to FIA, provided they chose to do so and clout Brackley currently holds with the governing body.

[Robbo]

If you look at the last minutes of this mornings session on F1TV. You will see a few seconds showing the Mercedes sidepod. In this very short closeup of the louvres you will see that something (a fan?) is turning under the bodywork.

[Quantum]

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.

It literally forms part of the crash structure. If we extend your interpretation we may as well forget about innovation and focus on spec cars.

In your opinion yes, Show that wing like shroud to anyone and ask them if they think it the same part as the "sidepod". While the flick-ups on top of the crush structure can very much be justified as they are allowed to be there just as the crush structure, the wing behind that is attached to the front of the sidepod will not be "bodywork" for a regular observer and you know what they say: if it looks like a duck...

It's been checked by the FIA, it was developed under that premise. Elliott said there has been no issue moving forward when they went with the idea to the FIA.
The same could be said of high raked cars using the floor as a moveable aero device. Using the engine as an aerodynamic aid. Using flexing bodywork that pass tests. Using certain unprescribed methods to heat or cool down the tyres.
It literally is all about interpretation, the box method does free up more in terms of freedom of the bodywork section....as explained by the variety of different ideas we've seen already. It's just not about your interpretation.

[Marty_Y]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/what- ... n/8867699/

What the F1 regulations says about Mercedes’ sidepod solution
Mercedes raised some eyebrows on the opening day of the second pre-season Formula 1 test when it rolled out its radical new sidepod solution on the W13.

By:
Matt Somerfield
Co-author:
Giorgio Piola
Mar 10, 2022, 11:52 AM

[Postmoe]

How difficult is this to copy?

[Avtandil]

It literally forms part of the crash structure. If we extend your interpretation we may as well forget about innovation and focus on spec cars.

In your opinion yes, Show that wing like shroud to anyone and ask them if they think it the same part as the "sidepod". While the flick-ups on top of the crush structure can very much be justified as they are allowed to be there just as the crush structure, the wing behind that is attached to the front of the sidepod will not be "bodywork" for a regular observer and you know what they say: if it looks like a duck...

It's been checked by the FIA, it was developed under that premise. Elliott said there has been no issue moving forward when they went with the idea to the FIA.
The same could be said of high raked cars using the floor as a moveable aero device. Using the engine as an aerodynamic aid. Using flexing bodywork that pass tests. Using certain unprescribed methods to heat or cool down the tyres.
It literally is all about interpretation, the box method does free up more in terms of freedom of the bodywork section....as explained by the variety of different ideas we've seen already. It's just not about your interpretation.

The FIA might say one thing but when pressed and confronted by well formulated argument by some of the teams they might have to reevaluate their stance.

As for all of the previous cases a fair bit of them have been regulated out by technical directives and rule changes so who's to say this is not one of those cases? Where is the limit to using this shroud as a wing? How complicated may it get before it is outside the scope of regulations? Is there a limit at all? What if it is modified in such a way it starts creating more outwash than FIA wants the current set of rules to do? Does it become void as an innovation at that stage?