Mercedes W14 Speculation Thread

[Juzh]

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.

We'll see at some point whether or not it really was only gossip.
from amus, published 30.1.23

In the last meeting in mid-January, however, the engineers agreed on a limit of 798 kilograms, which should now apply for the start of the season. So everything stays the same. It is not entirely clear why the original target could not be met. It is said that Pirelli's new front tires are up a bit compared to last year's product.

technical regs should be updated at some point to reflect this change. We've seen just last year that weight adjustments are rather trivial in f1 and don't really need prior technical regs to be released to be set in stone.

[mendis]

It is said that Pirelli's new front tires are up a bit compared to last year's product.[/i]

There would come a day when weight of 4 tyres would be more than the weight of rest of the car and Pirelli still mandating 25psi pressures.

[Cassius]

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.

It is much more nuanced. Pierre Wache referred in an interview last year to finding the balance between weight loss, effect on aerodynamics and the budget. Hence it is not always the best idea to go for the lightest part.

[Venturiation]

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.

It is much more nuanced. Pierre Wache referred in an interview last year to finding the balance between weight loss, effect on aerodynamics and the budget. Hence it is not always the best idea to go for the lightest part.

Exactly what mike eliott talked about

[Venturiation]

We were overweight at the beginning of the season, though we did a lot of work to bring it down towards the minimum,’ explains Elliot. ‘However, weight is an interesting equation in this era of Formula 1. Although it’s one of the key performance drivers, it is also limited by regulations. Because of that, car development differs from what one might think. We are always targeting a lower lap time, and reducing the weight to the minimum amount gains a certain amount of lap time performance, but a heavier car with a more sophisticated aerodynamic package generates even more performance on the track.

‘Because we have so many tools to develop a more performant car, lowering the weight to the minimum isn’t as dramatic a driver as it once was in Formula 1. Additionally, we’ll take a weight penalty for a more reliable car, as a DNF or grid penalty from replacing components that have failed, or run over the maximum unit allocation for the season, carries a high burden in the championship standings.’

Source here https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... mg-f1-w13/

[AR3-GP]

We were overweight at the beginning of the season, though we did a lot of work to bring it down towards the minimum,’ explains Elliot. ‘However, weight is an interesting equation in this era of Formula 1. Although it’s one of the key performance drivers, it is also limited by regulations. Because of that, car development differs from what one might think. We are always targeting a lower lap time, and reducing the weight to the minimum amount gains a certain amount of lap time performance, but a heavier car with a more sophisticated aerodynamic package generates even more performance on the track.

‘Because we have so many tools to develop a more performant car, lowering the weight to the minimum isn’t as dramatic a driver as it once was in Formula 1. Additionally, we’ll take a weight penalty for a more reliable car, as a DNF or grid penalty from replacing components that have failed, or run over the maximum unit allocation for the season, carries a high burden in the championship standings.’

Source here https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... mg-f1-w13/

I think we do understand your point. When you are designing a Formula 1 car, the optimization variable is laptime, not weight, or aero. The designers have simulation tools that tell them whether the performance benefit of the aero part, outweighs the weight penalty. If it does, they'll run it. Weight and aero are selected only in the combination that maximizes laptime.

You can be sure, it's possible to develop a car at the weight limit with all the aero you wanted. It usually just takes a year or two because of the way the budgets and design cycles work. If more aero parts are required, then weight will be removed in a different area of the car. They are ALWAYS trying to reduce weight over a 6-12 month time scale. That does not mean that in between the endpoints, the weight doesn't increase because of an aero part or a more reliable mechanical component.

No one commits themselves to running overweight forever. They will always be trying to find areas to lower the weight, where the car can afford it.

[Vanja #66]

It is much more nuanced. Pierre Wache referred in an interview last year to finding the balance between weight loss, effect on aerodynamics and the budget. Hence it is not always the best idea to go for the lightest part.

Of course its nuanced, but to say someone left the car overweight because they wanted to is nonsense. All teams (at least on paper, practice showed otherwise) are limited by budget first and foremost.

If you make a big mistake with a concept and it takes 80% of the budget to understand and solve it, then you are forced to leave the car as it is in many other areas - weight, among other things.

