Mercedes W13

[Rodak]

I found that Peter Wright explanation particularly clear & informative.

Agreed, a very lucid explanation. It seems it will be difficult to duplicate the issue with a 60% model in the wind tunnel... As to aircraft wing flutter, I wouldn't have enjoyed being on this sail plane... You can see the similarity to drivers' heads bouncing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQI3AWpTWhM

[johnny comelately]

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.

Is there a risk of concussion from the porpoising?

[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.

They could try something like this.. ( Dont mind the quality of the sketch, I did not have much time ).
The redbull, Alpine, Ferrari are all generating some downforce from the upper surfaces of the sidepods. The Merc cannot do this currently with the sloped micro pods.
It could however have a little ramp and channel behind the micropods to get the air squeezed between wheel and diffuser, increasing diffuser effectiveness as well as the brake duct downforce. On the upper surface there should be some pressure recovery and direction of air to the beam wing.

[hollus]

Just take a look at the "2022 F1 Car Comparison Thread".

I would go as far as to say that many of the last posts should have been posted there? Seriously, guys, focus!
We are at page 213 in may. More posts does not always a better thread make.

[SuperCNJ]

https://i.ibb.co/ZK47PfS/w13.png
They could try something like this.. ( Dont mind the quality of the sketch, I did not have much time ).
The redbull, Alpine, Ferrari are all generating some downforce from the upper surfaces of the sidepods. The Merc cannot do this currently with the sloped micro pods.
It could however have a little ramp and channel behind the micropods to get the air squeezed between wheel and diffuser, increasing diffuser effectiveness as well as the brake duct downforce. On the upper surface there should be some pressure recovery and direction of air to the beam wing.

Not sure if Merc needs more downforce from other elements but I suspect if they can get the floor to work properly they might have enough DF with this concept. The challenge for them as I understand it is to get the floor to work optimally without porpoising.

If one of the challenges is the flexing of the floor due to such a thin and low second moment of area of the floor, I wonder if they can look at preloading the upper fibres of the carbon to provide some added stiffness without increasing its thickness.

[PlatinumZealot]

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).

Well if it is zero pods you wound not see any undercut now would you. The profile in plan view of the barge board area is similar to an undercut side pod though. It is actually not as flat-fronted as the Ferrari so I don't see an issue there.

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.

Not true actually. If you had a higher pressure at the entrance of the floor, the venturi can accept more flow. This is what Ferrari has done with that flat fronted side pod. Mercedes is in between Ferrari and the stream-line undercut of Red-Bull/Alfa Romeo. On the far end of the spectrum is Aston Martin.

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 agree here. They have essentially a big floppy floor surface.

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.

Exposing more floor at the front yeah.. Maybe.. That is essentially shifting the outwash a bit rear wards. It is something I think they will do.

[AR3-GP]

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.

https://i.ibb.co/ZK47PfS/w13.png
They could try something like this.. ( Dont mind the quality of the sketch, I did not have much time ).
The redbull, Alpine, Ferrari are all generating some downforce from the upper surfaces of the sidepods. The Merc cannot do this currently with the sloped micro pods.
It could however have a little ramp and channel behind the micropods to get the air squeezed between wheel and diffuser, increasing diffuser effectiveness as well as the brake duct downforce. On the upper surface there should be some pressure recovery and direction of air to the beam wing.

What is that monstrosity in front of the rear tire? Is that a floor ramp?

['Tis me, just me.]

Would increasing the radius of the edge of the floor help against porpoising?

[matt_s]

They could try something like this..

Wouldn't that fall foul of the rule that in the z plane the bodywork can only have a one section?

[Ozan]

I think Mercedes need to make a kind of a mix of sidepods of alpine and alfa romeo's latest one. alpine's use a ramp down, kinda like the one was used on sauber back in the days of coanda exhausts. and alfa romeo's latest one uses a kind of blockage to move the air to the side of the tyres. in my opinion they mistakenly thought leaving a big open area behind sidepods would benefit them like past years but clearly it didn't.

[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).

Well if it is zero pods you would not see any undercut now would you. The profile in plan view of the barge board area is similar to an undercut side pod though. It is actually not as flat-fronted as the Ferrari so I don't see an issue there.

