Mercedes W13

[AR3-GP]

I think they'll stay with a similar style of sidepod and sort out the suspension. But they won't be able to make up the power deficit that I think they now have.

Is there actually a power deficit? Or could it be other factors at play here? A combination of inefficient, draggy aero and Merc not turning up the engine perhaps?

In average power, it's likely. I say average power because the Mercedes (and Renault) appears to have clipping issues (check Monza F1-tempo, and driver comments that they were running out) on certain race tracks which the others don't.

[101FlyingDutchman]

I still believe the power unit and the zero pods are red herrings.
Power unit wise: It’s defo not dominant anymore. Where I think Merc may have fallen into the pack is on the ERS side, other units (Notably the Honda) seem to have overtaken it especially noticeable at end of straights. Clipping seemingly very common on the Merc units.
Zero-pods: hard to make work with a floor that you really don’t want to have flexing on the edges. So much exposed real estate. But I believe they will get there.

But both won’t be the key differentiators “in isolation” wrt performance loss. It’s all about “inverse” L/D ratio. The floor here is the key to Mercs revival next year. The one thing that I’ve been calling out since the start of the year after a few comments of the top boffins where there correlation issues. Which seemingly they still aren’t totally on top of. This is worrying and has to be priority one to resolve

Edited to add: the budget cap restricts iterative design so unless you have CFD off and on track correlation you’re really going to struggle getting on top of whatever it is you’re struggling with

[PlatinumZealot]

I know my deductions were correct. Here confirmed by Mike Elliot that the issue with the car is aerodynamic:

“We went back through the data, through our simulations and found what we had found. Then from there, you’ve got a limited amount of time.

“The issue is an aerodynamic one and it just takes time to get on top of it.”

[dans79]

I still believe the power unit and the zero pods are red herrings.
Power unit wise: It’s defo not dominant anymore. Where I think Merc may have fallen into the pack is on the ERS side, other units (Notably the Honda) seem to have overtaken it especially noticeable at end of straights. Clipping seemingly very common on the Merc units.

I don't think the clipping means much, they had the same thing at the beginning of last year. imo all the clipping is, is Merc compensating for some other deficiency with the car by changing mappings.

[El_KaPpa]

I know my deductions were correct. Here confirmed by Mike Elliot that the issue with the car is aerodynamic:

“We went back through the data, through our simulations and found what we had found. Then from there, you’ve got a limited amount of time.

“The issue is an aerodynamic one and it just takes time to get on top of it.”

A. Shovlin: "Fundamentally one of the things that we need to improve on the car for next year is get the car to have more downforce at the low drag levels and then we can race those lighter wings and still be competitive in the corners"

[Just_a_fan]

I know my deductions were correct. Here confirmed by Mike Elliot that the issue with the car is aerodynamic:

“We went back through the data, through our simulations and found what we had found. Then from there, you’ve got a limited amount of time.

“The issue is an aerodynamic one and it just takes time to get on top of it.”

A. Shovlin: "Fundamentally one of the things that we need to improve on the car for next year is get the car to have more downforce at the low drag levels and then we can race those lighter wings and still be competitive in the corners"

Isn't that basic downforce racing 101? All racing cars that use downforce want to have more downforce with less drag.

[AR3-GP]

I know my deductions were correct. Here confirmed by Mike Elliot that the issue with the car is aerodynamic:

A. Shovlin: "Fundamentally one of the things that we need to improve on the car for next year is get the car to have more downforce at the low drag levels and then we can race those lighter wings and still be competitive in the corners"

Isn't that basic downforce racing 101? All racing cars that use downforce want to have more downforce with less drag.

Yes. It's a boiler plate response that could have been stated by any of the 10 F1 teams.

We already know the issue of the W13. It was designed to ride low and stiff, to make so much downforce from the floor in this configuration that they could use smaller wings and made more than enough downforce to compensate for potentially less efficient management of the air in front of the rear tires.

"Efficiency" has two parameters. Downforce and drag. If the expected downforce level far exceeds the drag being generated, you can still be considered efficient.

Once they discovered that it was impossible to prevent porpoising, the entire concept unraveled. They are carrying all of the draw backs of their design (higher weight, less management of air in front of rear tire (drag), higher CoG due to cooling being moved), with none of the benefits they expected (gobstopping floor downforce).

[theWPTformula]

A. Shovlin: "Fundamentally one of the things that we need to improve on the car for next year is get the car to have more downforce at the low drag levels and then we can race those lighter wings and still be competitive in the corners"

Isn't that basic downforce racing 101? All racing cars that use downforce want to have more downforce with less drag.

