Mercedes W14 Speculation Thread

[Venturiation]

If I've done my math correcting using the weight limit of 796kg for 2023 (798 for 2022), then Mercedes must have been running somewhere around 805kg last season which was probably in between Ferrari and Red Bull, with Red Bull being on the heavier side, Ferrari lighter.

That would have been much lighter than I presumed as I assumed Mercedeas was something like 10-15kg overweight last year.

Last year it was estimated that mercedes was the heaviest, and they didn’t bring weight upgrade until austin

Part of that the weight was to make the exposed floor stiffer

[Venturiation]

Merc kept bringing upgrades and dropped weight all season, 12kg less than W13 seems possible only v W13 in Bahrain... If RB and Ferrari only managed -3kg from chassis alone, where can other 9kg come from. Lighter tyres?

Merc brought very few upgrades in 2022 , some « upgrades » were just trimmed parts

But i don’t believe the 12kg weight loss

Shovlin and eliott explained that they don’t want to hit the weight limit
And the weight is overrated, sometimes the car has better balance when it’s heavier and more resistant for example in a lap 1 collision

Explains why mercedes front wings were so solid last year

[AR3-GP]

Merc kept bringing upgrades and dropped weight all season, 12kg less than W13 seems possible only v W13 in Bahrain... If RB and Ferrari only managed -3kg from chassis alone, where can other 9kg come from. Lighter tyres?

Very good point. Could be compared to Bahrain, the worst case scenario.

With that said, 3kg under the current weight limit is something like 793kg. Which is still 5kg below the 2022 limit, and they were above that last season. So the amount of weighr reduction is credible, so long as you believe that bit about being currently 3kg under.

[Venturiation]

Merc kept bringing upgrades and dropped weight all season, 12kg less than W13 seems possible only v W13 in Bahrain... If RB and Ferrari only managed -3kg from chassis alone, where can other 9kg come from. Lighter tyres?

Very good point. Could be compared to Bahrain, the worst case scenario.

With that said, 3kg under the current weight limit is something like 793kg. Which is still 5kg below the 2022 limit, and they were above that last season. So the amount of weighr reduction is credible, so long as you believe that bit about being currently 3kg under.

It’s not credible, Mercedes already said they prefer being overweight so the car is more solid in collisions and has better balance, they also said the time gain from weightloss is useless when you can gain time with heavier parts

[PlatinumZealot]

My sources will be right on the money it seems. That thing with the side pod?

[e30ernest]

My sources will be right on the money it seems. That thing with the side pod?

I've been away for most of the off season. What would be that thing?

[AR3-GP]

Merc kept bringing upgrades and dropped weight all season, 12kg less than W13 seems possible only v W13 in Bahrain... If RB and Ferrari only managed -3kg from chassis alone, where can other 9kg come from. Lighter tyres?

Very good point. Could be compared to Bahrain, the worst case scenario.

With that said, 3kg under the current weight limit is something like 793kg. Which is still 5kg below the 2022 limit, and they were above that last season. So the amount of weighr reduction is credible, so long as you believe that bit about being currently 3kg under.

It’s not credible, Mercedes already said they prefer being overweight so the car is more solid in collisions and has better balance, they also said the time gain from weightloss is useless when you can gain time with heavier parts

I think your misinterpreting the information. No one "prefers to be overweight".

[AR3-GP]

I wouldn't expect to see the real W14 until testing. Launch renders will be carefully curated and edited like most teams....=

[carisi2k]

Remember that the new 795kg limit has been dismissed and the weight limit will stay the same at 798kg. Which I think is a bad idea.

[AR3-GP]

Remember that the new 795kg limit has been dismissed and the weight limit will stay the same at 798kg. Which I think is a bad idea.

Nothing has been dismissed. The latest technical regulations say 796kg. One can assume that is what cars are being built to in spite of gossip.

