Mercedes W14

[wogx]

Longer wheelbase?

[organic]

Longer wheelbase?
https://wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/415c519f2 ... 61fe87.gif

Perspective of the two photos is too different to compare I think?

On one photo the front wheels are lined up, on the other photo you can see half of the front tyre on the other side of the car

[Venturiation]

he explained. “We knew that we are going to bring an upgrade package for test number two, and that was worth one and a half seconds.

How

[mkay]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10432497/

Sidepods may/will change over the first few races. It sounds like the early rumours around a late change in direction were probably true.

Also, it probably means that Merc feels the current concept isn't delivering the gains or performance they expected.

[Vanja #66]

You need to accept that hypotheses need to be adjusted sometimes.

Remember the discussion was that the zero pod wasnt the core issue but the overly flexible floor. So it seems they hav kep the same or even more smaller frontal cross section of the pod but extended the rear of it like a big boat tail to make the floor stiffer.... (it seems! )

I wasn't talking about Merc solving bouncing issues, I was talking about getting the performance back. The rear of the floor looks stiffened enough with wider sides. I don't think they'll have any issues with bouncing or aerodynamic stability (predictability?) with W14. Do I truly have more confidence in Merc than Merc fans?

Ferrari reduced the intensity of sidepod outwash to reduce drag, but it's still there. AMR increased it, in a good-for-them trend of making their own solution (even if inspired by RB and Ferrari). RB19 also seems to have the same or bigger amount of downwash than RB18.

W14 has maybe even less outwash than last year, although the bottom of the inlet is not as wide so more air is going sideways. This outwash drives the floor vortex and amplifies the lateral suction of the air from under the floor, increasing it's velocity and decreasing pressure in the tunnels and locally on the floor edges. There's a decent amount of downforce to be gained there. Of course the sidepod outwash is not the only way to amplify the vortex, but not to use it is throwing away some performance.

Also I'm really not a fan of clogging the rear wing airflow with such a bulky engine cover, but that's just me. W14 solution with gutters in that zone looks well worked out and better than any other team going that way (unless RB19 has something similar).

[georgekyr]

Toto said they are showing the "real thing" while finishing the presentation.
Let's see how much of it is the real thing...

[ringo]

This is exactly what I thought they will do with the side pods!

They made the openings more vertical like the McLaren MP4/6. They seem to have moved a lot of components! Totally new front wing and clearly different concept to last years.

No changes on the suspension geometry though?

Said this in the speculation thread. Some said I was talking madness.

Nonetheless I am still concerned about how effective the beam wing and rear aero will compare to the downwash style sidepods of the other cars.
Mercedes are relying more on vertical plane flow inwash, than the downwash like the others.
Then there is the floor.
If this concept doesnt work, they will need a new floor as well as new sidepods.
It can be a do or die year for them. I dont think the car can be changed so drastically to mimic the key features of the others.
But i like it. It's bold but not very different from last year.
The MP4-3 sidepods came to mind prior to the release because the openings are closer to the body leaving more real estate on the flanks to divert air cleanly around the sides.
So this car is more working with vertical plane to get air around the car. But hard to see how they can drive the floor as effectively like the others.

[Henri]

Took ideas from ferrari and alpine

[organic]

Took ideas from ferrari and alpine

That front wing philosophy is nothing like Alpine's

Stop posting non-technical sources as though they have legitimate info

[214270]

Looks like the SIPS is part of the floor structure instead of the sidepod, should help a little with rigidity I imagine.

[Vaexa]

Took ideas from ferrari and alpine

That front wing philosophy is nothing like Alpine's

Stop posting non-technical sources as though they have legitimate info

@fiagirly of all sources, too. I don't think it gets less technically credible.

[dren]

Mercedes are relying more on vertical plane flow inwash, than the downwash like the others.

That giant sidepod wing should shed a large vortex downwashing along the sides of the car and floor as it moves rearward to keep tire wake out. The air flowing across the wing is also being directed down in the rearwards direction.

[ringo]

Looking at all (new) cars, most cars have a clear aerodynamic household regarding to powerful airflows and lossy airflows.

Sidepod inlets create lossy air around the edges spilling over. All teams now have narrow wide inlets. This minimises losse on the sides of the sidepods. A lot of teams followed the RB route and extended the lower lip, forcing the losses to go over the top of the sidepod, keeping the most powerfull air over the floor edge and taking advantage of the lossy air over the top to place cooling exits.

I believe this is also why the cannon exits are popular. Instead of trying to spend your bodywork shape to aim the losses between the beam wing and the rear wing (prone to be messed up by sidewind, cornering etc.), expell the lossy air as close to the target as possible.

