Rumoured rear wing which should shed some of the drag
Definitely Mclaren 2009!Spoutnik wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 10:49We don’t know for sure, but I don’t think there is any example of a single in-season update bringing over 1s of relative lap time gain in the last 20+ years, let alone 2.5scontinuum16 wrote: ↑04 Apr 2022, 17:23
Maybe it did in the simulator but they can't extract all of it right now because of the bouncing/porpoising, how do you know that a fix isn't coming and they gain 2.5s/lap?
I’d be interested to know what the most effective mid-season update (not a new car) has been since 2000… 2015 Force India? McLaren in 2009? Genuinely curious. Maybe a different thread?
atanatizante wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 10:33On the same note of porpoising issue, "(Mark) Hughes spoke to several aerodynamics specialists who tell you that any porpoising problem they ever encountered was solved by either restricting the venturi inlet or expanding its outlet. Surrendering some theoretical downforce that’s forever inaccessible for some real-world downforce."
Source: https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/107731/m ... oblem.html
Bumps on the track and the suspension get it started, and then once it gets going the floor aero keeps it going!
That ought to be fairly straight forward to solve, if it's that simple. Just reduce the inlet size by dropping the height of the floor front edge (with appropriate contouring of the underside, of course). Or adopt a RB18-style beam wing design to effectively extend the diffuser and thus expand the outlet.atanatizante wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 10:33On the same note of porpoising issue, "(Mark) Hughes spoke to several aerodynamics specialists who tell you that any porpoising problem they ever encountered was solved by either restricting the venturi inlet or expanding its outlet. Surrendering some theoretical downforce that’s forever inaccessible for some real-world downforce."
Source: https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/107731/m ... oblem.html
I would be surprised if Mercedes managed to lob off a chunk of drag from such a simple component like a rear wing, without also losing a proportionate amount of downforce from the wing itself.Mchamilton wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:11Could very well help with laptime if the wing is more efficient. the team wouldnt bother if there wasnt a laptime improvement in it
Yeah wing design is very mature yet RB and merc have gone completely opposite directions. When you look at the main plane and flap chord length, merc have a tiny flap in comparison. I dont know which would be more draggy when drs is closed but merc surely maintain higher drag and df when its open with the extra size of the mainplaneAR3-GP wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 18:33I would be surprised if Mercedes managed to lob off a chunk of drag from such a simple component like a rear wing, without also losing a proportionate amount of downforce from the wing itself.Mchamilton wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:11Could very well help with laptime if the wing is more efficient. the team wouldnt bother if there wasnt a laptime improvement in it
Wing design is very mature. It's rare to see a team using what is viewed as an "inefficient" wing for the amount of downforce it generates but I maybe Merc thought their PU could get away with it and now realized they need that last bit of efficiency optimization?
The problem, in Mercedes case is, even they are not clear what's causing it or what is making it worse! I doubt anyone outside of the team can even put a finger on the problem. To then say, they have most downforce of any team and that's why they have the problem, makes no sense. What we have seen being explained by various pundits is a simple conjecture of what they think is happening, which is that there is suction (from downforce) under the floor that pulls the car down and then there is stall, which releases the downforce and pushes the car back. Problem is, it's such a simple explanation of such a complex problem. I don't think anyone outside of the team knows where the problem exactly is. I would refrain from making conjectures of the problem and then use that as a reason to big up the team.
Never heard him say this!silver wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 07:20James Allison says it's not the aero which is responsible for porpoising. Your reasoning of porpoising occuring due to most downforce of any team appears to be not aligning there. Most cars have faced the porpoising problems, including Alpha Tauri and Ferrari, who in terms of performance are at two different ends of that spectrum and adopt a compromise to get away from the problem. Ferrari, even with a compromise, is fighting at the front. I am sure every other team is looking at solutions for porpoising that can then allow them to run the car lowest possible to gain further downforce. Mercedes is not alone in that regard.zibby43 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 06:22They didn't say it didn't deliver in the context of missing performance targets, but in rectifying the porpoising.
One thing that is widely accepted from aero experts is that the extreme porpoising is likely partially a consequence of having the most downforce of any team. If they can start to use that downforce efficiently, without jacking up the rear of the car and having to rely on the inefficient wing surfaces, they're going to gain a chunk of laptime.
I think you've misunderstood my post.Mchamilton wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 18:58Yeah wing design is very mature yet RB and merc have gone completely opposite directions. When you look at the main plane and flap chord length, merc have a tiny flap in comparison. I dont know which would be more draggy when drs is closed but merc surely maintain higher drag and df when its open with the extra size of the mainplaneAR3-GP wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 18:33I would be surprised if Mercedes managed to lob off a chunk of drag from such a simple component like a rear wing, without also losing a proportionate amount of downforce from the wing itself.Mchamilton wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:11
Could very well help with laptime if the wing is more efficient. the team wouldnt bother if there wasnt a laptime improvement in it
Wing design is very mature. It's rare to see a team using what is viewed as an "inefficient" wing for the amount of downforce it generates but I maybe Merc thought their PU could get away with it and now realized they need that last bit of efficiency optimization?
what you are describing is a choked diffusor. The solution lies in a new underbody with new inlet and diffusor. This is going to take some time to correct and fabricate. There is also likely a correlation issue between their CFD and windtunnel which may not be calibrated correctly. We saw they started to have aero issues the start of 2020 already even in that year they referred to their car as a Diva. The W12 was a carry over and carried some of those issues from 2020 into 2021. Now the W13 is looking difficult. This is not a one-off problem. There's something else going on back at the factory that's translating into these challengessilver wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 19:07The problem, in Mercedes case is, even they are not clear what's causing it or what is making it worse! I doubt anyone outside of the team can even put a finger on the problem. To then say, they have most downforce of any team and that's why they have the problem, makes no sense. What we have seen being explained by various pundits is a simple conjecture of what they think is happening, which is that there is suction (from downforce) under the floor that pulls the car down and then there is stall, which releases the downforce and pushes the car back. Problem is, it's such a simple explanation of such a complex problem. I don't think anyone outside of the team knows where the problem exactly is. I would refrain from making conjectures of the problem and then use that as a reason to big up the team.