[Vanja #66]

Shovlin and eliott explained that they don’t want to hit the weight limit
And the weight is overrated, sometimes the car has better balance when it’s heavier and more resistant for example in a lap 1 collision

Explains why mercedes front wings were so solid last year

No idea what Shovlin and Eliott said, but when it comes to racing cars, there are 3 rules:

1) all other things being equal, the lightest car will win
2) all other things being equal, the car with lowest CoG will win
3) all other things being equal, the car with the most centralised mass (lowest moment of inertia) will win

You get your car as light as you can, you get your CoG low and only then you play with balance... Minimal weight imposed does not negate this, you can still use extra balance weights to improve points 2 and 3.

[mendis]

Shovlin and eliott explained that they don’t want to hit the weight limit
And the weight is overrated, sometimes the car has better balance when it’s heavier and more resistant for example in a lap 1 collision

Explains why mercedes front wings were so solid last year

No idea what Shovlin and Eliott said, but when it comes to racing cars, there are 3 rules:

1) all other things being equal, the lightest car will win
2) all other things being equal, the car with lowest CoG will win
3) all other things being equal, the car with the most centralised mass (lowest moment of inertia) will win

You get your car as light as you can, you get your CoG low and only then you play with balance... Minimal weight imposed does not negate this, you can still use extra balance weights to improve points 2 and 3.

Theoretically that's correct. But in reality, to win, it's important to survive in field and some driver mistakes. To that extent, the car needs to be rigid enough to sustain some of those damages, which are a real concern. If a Car can be rigid to surive such impact and then can achieve what you have said, nothing like it. But in trying to achieve your points first, teams generally screw up the rigidity of the car and the result is, there are times when car doesn't finish and they lose valuable points. If a team feels the rigidity of the car is more important than some of the performance benefits that come with compromising it, then you accept that having a heavier car is better. May be that is what Shov and Elliott would probably be referring to.

[JordanMugen]

Here is the problem with removing the sidepods like Mercedes and the reason why Mercedes just aren't going to get any better if they continue down the zero pod route. The sidepods are what now control the airflow to the rear of the car.

Agreed, however I believe the idea of the Mercedes design is that the sidepods are so narrow that the front tyre wake doesn't hit them (or barely interacts with them) at all.

That would tend to suggest that in cornering the front tyre wake will be inclined to go whenever it wants but Mercedes must feel they have that under control.

No idea what Shovlin and Eliott said, but when it comes to racing cars, there are 3 rules:

1) all other things being equal, the lightest car will win
2) all other things being equal, the car with lowest CoG will win
3) all other things being equal, the car with the most centralised mass (lowest moment of inertia) will win

I agree that F=ma is fundamental and you want to reduce m, and also reduce body roll and improve handling by points (2) and (3).

But wouldn't those rules only come into play after the more fundamental rules (according to Frank Dernie):

1) Downforce, more is better
2) Tyres in the right temperature range
3) Power, more is better

We see number (2) being the most important in categories where weight, CoG and moment of inertia are controlled (indeed in classes where everyone has the same car even).

Was not point number (2) one of Mercedes main problems in 2022, and something that would most easily explain Mercedes' wild swings in competitiveness between a Friday and a Saturday at many 2022 Grand Prix for example?

I agree that is great that for example the Ford Mondeo super touring constructor Prodrive were eventually able to lower the whole Mondeo chassis relative to the running gear, they had the money to make a custom transaxle with the differential at the top so that the half-shaft ran through the middle of the V6 which could be placed lower (a considerable advantage over rival Super Tourers with inline engines that couldn't do that trick) etc.

Sadly classes with such freedoms are mostly banned now, especially in touring cars. Obviously nowadays it's a given that the driver sits on the floor and almost in the backseat in any touring car category now, then it goes to "do the rules say you need to use the OEM hatch", even if it doesn't say that then it's question "can we afford to do a lightweight hatch or carbon front wheel wells or plastic windows (etc) and still sell it at the regulated price for TCR" or GT4 etc...

