Mercedes W14

[Andi76]

One thing I've noticed about cars following the RB style of sidepod is how almoat every large surface area on any axis except for the undercut area seems to be an ever expanding low pressure area that feeds into other larger and ever expanding low pressure areas.

Its not that the air is just following the shape of the car, its that the air always seems guided toward a low pressure area for it to naturally fill.

I know eyeball aero gets a bad rep here, but I understand enough of the basic and I just couldn't ever see how the aero of the W13 and previous iteration of the W14 were supposed to work in a reliable fashion. There were so many bulges and bumps and flicks and wings flinging the air around in quite a harsh manner with very little to guide it in a structured way once it had been turned, lifted or twisted.

Now I can actually see where and why the air will be moving in a morr reliable way across more circumstances

I think eyeball CFD has a bad reputation for a reason. Every F1 aerodynamicist I've ever talked to and asked how he thinks this or that competitor's car is aerodynamically - you can't tell with the naked eye! Without CFD, wind tunnel or flow-vis etc. it is not possible. Aerodynamics is so complicated and the aerodynamics on a F1 car so complex and interactive - not the most talented and experienced aerodynamicist can do it. In fact, I've never heard an F1 aerodynamicist say anything different when I've asked him about anything other than his car.

[GrizzleBoy]

One thing I've noticed about cars following the RB style of sidepod is how almoat every large surface area on any axis except for the undercut area seems to be an ever expanding low pressure area that feeds into other larger and ever expanding low pressure areas.

Its not that the air is just following the shape of the car, its that the air always seems guided toward a low pressure area for it to naturally fill.

I know eyeball aero gets a bad rep here, but I understand enough of the basic and I just couldn't ever see how the aero of the W13 and previous iteration of the W14 were supposed to work in a reliable fashion. There were so many bulges and bumps and flicks and wings flinging the air around in quite a harsh manner with very little to guide it in a structured way once it had been turned, lifted or twisted.

Now I can actually see where and why the air will be moving in a morr reliable way across more circumstances

I think eyeball CFD has a bad reputation for a reason. Every F1 aerodynamicist I've ever talked to and asked how he thinks this or that competitor's car is aerodynamically - you can't tell with the naked eye! Without CFD, wind tunnel or flow-vis etc. it is not possible. Aerodynamics is so complicated and the aerodynamics on a F1 car so complex and interactive - not the most talented and experienced aerodynamicist can do it. In fact, I've never heard an F1 aerodynamicist say anything different when I've asked him about anything other than his car.

There's being able to do CFD with your eyes and then there's having at least a basic idea of how aero works.

Having a basic understanding allowed me to correctly predict that whichever dark grey sauber Esteban Gutierrez drove (no way ill remember the name) would be a rocket on the straights that year, and it turned out to be just that. A rocket on the straights that even the fastest cars found annoying to overtake.

Despite not having CFD eyes, having a basic understanding allows you to answer the easy questions like, "are the vortices shed from the W14 mid wing travelling along a well defined route that won't be sensitive to other flows around the car/different speeds/etc", which is quite clearly a no.

At a basic glance, the W14 now has clear and distinctive flow routes over and around the sidepods and applying basic principles of high vs low pressure allows you to at least predict how the flows will be influenced as they travel across the car, even if you cant see exaxtly where they are going.. Whether the sidepods will utilise those flows efficiently requires more data than eyes can show, obviously.

[Hoffman900]

One thing I've noticed about cars following the RB style of sidepod is how almoat every large surface area on any axis except for the undercut area seems to be an ever expanding low pressure area that feeds into other larger and ever expanding low pressure areas.

Its not that the air is just following the shape of the car, its that the air always seems guided toward a low pressure area for it to naturally fill.

I know eyeball aero gets a bad rep here, but I understand enough of the basic and I just couldn't ever see how the aero of the W13 and previous iteration of the W14 were supposed to work in a reliable fashion. There were so many bulges and bumps and flicks and wings flinging the air around in quite a harsh manner with very little to guide it in a structured way once it had been turned, lifted or twisted.

