Thank's mate
Thank's mate
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.Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:48I 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!!
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).Longley wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:52As 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.Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:48I 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!!
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .
https://i.imgur.com/GWzb4pF.jpeg
it depends if they want to keep the midwing or notStu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 14:08The 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).Longley wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:52As 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.Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:48I 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!!
In case you have the midwing and an undercut you would have 3 cross sections in y-direction .
https://i.imgur.com/GWzb4pF.jpeg
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.).Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 14:08The 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).Longley wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:52As 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.Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:48I 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!!
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.
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.
thought that was solved by the f.i.a. begining to tackle the porpoiseAA_2019 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 18:35They have solved their problems with this W14 aka W13B.Matt2725 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:57I thought the reason behind the barn door rear wings last season was precisely because they couldn't generate enough downforce from the floor?Venturiation wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:09
or they removed porpoising by removing downforce and if they they bring more downforce it may come back again
It would appear they solved one part of the equation but not the other.
It has enough downforce to compete for the 2022 championship.
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.
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?chrisc90 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 14:34I 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.).Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 14:08The 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).Longley wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:52
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 .
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.