Mercedes W14

[AR3-GP]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

The changes are too big to be able to change between practice sessions. There's a new front suspension...sidepod and floor structure has changed.

[AA_2019]

Quite a decent direct comparison in side by side illustration here, of front suspension geometry shift.

This is the game changer that alone will half the gap to RB imo.

Downside will be poorer tyre and brake warm-up for qualy and on lap 1 of the race on front limited circuits.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

There are some many detail changes that it's not practical to rebuild a car from one design to the other in the time available between sessions.

Last yr HAM was testing well into the second practice session, only converging on setup in P3 (and often changing setup again for quali). I guess maybe I’m alone in thinking the focus should be on testing, I’ve been out of the loop for a bit but are they confident the correlation issue is in the rearview?

The front suspension is entirely different and uses different pick up points. That isn't something they can change at the track. And if the suspension isn't changed, then there's little point in changing other stuff as it's all designed to work together.

Last year, they were trying bolt-on bits to an existing car, trying weird settings in the springs/dampers, etc., but all of it was in the same car. The car at Monaco isn't interchangeable with the car from Baku.

[continuum16]

Good “before and after” comparison from Autosport on the suspension.

[Rootsap]

What is this vertical slit in the middle of the sidepod?

[AR3-GP]

Quite a decent direct comparison in side by side illustration here, of front suspension geometry shift.

This is the game changer that alone will half the gap to RB imo.

Downside will be poorer tyre and brake warm-up for qualy and on lap 1 of the race on front limited circuits.

Mercedes already had poor tyre warmup last year without any of RB's front suspension so it's possible that the cause of this isn't related to the front suspension.

[SiLo]

But if there are so many benefits to an anti-dive setup, why doesn't everybody use it as default?
Can somebody explain the drawbacks (there have to be surely) of this geometry?

Usually it means you are more prone to front locking, and it probably feels odd to the drivers as the car doesn't dive when they hit the brakes. Might be ok with lewis as he usually runs a more aggressive rear bias

[Vanja #66]

Fabrega



Its a different design than any other indeed, but clearly inspired by existing solutions

[BigBeansBoy]

Quite a decent direct comparison in side by side illustration here, of front suspension geometry shift.

This is the game changer that alone will half the gap to RB imo.

Downside will be poorer tyre and brake warm-up for qualy and on lap 1 of the race on front limited circuits.

I'd love to see some sources or evidence to support what you're saying since I have absolutely no idea what you're basing your predictions off of. It's very disingenuous to saying something like "half the gap to RB" then add "imo" at the end as if a gap can every be an opinionated thing.

Mercedes has been one of the worst at warming up the tyre and I'd be really surprised to see that issue get even worse with further development. Instead I think some of the downsides to moving to a more anti-dive suspension is that they'll have a harder time turning the car under braking because of the necessary change in caster angle. Because of this we might see a longer, shallower trail brake going into a turn to reduce that effort needed. I'm going to be keeping an eye on the brake traces in free practice to see if a trend emerges that corroborates that. Additionally, because anti-dive suspension raises the dive-pivot point, the W14 will likely have a lot more oversteer. Whether this is/becomes an issue or not depends on the setups Hamilton/Russel have been chasing, but I have a feeling this is a good direction and more in-line with what Lewis has been saying in those vague "the team hasn't listened to my feedback regarding developing the car" interviews. All told, I think this is going to be a very interesting set of laps around Monaco in fp!

[AR3-GP]

Fabrega

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw-bSVUXsAM ... ame=medium

Its a different design than any other indeed, but clearly inspired by existing solutions

I agree. It's a very different philosophy for the sidepod to the previous design. It seems heavily inspired by RB/AMR/Ferrari. Some downwash from RB and the channel from AMR/Ferrari/Alpine.

[Curbstone]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

The changes are too big to be able to change between practice sessions. There's a new front suspension...sidepod and floor structure has changed.

Also, it's not just de shape of the sidepod, it's also the equipment on the inside that may have required a change. I've seen a picture which showed some changes in the cooling layout.


Someone commented about the seating position. It's a hell of a job jo change that. You have to change the chassis, and change the layout of everything behind the driver seat. Not just because you have less space, but also because you have a desired COG, which is also restricted by the rules. That will be a very expensive and time consuming task. And it would surprise me if that could be done in-season.

[myurr]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

The changes are too big to be able to change between practice sessions. There's a new front suspension...sidepod and floor structure has changed.

Then on top of that you have to consider that they won't have any real world experience with how to set up the car, so they'll likely want to split setup directions between the two cars to see how the car reacts to various choices. They can cover far more ground with two cars than one.

Basically there are a huge number of reasons to abandon the old car and focus exclusively on the new one.

[KimiRai]

Fabrega

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw-bSVUXsAM ... ame=medium

Its a different design than any other indeed, but clearly inspired by existing solutions

Why do you think they kept the vents on top of the sidepod? For example Aston and a few others like Alpine have moved them away higher up to the engine cover, maybe to keep flow energy high or reduce separation (I'm a noob obviously so no idea). Is it a conscious choice or leftovers they cannot change yet?

[PlatinumZealot]

wider rads... Probably more tube / fin spacing for less drag too.

[PlatinumZealot]

Very interesting shaping of the undercut and floor junction, a double outwash kick. Well, the second one is hardly a kick, but it does push outwards. Could even extend fully to diffuser width, thus feeding the mouse hole with undercut air. This confirms it's a step where they completely turn away from zeropod/slimpod philosophy.

https://i.ibb.co/xMyc4mP/Mercedes-Forme ... erstag.jpg

Nice Rhetoric.
I am being patient. This one is too suspiciously vanilla!! Probably was in the tunnel in Bahrain.