Now I can actually see where and why the air will be moving in a morr reliable way across more circumstances

I think eyeball CFD has a bad reputation for a reason. Every F1 aerodynamicist I've ever talked to and asked how he thinks this or that competitor's car is aerodynamically - you can't tell with the naked eye! Without CFD, wind tunnel or flow-vis etc. it is not possible. Aerodynamics is so complicated and the aerodynamics on a F1 car so complex and interactive - not the most talented and experienced aerodynamicist can do it. In fact, I've never heard an F1 aerodynamicist say anything different when I've asked him about anything other than his car.

There's being able to do CFD with your eyes and then there's having at least a basic idea of how aero works.

Having a basic understanding allowed me to correctly predict that whichever dark grey sauber Esteban Gutierrez drove (no way ill remember the name) would be a rocket on the straights that year, and it turned out to be just that. A rocket on the straights that even the fastest cars found annoying to overtake.

Despite not having CFD eyes, having a basic understanding allows you to answer the easy questions like, "are the vortices shed from the W14 mid wing travelling along a well defined route that won't be sensitive to other flows around the car/different speeds/etc", which is quite clearly a no.

At a basic glance, the W14 now has clear and distinctive flow routes over and around the sidepods and applying basic principles of high vs low pressure allows you to at least predict how the flows will be influenced as they travel across the car, even if you cant see exaxtly where they are going.. Whether the sidepods will utilise those flows efficiently requires more data than eyes can show, obviously.

The problem with CFD eyes a lot of people fall into is they assume flow is laminar. There is very little laminar flow on an open wheel race car.

[El_KaPpa]

[Andi76]

One thing I've noticed about cars following the RB style of sidepod is how almoat every large surface area on any axis except for the undercut area seems to be an ever expanding low pressure area that feeds into other larger and ever expanding low pressure areas.

Its not that the air is just following the shape of the car, its that the air always seems guided toward a low pressure area for it to naturally fill.

I know eyeball aero gets a bad rep here, but I understand enough of the basic and I just couldn't ever see how the aero of the W13 and previous iteration of the W14 were supposed to work in a reliable fashion. There were so many bulges and bumps and flicks and wings flinging the air around in quite a harsh manner with very little to guide it in a structured way once it had been turned, lifted or twisted.

Now I can actually see where and why the air will be moving in a morr reliable way across more circumstances

I think eyeball CFD has a bad reputation for a reason. Every F1 aerodynamicist I've ever talked to and asked how he thinks this or that competitor's car is aerodynamically - you can't tell with the naked eye! Without CFD, wind tunnel or flow-vis etc. it is not possible. Aerodynamics is so complicated and the aerodynamics on a F1 car so complex and interactive - not the most talented and experienced aerodynamicist can do it. In fact, I've never heard an F1 aerodynamicist say anything different when I've asked him about anything other than his car.

There's being able to do CFD with your eyes and then there's having at least a basic idea of how aero works.

Having a basic understanding allowed me to correctly predict that whichever dark grey sauber Esteban Gutierrez drove (no way ill remember the name) would be a rocket on the straights that year, and it turned out to be just that. A rocket on the straights that even the fastest cars found annoying to overtake.

Despite not having CFD eyes, having a basic understanding allows you to answer the easy questions like, "are the vortices shed from the W14 mid wing travelling along a well defined route that won't be sensitive to other flows around the car/different speeds/etc", which is quite clearly a no.

At a basic glance, the W14 now has clear and distinctive flow routes over and around the sidepods and applying basic principles of high vs low pressure allows you to at least predict how the flows will be influenced as they travel across the car, even if you cant see exaxtly where they are going.. Whether the sidepods will utilise those flows efficiently requires more data than eyes can show, obviously.