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.

Not true actually. If you had a higher pressure at the entrance of the floor, the venturi can accept more flow. This is what Ferrari has done with that flat fronted side pod. Mercedes is in between Ferrari and the stream-line undercut of Red-Bull/Alfa Romeo. On the far end of the spectrum is Aston Martin.

The entry can accept more, but the rear can't. If the rear edges bend to the point that air has nowhere to go, the floor chokes. Subsequently, the abrupt compression and decompression of the floor create vortexes in opposite directions, similar to wing flutter, due to the interaction between friction drag and pressure in that area.

Ferrari and RB floors bend less because they are sustained by the sidepods, like scaffolding cables from front to back. RB rather concave floor also distributes the load better, like the arches in an arched bridge. (Then we have the ice skates. That could be incorporated without hurdles).

Exposing more floor at the front yeah.. Maybe.. That is essentially shifting the outwash a bit rear wards. It is something I think they will do.

Regardless of the sidepod design they end up with, they need to (try to) equalize the contact area of the sidepod front to back rather than relying on floor sturdiness. I see three possibilities for the sidepods:
- A sidepod that "spills" closer to the edges of the floor at the back, not just at the front. Updated "zeropods".
- A sidepod with a small undercut at the front, like Ferrari's, with the spill section pushed a bit further back.
- A sidepod with a large undercut with a small spill section at the back. A more conventional approach with reduced footprint. Flipped "zeropod".

[ringo]

They could try something like this..

Wouldn't that fall foul of the rule that in the z plane the bodywork can only have a one section?

I drew it poorly, but it should be 1 section that is U shaped like ferrari, but its lower and starts at the midsection of the car.
The micro pod section would be at the front as it is now.
That rear section is directing air in toward the beam wing while having a downward slope towards the diffuser for pressure recovery.
It can be shifted inward and not be in front of the rear wheels.
The team will know how best to optimize this. This is not set in stone. The point being made is that they can have their cake and eat with micropods and a bluff body like ferrari and redbull that manages the air towards diffuser and beam wing.

An alternative is a duplicate downward sloping shape similar to alpine but with micropods.
The downward slope has been used on redbulls for years. It reduces lift by pressure recovery and makes downforce more consistent during pitch and roll. I have been jeered over the years for my ellipse theory; but it still holds to be the most efficienct aerodynamic shape to use in any and all planes.

[jagunx51]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... /10305288/

The wide floor doubt over Mercedes' zero-pod concept

The more the team has dug into the W13's issues, the more it suspects that core to its problem is the fact that the zero-pod idea has exposed much more floor area, which is especially sensitive on the 2022 ground effect machines.

Mercedes' solution does indeed expose more of the floor, which in turn gives more freedom to the airflow passing around the car, spreading the load being created across a much wider section of the floor.

For Mercedes, this appears to create porpoising at lower speeds than some of its rivals. The ill effects caused by the phenomenon therefore starts earlier than the opposition, and then also outlasts them, with recovery not occurring until Lewis Hamilton and George Russell are much further into the braking zone.

However, where Mercedes appears to be disadvantaged by its concept, when compared to the rest of the field, is the inability to install 'hidden stays'.

[VacuousFlamboyant]

Regardless of the sidepod design they end up with, they need to (try to) equalize the contact area of the sidepod front to back rather than relying on floor sturdiness. I see three possibilities for the sidepods:
- A sidepod that "spills" closer to the edges of the floor at the back, not just at the front. Updated "zeropods".
- A sidepod with a small undercut at the front, like Ferrari's, with the spill section pushed a bit further back.
- A sidepod with a large undercut with a small spill section at the back. A more conventional approach with reduced footprint. Flipped "zeropod".

I would be inclined to try option A as with the other options you would have to reprofile the entire car. Option B with the floor entry and option C with the whole sidepod redesign to keep some of the downwash. Something like this:

Metal reinforcement, Metal stain, Hidden Metal stain , Keep wavy profile for added rigidity

[Henri]

They need to bring back the Barcelona spec even if its slower on paper.. to do a practical test