But even in the mid-to-late 90's you were still seeing "old-school" touring cars with better tyre temperature and power beating out more modern builds with more lightweight parts and more centralised mass. The former has to be more important than the latter...?

I also agree with mendis' point about durability. No use having a car that is lightweight but breaks all the time. It's not "raceable".

E.g., Mark Larkham built a Ford Falcon for the Australian Touring Car Championship that followed all those principles of lightweight, centralised mass (he thought he may as well engineer the Falcon like a Formula 3000, where he been previously racing in the Australian version of Formula 3000 in a Reynard) but his Falcon doesn't use the tyres well and it was way too flimsy and was constantly breaking. The car was not remotely competitive:

The car was designed specifically to be a racing car. It had an extremely low centre of gravity but it did compromise reliability. We grossly underestimated the loads a V8 Supercar encompasses from kerbs and hits with other cars.
The car was designed from a theoretical load point of view. In practice though it wasn't correct.

https://www.supercars.com/news/champion ... 10-falcon/

[Vanja #66]

Wouldn't those rules only come into play after the more fundamental rules (according to Frank Dernie):

1) Downforce, more is better
2) Tyres in the right temperature range
3) Power, more is better

Following the 3 points I wrote doesn't impact "your" 3 points in practice, but 3 points I wrote are more important. Heavy cars can't accelerate and decelerate as fast, high CoG will increase roll forces while cornering and high moment of inertia will slow the car down while pivoting. In my view:

1) Downforce, more is better - absolutely, teams will never abandon wings to lower the car weight because the benefits far outweigh the cost and the "cost" is already included in concept design for decades
2) Tyres in the right temperature range - absolutely, but slight difference in suspension geometry that impacts tyre behaviour has no effect on mass, CoG or centralised mass
3) Power, more is better - absolutely, but in F1 the engine also has minimal weight; also, increasing the weight of moving parts impacts its performance (which is why teams take such great care to find sweet spot between their reliability and wight), while very small increase on local thickness of engine block has huge benefits for reliability

[JordanMugen]

Following the 3 points I wrote doesn't impact "your" 3 points in practice, but 3 points I wrote are more important.

I don't know, I added the example of the 1995 V8 touring car in Australia that followed your three points:

"1) all other things being equal, the lightest car will win
2) all other things being equal, the car with lowest CoG will win
3) all other things being equal, the car with the most centralised mass (lowest moment of inertia) will win'

But it didn't win anything, it was just constantly breaking and they messed up the fundamentals like suspension geometry and tyre temperature. Competitors were handing the car builder, Mark Larkham, dossiers on fundamental things like Watts linkage geometry for the live rear axle all whilst he had built this elaborate touring car with an ultra-lightweight carbon manganese rollcage, carbon-fibre steering column and a carbon-fibre driver cell.

[Competitor Mark Skaife] felt for me, because we'd battled so hard in Formula Brabham and he enjoyed that competition and he could see I'd probably made some wrong decisions. I asked him for a little bit of help and seriously he drew diagrams of trailing-arm geometry, where he reckoned I should have my cambers, spring rates... All sorts of stuff with the best knowledge he had of the Falcon at that time, and just laid all of that out into probably a four-page document and sent it to me.

Building the car was a mistake, I should have just gone and bought a Larry Perkins car and gone racing. It wasn't good. It was way too fragile. When we first drove it, everything in it was so lightweight it was almost flexible.

https://www.supercars.com/news/champion ... ical-ford/

It was not uncommon for a lot of the other V8 touring cars in Australia -- especially the robust Larry Perkins cars -- to be over the minimum weight until at least 7-8 years later than that, so until 2002-2003. In some cases quite far over, like 40kg over the minimum weight!

After all they were cars that had to launch over kerbs and bang wheels without breaking.

Anyway I digress and reiterate the more logical explanations for Mercedes' inexplicable swings in performance from day-to-day of the same Grand Prix meeting can be most likely be attributed to the problems with achieving the optimal tyre temperature consistently IMO.