Never seen a vid from this guy before, but that was sweetPowy wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 19:365 minute analysis by "B Sport" on youtube. He thinks that Mercedes will open up the black patch that will work with an outwashing vortex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKjKH2Ymq0
Apparently not allowedPowy wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 19:365 minute analysis by "B Sport" on youtube. He thinks that Mercedes will open up the black patch that will work with an outwashing vortex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKjKH2Ymq0
Didn't look as bad as the Alpha Tauri porpoising at the end of the day.silver wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 19:20Porpoising early in the day. Quite violent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlbg_3AzSw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEBIkt1hwQ
Either its the mic location, or they are running in a low power mode. The throttle response sounds very sluggish.silver wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 19:13Mercedes lap with telemetry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE4U90IqE8g
My only take away so far is that Mercedes is doing a ton of data collection. A 23 race calendar does open up the ability to start out a bit behind and play catch up in terms of refining a package.
It was porpoising fully because Mercedes were experimenting with skid-boards on the outer edges of the floor. Thats probably what Russell's earlier comment was confirming. The ideal would be to keep the car close to the ground for maximum downforce, allow the porpoising, but mitigate any hard bouncing / damage to the car and make it comfortable for the driver I guesssilver wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 19:20Porpoising early in the day. Quite violent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlbg_3AzSw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEBIkt1hwQ
There seems to be a lot of competition politics creeping into this car thread!
The mirror mount volume regulation is similarly vague and seems to allow as many vanes to be put into that volume as the teams may wish, however dubiously such vanes may function as a "mount" for the mirror.13.5.1 (b) The two side impact structures must be fully enclosed by bodywork, and hence no
part of them should be exposed to the external air stream.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
Andrew Shovlin
Compared to Barcelona it's been harder to get the car well-balanced around the lap here. We do seem to have made a bit of progress through the day but it's always difficult to judge accurately here as the falling temperature tends to flatter everything you do later in the day. We've got quite a lot of work still to do regarding validation of the update kit and will continue the data collection programme over the next few days so it's a bit early to say whether everything is working as expected. There is certainly more to find in getting the balance right between slow and high-speed corners, and there's also a bit too much tyre overheating. So, plenty to keep us busy for the next two days but we are on a steep learning curve with the new car and tyres - we'll analyse what we have from today and hopefully make a step forward for tomorrow.
Source
I'm talking about the bargeboards and always have beenJordanMugen wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 20:37There seems to be a lot of competition politics creeping into this car thread!
NB: I don't know what I am talking about, this is really one for AeroGandalf and Vanja #66.
I guess the crux of the matter is:
1) The minimum radius rule for the sidepod bodywork does not apply to the crash structure, notwithstanding it is in the forward bodywork area which allows 25mm convex radius rather than the sidepod area? (Is that correct?) And/or the FIA do not require the crash structure to enclosed by the 'main' bodywork of the car?
2) Should the minimum radius rule apply to the crash structure, or rather did the FIA intend for it to apply?
If (2) is negative then not only is it legal, but also the FIA won't act to change the wording for 2023 and I suspect everyone will consider such a design for 2023 if this design is effective?
Regulation 13.5 about the Side Impact Structure doesn't mention anything about bodywork as far as I can tell, while the bodywork section doesn't mention anything about side impact structures... So the FIA intend for the teams to have free reign on how the SIPS are clad with bodywork? I.e., there is no rule that SIPS must be fully enclosed in what you might call the "main" bodywork however that would be defined, so Mercedes are well within their rights to clad the SIPS in bodywork of not less than 25mm convex radius which resembles a winglet?
The mirror mount volume regulation is similarly vague and seems to allow as many vanes to be put into that volume as the teams may wish, however dubiously such vanes may function as a "mount" for the mirror.
Forming the SIPS cladding and mirror mounts into a combination of winglet and turning vanes is therefore a logical outcome of the regulations. One wonders how other teams either missed it or why they decided against it!
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -02-19.pdf