Being forced to leave the car overweight is one thing. Leaving it overweight on purpose, when you have a choice, is nonsense and no one would ever do it.

PS to make things clear - choosing to spend limited budget on other areas that show greater promised is also being forced. All teams would always like to improve everwhere if possible...

[carisi2k]

Touring cars don't produce a lot of downforce especially our Australian ones. F1 cars do and so a v8 being overweight could make a difference because it could put more force on the tyres. Also in that era there wasn't a control tyre and so it is possible that the dunlop tyre at the time liked have the extra weight to get warmth in to the tyre. An F1 car overweight on the other hand will slow the car down and not improve it's performance unless something new like active suspension on the fw14b vs the normal fw14 where the added weight was overcome by the abilities of the active suspension.

This true of the RB18 where the extra weight caused by the more advanced suspension, aero parts and bracing in the floor allowed the car to overcome it's weight penalty vs the other teams. Make no mistake however that if the RB18 was 10-20kg lighter then the other teams wouldn't have even got those other 6 race victories the RB18 missed out on.

The Mercedes should make up some time losing weight for sure in 2023 but to really solve there issues they are going to have to go to a much more rigid floor to stop the floor flex it had in 2022 for a start which will add weight. They will also have to add a suspension system which they seemed to forgot about last year and they have to figure out how to control the air where there would normally be a sidepod so it doesn't just go all over the place causing all sort of drag.

[JordanMugen]

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.

It is much more nuanced. Pierre Wache referred in an interview last year to finding the balance between weight loss, effect on aerodynamics and the budget. Hence it is not always the best idea to go for the lightest part.

Exactly what mike eliott talked about

An obvious example being the trend for high noses in Formula One in the late 80's and early 90's. These raised the COG of the car and defied that conventional wisdom of "low is best" where mid-80's cars placed the nose directly on the reference plane, but the aerodynamic gains of the raised noses outweighed the COG penalties. Even recently with the raked cars, where all the major components located on the reference plan end up (quite a bit higher) than necessary but the aerodynamic gains outweighed the COG penalty.

Just as obviously Red Bull's aerodynamic gains from having a heavy floor with an aluminium support brace to manage floor flex, outweighed the benefits of having a lightweight floor but which flexed and caused aerodynamic instability (or in Sauber's case, kept breaking all the time too).

‘Because we have so many tools to develop a more performant car, lowering the weight to the minimum isn’t as dramatic a driver as it once was in Formula 1. Additionally, we’ll take a weight penalty for a more reliable car, as a DNF or grid penalty from replacing components that have failed, or run over the maximum unit allocation for the season, carries a high burden in the championship standings.’

Source here https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... mg-f1-w13/

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word "performant" as much as Mike Elliot in that interview, if at all for that matter.

[prox]

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

Is that not the W10 in that picture? plus no Ineos branding on the roll hoop thats not the W14

[zeroday]

Is that not the W10 in that picture? plus no Ineos branding on the roll hoop thats not the W14

Correct, that is not the W14. This picture was simply used by the poster as a reference point to give one an idea of what the W14's black-silver look could look like since Merc have used that color-combo before. So, yes that is the W10 (2019).

His source may be right about the black-silver combo look though. Just yesterday, Merc once again teased about the black livery. And the day before, about the silver livery. They've been cycling it back/forth -- teasing what it could be -- for days now. Next week their real car reveal (not just the livery) will end all speculation and we will get to see it do its first shakedown on the Silverstone track the same day as launch. Schumacher might finally have non-busy work to do

[morefirejules08]

No sign of black here

[chrisc90]

No sign of black here

Wonder what the colour is in the back.

Did have a laugh...clicked sherwin williams on twitter to see who it was and their feed is loaded with 25-30% off on paints. I guess times are hard in a budget cap era

[carisi2k]

The weight limit of 796kg has been abandoned and the 798kg weight limit will remain in 2023 which would put the W13's weight at 807kg which is still probably about 10kg lighter then the RB18.

[morefirejules08]

No sign of black here

Wonder what the colour is in the back.

Did have a laugh...clicked sherwin williams on twitter to see who it was and their feed is loaded with 25-30% off on paints. I guess times are hard in a budget cap era

Silver