Mercedes W14

[Fulvio2044]

I've always admired such inspired airflow illustrations, SalaStampa are really on top of that game

Thank's mate

[ringo]

Some W14 suggestions from yours truly. New floor obviously cannot be sketched.

Basically its somewhat of an MP4-26 type philosophy. With open gullies at the front, but downstream of the existing openings. This is what's labeled as pontoons.
The gullies slope downward to the floor like AMR23. The Pontoons protect the gully flow.

Existing openings will be blocked off at the lower region meeting the floor to allow the undercut from tea tray to floor wing. That's in red.
The undercut drives outward creating an eductor effect on the floor and also like a curtain of the floor.

The mid-wing needs to be modified for the new sidepods so its planform can be changed to reduce the drag. I was also considering upturned wing tips to control the vortex formation. I think the tips can also be downturned to place those vortices lower where they are more useful by the floor; if permitted the regulations.

Feel free to build on or critique these little suggestions.

Note: There can be an argument that sidepod inlets cannot be smaller, but why I reduced the inlet opening is that if we look on the Alpine, it has the smallest intakes of all the cars, so it seems to have very good cooling. Also Mercedes can place gills in the gully like Ferrari or AMR.

[Stu]

I had been thinking along similar lines.

I don’t think that there is a requirement to decrease the sidepod inlet size (compare with other Mercedes powered cars), but can see some sense in reorienting it by 90 degrees - creating a more aggressive undercut and maintaining the mid-wing.

The devil really is in the details!!

[Longley]

I had been thinking along similar lines.

I don’t think that there is a requirement to decrease the sidepod inlet size (compare with other Mercedes powered cars), but can see some sense in reorienting it by 90 degrees - creating a more aggressive undercut and maintaining the mid-wing.

The devil really is in the details!!

As far as I understood Kyle Engineering’s video about the legality of the W13 sidepods a combination of an undercut and the midwing element is not possible. You are only allowed to have 2 cross sections in y-direction. How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .

[Stu]

I had been thinking along similar lines.

I don’t think that there is a requirement to decrease the sidepod inlet size (compare with other Mercedes powered cars), but can see some sense in reorienting it by 90 degrees - creating a more aggressive undercut and maintaining the mid-wing.

The devil really is in the details!!

As far as I understood Kyle Engineering’s video about the legality of the W13 sidepods a combination of an undercut and the midwing element is not possible. You are only allowed to have 2 cross sections in y-direction. How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .



https://i.imgur.com/GWzb4pF.jpeg

The location (on the x-plane) is the determinant of that; providing there is no crossover it should be fine (otherwise the RedBull solution would also fail as it moves rearward, legality radii notwithstanding).

[Venturiation]

I had been thinking along similar lines.

I don’t think that there is a requirement to decrease the sidepod inlet size (compare with other Mercedes powered cars), but can see some sense in reorienting it by 90 degrees - creating a more aggressive undercut and maintaining the mid-wing.

The devil really is in the details!!

As far as I understood Kyle Engineering’s video about the legality of the W13 sidepods a combination of an undercut and the midwing element is not possible. You are only allowed to have 2 cross sections in y-direction. How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .



https://i.imgur.com/GWzb4pF.jpeg

The location (on the x-plane) is the determinant of that; providing there is no crossover it should be fine (otherwise the RedBull solution would also fail as it moves rearward, legality radii notwithstanding).

it depends if they want to keep the midwing or not
when mike said it would be still and evolution of their current philosophy maybe he meant the midwing is staying or the midwing will be replaced and the slim pods will stay

[chrisc90]

I had been thinking along similar lines.

I don’t think that there is a requirement to decrease the sidepod inlet size (compare with other Mercedes powered cars), but can see some sense in reorienting it by 90 degrees - creating a more aggressive undercut and maintaining the mid-wing.

The devil really is in the details!!

As far as I understood Kyle Engineering’s video about the legality of the W13 sidepods a combination of an undercut and the midwing element is not possible. You are only allowed to have 2 cross sections in y-direction. How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .

The location (on the x-plane) is the determinant of that; providing there is no crossover it should be fine (otherwise the RedBull solution would also fail as it moves rearward, legality radii notwithstanding).

I think it depends how far the side pod legality box goes backwards. That is the area to be looking at. I don’t have a model/photo with the legality boxes (unless someone can work it out of Kyles video, or understands the technical regs well enough to build that area.).
It’s almost certain they can’t do a conventional side pod with the mid wing in situ, as that would work out to too many planes in the axis, which is why the side pod intake on the W14 has to touch the floor in a constant angle/direction without changing.

