Mercedes W13

[hollus]

The last 6 pages contained a majority of posts for the team thread.
Simple rule: if the post is not about a PHYSICAL piece of the car, of probably does not belong in the car thread, but in the team thread.
And if you are simply responding off topic to an off topic post, you are contributing to the problem. No, you would not like this forum if all posts were off topic, would you? Sorry to get patronizing, but trying to keep the forum attractive for everyone is exhausting for the mods. The average posted has to help. And many are not. (And apologies for the rant to all those making the effort to check what they are posting where).

Moving posts from the last 6 pages now...

The Mercedes team thread is over here viewtopic.php?t=30143

[Andi76]

The mini pods are the problem because they don't give enough support to the floor and because of this the floor is flexing and fluttering causing aero problems even in the corners. Just my humble opinion.

I believe the same thing. How this can be solved -if it can be solved- is another question. I believe we saw that for a very small window the concept can be really fast and competitive, but the boundaries of this window are so small it is very difficult to setup the car properly for a full race.
In a budget restricted era, you need all the assistance you can get from low cost solutions like CFD and wind tunnel. I believe they made the strategic decision that for the longer term, it makes sense to spend more money there (which will probably have a higher added value) that bring new pieces in a "trial and error" fashion at every race to test at the track.
The package as it is requires a very advanced suspension and I believe this is the reason Russel called for active suspension a few races back. Mercedes can probably get it to work optimally in specific conditions only with each suspension setup, something that an active suspension could fix.
Let's see the new floor (or floors) they test out in Barcelona. If they fail to become competitive, I believe they will make the decision to be third in the constructors and try to optimize their CFD and wind tunnel, improve correlation and have much better tools ready for the coming years, testing more extreme solutions whenever possible.

Even if some people still do not want to even consider it - its highly likely that the sidepods are a big part of the problem. It is a fact that flexing of the floor is one of the main contributors to porpoising. And of course a floor with so much free space is more prone to flexing. But as these sidepods are a major part of the aero-concept, with trade-offs in the airflow to the rear-wing and the beamwing, its not as easy as it may seems to just put bigger sidepods on the car. The gains they make in one area means losses in another area. Thats, in my opinion, also the reason why it is so hard for Mercedes to find a proper solution, as there probably is no none. Mercedes still claims that this sidepod concept has superior downforce. Personally i doubt this, because the concept "drives" the floor with getting more air over the diffusor, but this makes them loose downforce created by the rear/beanwing assembly and letting this assembly drive the diffusor(what is more efficient) because of their huge airbox and wide engine cover(that lets much less air getting to the rear-wing/beamwing). Also it lacks the pressurisation-zone under the sidepod inlets that probably helps underfloor performance, too. But even if there is superior downforce - downforce you cannot use does not help at all. There are some examples in F1 history of cars like that. The Ferrari F2005 for example. The focus was put on maximum downforce, while McLaren and Renault put their focus on aero-efficiency and concistency. With no tyre changes and higher peak tyre loads(because the increased height of the frontwing and restrictions of the diffusor resulted in less consistent aero loadings that created more aerodynamic bouncing which the tyre had to absorb. This was also the reason why the mass-damper was such a huge advantage in 2005 as it reduced these peak loads quickly ) - creating superior downforce was a disadvantage. But i also think that the "wrong concept/approach" of Mercedes can be an advantage for the future. You learn much more from your mistakes. And if you have so many great engineers like Mercedes - this may leads to a superior concept for ground effect cars.

[PlatinumZealot]

The car porpoised with the conventional side pods too. So explain that one.

[AR3-GP]

The car porpoised with the conventional side pods too. So explain that one.

The Barcelona testing sidepods were dubbed "micropods". Very short/stout and exposed a large section of the floor behind them. Like the "no-pods", the "micro-pods" were just as unusual.

[Big Tea]

Guys, with the talk of it getting worse/better with track temp. is there any way an interaction between the 'winglet' over the front tyre and the tyre its self can cause unwanted turbulence to end up in a bad place?

The gap is quite small and could the different texture of the tyre, or picked up particles, cause an effect while moving (apparently) quickly through the slot in the opposite detection the rest of the car is moving?
(I don't even know enough to even ask the question coherently sorry)

[Stu]

The car porpoised with the conventional side pods too. So explain that one.

The Barcelona testing sidepods were dubbed "micropods". Very short/stout and exposed a large section of the floor behind them. Like the "no-pods", the "micro-pods" were just as unusual.

A very similar concept to what Williams have.

[PlatinumZealot]

Cars with the big pods propkise as well.

Toto implied that the "easy way" is to increase floor regidity by making a big side pod so that you can put spars over the floor without affecting areo too much, sort of like Alpine, but they will loose the aero advantage of the zero-pods.

This is the third source that says floor rigidity is an issue. The micropods do reduce floor rigidity but there is no report from any engineer so far that aerodynamically they worsen propoising.

[Mchamilton]

Im suprised the team hasnt tried a floor with less agressive floor kicks. Red bull dont seem to use a vertical kick, ferrari use 1 and their porpoising is lower frequency and the onset speed is higher. Merc use a double kick, and they have higher frequency and lower speed onset. Would be a simple to test to build 1 floor with no kicks surely.

