The teams won't start working on the 2023 cars before they have analysed their 2022 cars properly. First design concept work usually starts in April.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
RB's design inolves a huge undercut(Same with Alpine and Aston, Alpha a midway) which means the lower SIPS(Side impact protection structure) had to withstand a whole lot of pressure due to it being molded into the floor and Floor only (the side pods have two SIPS structures if you did'nt know, one upper and one lower) Mercedes can't copy RB/Aston's design as their lower SIPS will struggle to pass the crash test as Mercedes Lower SIPS is stengthened using the lower part of the "zero" side pods. RB can't copy Mercedes as well due to difference in radiator packaging placed far back(not easy to move it forwards as it will intefere with SIPS). Ferrari & Haas can easily copy both teams as their radiators are modular (you will have to google F1-75 Radiators for more). In Retrospect, Mercedes Design is the exact opposite extreme of Aston Martin/RB.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 18:32Look at the exposed internals of the W13 and the F1-75. Ferrari can't just put some different panels on and mimic the Mercedes style of sidepod. They would also have to carry out a wholesale change in their radiator design and cooling philosophy. Other teams will not be as extreme a change as Ferrari, but even Red Bull will need to change radiator designs to go down a W13-style route.vorticism wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 17:24Maybe. Different engine cover shapes will be available to any team. They could build them straight down to the floor like this W13, it just requires lots of new panels.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 16:31
This.
Doing what they did gives them a lot of options when the sidepods are essentially just body work.
Conversely, Mercedes can just bolt on some Ferrari or RedBull style sidepods with no internal changes other than maybe a few bits of CF to carry the panels. Dead easy for them to change philosophy.
It’s were the lap time receiver/transponder is located according to Scarbs.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 18:17That black patch at the base of the side pod is just too suspiscious!
Could be an optically transparent window for a tyre temperature sensor...
The two designs might have the same total drag, of course. The device around the lateral crash structure is likely to be draggy, for example, so the total bodywork drag might end up being the same.
I think the appetite to penalize Mercedes for anything, particularly from a complaint from Red Bull will go on deaf ears for a while, regardless of validity of said complaint.Marty_Y wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 12:49mwillems wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 12:46More 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.
The SIPS are standard parts. Their strength and efficacy is effectively independent of the surrounding bodywork. It's more about how they integrate into the tub that determines how well they fare in the crash tests.RB's design inolves a huge undercut(Same with Alpine and Aston, Alpha a midway) which means the lower SIPS(Side impact protection structure) had to withstand a whole lot of pressure due to it being molded into the floor and Floor only (the side pods have two SIPS structures if you did'nt know, one upper and one lower) Mercedes can't copy RB/Aston's design as their lower SIPS will struggle to pass the crash test as Mercedes Lower SIPS is stengthened using the lower part of the "zero" side pods. RB can't copy Mercedes as well due to difference in radiator packaging placed far back(not easy to move it forwards as it will intefere with SIPS). Ferrari & Haas can easily copy both teams as their radiators are modular (you will have to google F1-75 Radiators for more). In Retrospect, Mercedes Design is the exact opposite extreme of Aston Martin/RB.
For me it looks like there are decent benefits with these new nano-pods over launch design to leave it unused anywhere, even if total drag might be slightly lower or the same. Loads more air going to the beam wing and above diffuser, making the floor work better. Can't see why Merc would give that up anywhere...
Mercedes were quoted that the new Bahrain spec is just bodywork and no real internal new stuff.....so air where there was wider bodywork than before.
The sidepods are just thin bodywork with only sufficient strength to support their weight and the expected aero loads. They're not strong enough to reinforce the crash structure. The crash structure is a mandated cone type design which the teams just have to enclose in some bodywork.Ashwinv16 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 18:59RB's design inolves a huge undercut(Same with Alpine and Aston, Alpha a midway) which means the lower SIPS(Side impact protection structure) had to withstand a whole lot of pressure due to it being molded into the floor and Floor only (the side pods have two SIPS structures if you did'nt know, one upper and one lower) Mercedes can't copy RB/Aston's design as their lower SIPS will struggle to pass the crash test as Mercedes Lower SIPS is stengthened using the lower part of the "zero" side pods. RB can't copy Mercedes as well due to difference in radiator packaging placed far back(not easy to move it forwards as it will intefere with SIPS). Ferrari & Haas can easily copy both teams as their radiators are modular (you will have to google F1-75 Radiators for more). In Retrospect, Mercedes Design is the exact opposite extreme of Aston Martin/RB.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 18:32Look at the exposed internals of the W13 and the F1-75. Ferrari can't just put some different panels on and mimic the Mercedes style of sidepod. They would also have to carry out a wholesale change in their radiator design and cooling philosophy. Other teams will not be as extreme a change as Ferrari, but even Red Bull will need to change radiator designs to go down a W13-style route.
Conversely, Mercedes can just bolt on some Ferrari or RedBull style sidepods with no internal changes other than maybe a few bits of CF to carry the panels. Dead easy for them to change philosophy.