Edit: looking at some of the models, it would appear the rough end of the legality box is the screw/bolt fixings that run down just behind the side pod intake. Which appears to line up with the raised section of the cockpit. Just forwards of the AMD logo.

[Vanja #66]

Shub posted a great video on W14 suspension influence on aerodynamics and downstream interaction, take a look

[f1_aerodynamicist]

Shub posted a great video on W14 suspension influence on aerodynamics and downstream interaction, take a look

Thank you Vanja for the recommendation. Excited for the next one !!

[vorticism]

How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .

The vertical inlet and the wing will still only produce two sections in Y. The sidepod legality box is above the floor legality box, so the floor junction won't be counted.

[chrisc90]

How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .

The vertical inlet and the wing will still only produce two sections in Y. The sidepod legality box is above the floor legality box, so the floor junction won't be counted.

Still not sure how you can get a undercut on your sidepod and keep the mid-wing. Mainly because the second that sidepod comes downwards and starts to turn back towards the tub, you introduce another axis. The only way they can keep that mid-wing legal is by 1 direction heading to the floor without it bending back towards the tub/cockpit.

If you use the floor legality box for your axis then you wouldnt be able to achieve a undercut.

They might be able to use engine cover volume boxes behind the sidepod box to create a undercutting engine cover, like Red bull, but I really cant see how airflow would flow around it nicely. For example using the bodywork above the pin stripe to buldge them out to create a undercut.
Or something completely more radical and do a W13 style sidepod, but taper it in the other direction towards the chassis rather than outwards. No idea if any of those would be legal, but its only way I can see it as being a option.

[vorticism]

Still not sure how you can get a undercut on your sidepod and keep the mid-wing.

You don't. The vertical inlet (W14 version) doesn't have an undercut. It's vertical or slightly canted out at the base like last year. OP was wondering how the vertical inlet is legal.

Interesting detail: the inlet does not start until aft of the wing. If I read the rules correctly, this is about where the sidepod legality box terminates. If so, that's why the aft face of the wing has a bluff face; the wing can't go further back. The inlet also can't be farther back because that is the engine cover region which is not permitted to have openings of this sort. So the inlet is as far back as it can be, although, why isn't it any farther forward? I could be while still meeting all the regs; it just doesn't offer any aero value would be my guess.

[pierrre]

or they removed porpoising by removing downforce and if they they bring more downforce it may come back again

I thought the reason behind the barn door rear wings last season was precisely because they couldn't generate enough downforce from the floor?

It would appear they solved one part of the equation but not the other.

They have solved their problems with this W14 aka W13B.

It has enough downforce to compete for the 2022 championship.

thought that was solved by the f.i.a. begining to tackle the porpoise

[Vanja #66]

Still not sure how you can get a undercut on your sidepod and keep the mid-wing.

You don't. The vertical inlet (W14 version) doesn't have an undercut. It's vertical or slightly canted out at the base like last year. OP was wondering how the vertical inlet is legal.

Actually, I think with this year's design they'd be able to have an undercut. The inlet starts right where the wing ends and they form a single surface on the inside. This means W14 has only one surface intersection in y-cut in the width of the inlet, so they can actually introduce an undercut and keep the wing. The thing is, I'm not sure that's something you'd want to do, you'd need to raise the inlet and extend the width and that would effectively cancel out the mid wing and likely it's downwash effects too.

[Jdn1327]

As far as I understood Kyle Engineering’s video about the legality of the W13 sidepods a combination of an undercut and the midwing element is not possible. You are only allowed to have 2 cross sections in y-direction. How the vertical sidepod inlet of the W14 is legal I can only assume that Mercedes interpret the bottom not as part of the relevant geometry.
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .

The location (on the x-plane) is the determinant of that; providing there is no crossover it should be fine (otherwise the RedBull solution would also fail as it moves rearward, legality radii notwithstanding).

I think it depends how far the side pod legality box goes backwards. That is the area to be looking at. I don’t have a model/photo with the legality boxes (unless someone can work it out of Kyles video, or understands the technical regs well enough to build that area.).
It’s almost certain they can’t do a conventional side pod with the mid wing in situ, as that would work out to too many planes in the axis, which is why the side pod intake on the W14 has to touch the floor in a constant angle/direction without changing.

Edit: looking at some of the models, it would appear the rough end of the legality box is the screw/bolt fixings that run down just behind the side pod intake. Which appears to line up with the raised section of the cockpit. Just forwards of the AMD logo.

I need to ask a silly question here...is the size of the actual floor directly proportional to the amount of downforce it generates? I.e. the more surface area the floor covers...the more downforce it produces?

Interning article about sidepods...nice overlay of the AMR sidepod on the mercs current car

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... /10444056/