Before '22, lossy air could be cleaned up or manipulated to smash against the rear wheel by all sorts of aero devices. Now high power air is limited and needs to be savoured.

A vertical inlet is a disaster in that sense. All sorts of lossy stuff is expelled over a great length on the side of the sidepod and there is little that can be done to clean it up, use it for other lossy things etc.

I believe that is the fatal flaw in the zeropod concept. Sidepod inlet losses are mixed with the floor edge vortices and ingested by the beam wing/diffuser. I think merc miscalculated how much there was to gain from sperting powerful airstreams from lossy airstreams.

It is not fatal. Your point stands for a point of inflection like on top of the sidepod where the flow dips down as the pod slopes down, no additional energy is added to the flow there.
With the vertical inlet placed on a relativelt big surface that is facing oncoming flow bringing in more energy, the eddies will be absorbed by that high momentum of flow then the flow runs along the face then it turns over the edge or inflection point. What you say is true if the opening is near the edge or a lip right before the direction of flow changes. If there is no lip nearby and energy is being added, you dont have that problem. Hence ferrari's inlets on their 23 car as well.
They have their evaluation tools assessing not just velocity and pressure but energy, so its not easy to miss certain obvious things.
What im concerned about is the outwash undercut. They dont have much of that and that I agree with when it comes to missing out.

[ringo]

Mercedes are relying more on vertical plane flow inwash, than the downwash like the others.

That giant sidepod wing should shed a large vortex downwashing along the sides of the car and floor as it moves rearward to keep tire wake out. The air flowing across the wing is also being directed down in the rearwards direction.

Regarding the vortex and tyre wheel wake. That vortex diameter may not be big enough to do all of that. But agreed that it is doing something over the sidepods and the rear. It may well just be creating downforce as a mid body wing and then sheilding the rear as you say but to a smaller extent. I could be wrong. But would love to see som visuals to confirm or deny.

[Henk_v]

Looking at all (new) cars, most cars have a clear aerodynamic household regarding to powerful airflows and lossy airflows.

Sidepod inlets create lossy air around the edges spilling over. All teams now have narrow wide inlets. This minimises losse on the sides of the sidepods. A lot of teams followed the RB route and extended the lower lip, forcing the losses to go over the top of the sidepod, keeping the most powerfull air over the floor edge and taking advantage of the lossy air over the top to place cooling exits.

I believe this is also why the cannon exits are popular. Instead of trying to spend your bodywork shape to aim the losses between the beam wing and the rear wing (prone to be messed up by sidewind, cornering etc.), expell the lossy air as close to the target as possible.

Before '22, lossy air could be cleaned up or manipulated to smash against the rear wheel by all sorts of aero devices. Now high power air is limited and needs to be savoured.

A vertical inlet is a disaster in that sense. All sorts of lossy stuff is expelled over a great length on the side of the sidepod and there is little that can be done to clean it up, use it for other lossy things etc.

I believe that is the fatal flaw in the zeropod concept. Sidepod inlet losses are mixed with the floor edge vortices and ingested by the beam wing/diffuser. I think merc miscalculated how much there was to gain from sperting powerful airstreams from lossy airstreams.

It is not fatal. Your point stands for a point of inflection like on top of the sidepod where the flow dips down as the pod slopes down, no additional energy is added to the flow there.
With the vertical inlet placed on a relativelt big surface that is facing oncoming flow bringing in more energy, the eddies will be absorbed by that high momentum of flow then the flow runs along the face then it turns over the edge or inflection point. What you say is true if the opening is near the edge or a lip right before the direction of flow changes. If there is no lip nearby and energy is being added, you dont have that problem. Hence ferrari's inlets on their 23 car as well.
They have their evaluation tools assessing not just velocity and pressure but energy, so its not easy to miss certain obvious things.
What im concerned about is the outwash undercut. They dont have much of that and that I agree with when it comes to missing out.

I agree, but wouldn't you allready start with a massive messy boundary layer over the entire height of the sidepod, building up along the car and being ingested by the beamwing/diffuser?

Ferrari has a much more subtle approach than the blunt way RB managed the intakes, but it's obvious they made some effort in the '23 car to have the spillage go primarily over the top. And added to that the not-so-subtle extra inlet the get the chassis losses to go to the top of the sidepod.

Setting aside all boutique aero talk, it's really simple

messy, slow stuff up, fast clean stuff down = downforce

Thats the basis principle of all downforce creating devices. That does not only work on wings, floors and diffusers, it works on the entire car.