[VacuousFlamboyant]

The new sidepods left much of the floor at the back of the car unchanged. If anything, the reduced sidepod increased its contact area at the front (no undercut). This could lead to adverse effects, choking the higher velocity lower pressure part of the venturi tunnels when the rear lowers. The rear section of the floor in the early spec flexed too, but the rigit front and exposed rear end could unbalance the flow below the car even more. Mixed signals.

It's another case of improving one area while compromising another. It may start at the suspension, affect mostly the floor, but it's linked to the entirety of the project. In regard to floor flex, Mercedes has extra work to do normalizing the pressure at the rear edges of the floor.

I don't think it's a case of ditching the new "zeropods", but perhaps a middle ground that exposes more floor at the front would be better. Flex in a controlled manner.

Maybe take some of the bulge at the top to the rear section of the sidepods making contact with the floor, that would also clear the air at the top of the beam wing. I reckon they have enough clearance with the radiators.

[ringo]

What we saw on the Mclaren or Aston? was the foam in the floor. This is a solution for rigidity.
Not the foam itself, but basically having an upper floor and lower floor skin sandwiching the foam. The floor then has a greater moment of inertia and thus is more rigid.
There is a weight penalty but at least its very low to the ground.

Newey did give some hints about how this porposing issue is controlled. He was the one that oversaw the suspension. He may not have did the little details but he could have instructed how he wanted the suspension to behave under certain conditions given what he knows about ground effect cars.
Saying thie to say, the trick is in ride control as well as floor desing. I doubt sidepods are the issue.
I propose a few upgrades:
Reprofiled floor entry.
Ice skates.
New suspension
Keep the micropods, but create some bulges right in front of the rear wheels to squeeze air between the gap of the diffuser wheel and brake ducts. I will draw and post these bulges soon.

[Andi76]

Cars with the big pods propkise as well.

Toto implied that the "easy way" is to increase floor regidity by making a big side pod so that you can put spars over the floor without affecting areo too much, sort of like Alpine, but they will loose the aero advantage of the zero-pods.

This is the third source that says floor rigidity is an issue. The micropods do reduce floor rigidity but there is no report from any engineer so far that aerodynamically they worsen propoising.

They do but they are less affected. So it seems obvious and logical. Peter Wright, one of the engineers who invented the first ground effect car in F1, explained the reasons for porpoising in detail. He told that flexing of the floor is a big part of the reason and he compared it to wing flutter of an airplane. With a similar mass and construction, a longer wing is more prone to fluttering. The same with a F1 underfloor. As they are very similar in mass and construction, a floor with more free-space is more prone to flexing for obvious reasons. The fact that the team with "micro/zero"-pods and the most free-space is affected the most, not only supports this argumentation, it almost seems to prove it indeed. Especially since the other two teams with a lot of free-space are as affected and the teams with less free space are less affected.

[tok-tokkie]

I found that Peter Wright explanation particularly clear & informative.

[ringo]

The slight flaws i see though is that these floors are much stiffer than the floors of the past. Secondly the micro pod design is almost just as wide at the base.
If you look on the alfa romeo car also that undercut where the sidepod connects to the floor is even more inward than how the w13 sidepods connect so that floor should be less stiff than than the W13.
So im not really a proponent of that floor stifness theory.
What could be happening is the W13 is set much lower at speed than the other cars and the momentary loads it generates are greater.
Mercedes i think are putting all their eggs into this ground effect basket and are hoping to get it right so they can dominante the second half of the season.
As we see ferrari still bounces, but it is more controlled and the car doesnt seem as low as the w13 because its sidepods generate force.
Redbull seems pretty low, but have a trick suspension.

[Andi76]

The slight flaws i see though is that these floors are much stiffer than the floors of the past. Secondly the micro pod design is almost just as wide at the base.
If you look on the alfa romeo car also that undercut where the sidepod connects to the floor is even more inward than how the w13 sidepods connect so that floor should be less stiff than than the W13.
So im not really a proponent of that floor stifness theory.
What could be happening is the W13 is set much lower at speed than the other cars and the momentary loads it generates are greater.
Mercedes i think are putting all their eggs into this ground effect basket and are hoping to get it right so they can dominante the second half of the season.
As we see ferrari still bounces, but it is more controlled and the car doesnt seem as low as the w13 because its sidepods generate force.
Redbull seems pretty low, but have a trick suspension.

Just take a look at the "2022 F1 Car Comparison Thread". Here you can see on the final page the comparison in free space between Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes. And the difference is huge! Alfas floor is different, more connected. A lot of free space, but less than the Mercedes and more connected.

But anyway - its a theory. I think a very reasonable and logical one. And Peter Wrights experience should not be underestimated.

[adrianjordan]

I do wonder whether the trade off for a stiffer, heavier floor would be worth it. Less flex meaning they can run the car where they want.

If the laptime gain from reduced floor flex, and subsequently porpoising, was greater than the loss for the extra weight, then it would be worth it.