Yes. It's a boiler plate response that could have been stated by any of the 10 F1 teams.

We already know the issue of the W13. It was designed to ride low and stiff, to make so much downforce from the floor in this configuration that they could use smaller wings and made more than enough downforce to compensate for potentially less efficient management of the air in front of the rear tires.

"Efficiency" has two parameters. Downforce and drag. If the expected downforce level far exceeds the drag being generated, you can still be considered efficient.

Once they discovered that it was impossible to prevent porpoising, the entire concept unraveled. They are carrying all of the draw backs of their design (higher weight, less management of air in front of rear tire (drag), higher CoG due to cooling being moved), with none of the benefits they expected (gobstopping floor downforce).

At this late stage of the season I am still left with many questions about this car…

The idea that the engineers have placed emphasis on exploiting underfloor downforce to the maximum and trimming out the top surfaces for best efficiency is somewhat at odds with the fact that the W13 is typically set up with more wing angle (front and rear) than anyone on else at most circuits. This was true even from launch.

I also find it confusing that the low and stiff philosophy was elected. Mercedes have made superb chassis’ for many years featuring high tech suspension systems to create a very good aerodynamic platform and enviable ride quality. And yet this excellent knowledge and understanding of vehicle dynamics seemingly evaporated for W13.

This has been mentioned a few times now but I think there is a hint of Ferrari 2020 about this situation, where the expected PU power output has not been achieved and the car drag level is therefore too high. I am also of the opinion that there has been suspiciously little mention of the PU performance from both Mercedes and their customers. I’m surprised journalists are not asking more questions about this to be honest.

[Lewis_Hamilton]

“Getting to the desired aero shapes has meant a complete internal repackaging, right down to the electrical layout and where we fit things like the ECU. The suspension has been redesigned to account for the loss of hydraulics and remote springs, now banned in the new regulations. Hopefully, you will also see that we have taken another step with how tightly packaged the sidepods and engine cover are. To get to this is not just a shrink-wrapping exercise but requires a huge amount of redesign and simulation to make it work,” continued Mike Elliott.

Mike let on at the beginning that the sidepod layout was not the fundamental aero shape we baked into the car with our packaging decisions.I think some bright minds will be able to guess where we went wrong when they finally get to see the changes that are coming for next year.

[SiLo]

If they did move to larger sidepods, would they be able to cool the car more sufficiently, thus allowing them to run in more powerful modes?

[gandharva]

If the actual cooling concept is a limiting factor for performance extraction, then yes.

[Just_a_fan]

“Getting to the desired aero shapes has meant a complete internal repackaging, right down to the electrical layout and where we fit things like the ECU. The suspension has been redesigned to account for the loss of hydraulics and remote springs, now banned in the new regulations. Hopefully, you will also see that we have taken another step with how tightly packaged the sidepods and engine cover are. To get to this is not just a shrink-wrapping exercise but requires a huge amount of redesign and simulation to make it work,” continued Mike Elliott.

Mike let on at the beginning that the sidepod layout was not the fundamental aero shape we baked into the car with our packaging decisions.I think some bright minds will be able to guess where we went wrong when they finally get to see the changes that are coming for next year.

"We"? You sound like you helped design it.

[Vanja #66]

“Getting to the desired aero shapes has meant a complete internal repackaging, right down to the electrical layout and where we fit things like the ECU. The suspension has been redesigned to account for the loss of hydraulics and remote springs, now banned in the new regulations. Hopefully, you will also see that we have taken another step with how tightly packaged the sidepods and engine cover are. To get to this is not just a shrink-wrapping exercise but requires a huge amount of redesign and simulation to make it work,” continued Mike Elliott.

Mike let on at the beginning that the sidepod layout was not the fundamental aero shape we baked into the car with our packaging decisions.I think some bright minds will be able to guess where we went wrong when they finally get to see the changes that are coming for next year.

That section references W13 and early season, as it mentions lack of hydraulics in suspension, so refers to 2021 as last year.

[dren]

It'll be interesting to see if the team brings more conventional sidepods to Austin. It appears they made too many design compromises to fit their aero concept to the car. The design data must have supported the team sticking with the aero concept for as long as they have. We've seen other teams change much earlier.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not the side pods for sure. Aston, McLaren and Williams didn't make any massive moves up the field after changing pods.

As Vettel hinted the key was to design the car around a certain ride-height. Hinting its all about the floor. We don't know what the ride height is, but we do know that it's in the higher range than what Mercedes uses. Ferrari and RedBull both had noticeable higher static ride heights in the early season.