Exactly what you say in your last sentence is the point i wanted to make. Surely it is possible to make some general statements with some basic knowledge. But to judge the performance - no. It is not even possible to make accurate statements about the exact flow behavior of individual parts without CFD, flow vis or similar and it is a fact that F1 engineers with decades of experience and several world championship titles in their pockets do not trust themselves to do this and they smile at anyone who claims they can. I actually asked several F1 aerodynamicists many years ago when I was more naive and had less knowledge (although I don't pretend to know much today) why every F1 aerodynamicist says to me "it's not possible" when so many outside F1 do it. I was very puzzled at that time why every F1 aerodynamicist, from whom I actually expected much more accurate answers than from all the analysts and so-called experts, could not make any statement on this and could not tell me what this new part or that one brings or what it does exactly, while many "experts" did exactly that. Their answer was always the same - because in truth these people have no idea about aerodynamics and don't understand aerodynamics in general. And that an F1 car is far too complex in this regard for this to be possible. And these were all aerodynamicists with decades of experience and with one or even more world championship titles under their belt. So I know that pretty much every F1 aerodynamicist just smiles at the people who think you can make statements about performance or the exact flow behavior with the naked eye. But anyway - I found it instructive and interesting that people with such knowledge about F1 cars and aerodynamics are much more careful about this than people with much less knowledge which showed me then how complex everything is in truth.

[Andi76]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but it's a real photo from a similar perspective and therefore better than any illustration, and much more detailed

[Just_a_fan]

But anyway - I found it instructive and interesting that people with such knowledge about F1 cars and aerodynamics are much more careful about this than people with much less knowledge which showed me then how complex everything is in truth.

It's an example of Dunning-Kruger in action.

Lots of people with no expertise thinking they can do stuff that experts can't. The experts are aware of their limitations.

[Andi76]

But anyway - I found it instructive and interesting that people with such knowledge about F1 cars and aerodynamics are much more careful about this than people with much less knowledge which showed me then how complex everything is in truth.

It's an example of Dunning-Kruger in action.

Lots of people with no expertise thinking they can do stuff that experts can't. The experts are aware of their limitations.

There is no better way to put it!

[Big Tea]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but it's a real photo from a similar perspective and therefore better than any illustration, and much more detailed

https://postimg.cc/KRcZ0kX1

Are the ripples in the finish of the outer floor sided intentional or just not a good 'moulding'?
If the latter surely it must negatively affect the airflow? (of actual photograph, sorry bad positioning)

[Farnborough]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but it's a real photo from a similar perspective and therefore better than any illustration, and much more detailed

https://postimg.cc/KRcZ0kX1

Not bad for detail and clear look at floor topography, geometrical representation is distorted though.

All four wheels show that the image has "pincushion" distortion, the image plane is not flat to floor plane (showing difference in position of strakes etc) top right corner "pulled" more than others to give rectilinear representation while distorting floor topography! all making it apparent why it's often difficult to read the image in giving technical appraisal of significant worth.

[f1_aerodynamicist]

Possible Aero Mechanisms on the new W14B . Looking forward to the thoughts of the community.
https://youtu.be/urZAOUe01Yc

[organic]

New/modified diffuser sidewall for this weekend.

Carlo Platella



Not a brilliant shot of it, but hey-ho better than nothing

[Andi76]

The W14 floor looks so 'basic' and rudimentary compared to the RB19 floor (for which we should thank Perez for the preview).

Yeah, but don’t mistake complicated ≠ better.

RB’s floor works great in the concept of their entire car, but their strength is likely what’s happening on the top from a drag standpoint, but it all matters.

It has to work within the whole design. Ferrari, Merc, etc knew what Redbull’s floor looked like last year and they still pursued what they did, and there is a reason for that. Aero isn’t additivive

Definitely, but Mercedes has left this path with this model, because it clearly goes more in the direction of the Red Bull RB18. It's still a clone where they probably didn't want to make the complete step yet, but it's definitely a step in the Red Bull direction. Of course, it's also possible that they think the best of both worlds will deliver the most performance. But a "pure ground effect floor" in the sense of Ferrari is no longer.

[pursue_one's]

Modified diffuser sidewall

[organic]

Modified diffuser sidewall

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/M ... 007005.jpg

The arrow's pointing at the inwards bulge that has been there already (and inspired RB's new direction with their diffuser). I think the modification didn't involve that bulge but don't have confirmation as I am on mobile - will find comparison photos to previous GPs later.