Mercedes W15

[matteosc]

How do we know that it defies the purpose of the rule ? how can people here be so certain of that fact ? am i missing something here ?
we've already seen that overtakes got harder in year 2 of the new regs so all this nonsense about the purpose of the rule can be thrown into a dumpster fire as far as i am concerned

Outwash is the main thing that the new rules wanted to avoid. Teams were able to get that effect (partially) back, mainly using the fences at the entrance of the floor and the pressurization below the sidepods entrances to do that. This is why overtakes have gotten harder, and teams got away with it because they did not do it in such a obvious way.

Trying to recreate a Y250 vortex in the way this front wing is designed seems way too blunt to me. This obviously a personal opinion and by the way: I have no doubt that it works and it works well.

I understand where you're coming from, i just don't see why this should be treated in a different way compared to the numerous solutions the teams found (those you've mentioned). whether it is obvious or not should not have any incidence assuming it is legal
then again the FIA has been known lately to crack on innovations coming from Merc so who knows

For the other solutions that I listed it can be argued that they have a different primary objective and the generation of an outwash vortex is a secondary effect. I think this is the main difference.

The new rules aimed at avoiding the Y250 vortex. If you introduce a device that aims uniquely at reproducing it, then it is possible that you will run into troubles.

[AR3-GP]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGUGGF_XcAA ... name=large

That rear wing reminds me of last year.

[KimiRai]

Strange top front wishbone on the render, it has 3 arms.

That is fake I believe

[Cs98]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGUGGF_XcAA ... name=large

That rear wing reminds me of last year.

It's the same wing as last year with the detached upper flap mounting points.

[AR3-GP]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGUGGF_XcAA ... name=large

That rear wing reminds me of last year.

It's the same wing as last year with the detached upper flap mounting points.

Interesting. They might have a new wing for Bahrain or the wing itself was not the cause of the lack of DRS efficiency.

[JordanMugen]

Both FOM and FIA made clear the intent of the rules is an important factor for them and all the gray areas which significantly breach this will be removed promptly - 2022 AMR Hungry RW endplates as an example:
https://storage.googleapis.com/the-race ... 24x706.jpg

Good point!

So the FIA will be likely to rewrite the rules to remove this Mercedes "feature", as they did the Aston Martin rear wing ' armchairs ' -- although will that be likely for the 2024 season or 2025 season?

It should be even easier and cheaper for teams to copy this Mercedes than to copy the Aston Martin armchair rear wing, shouldn't it -- notwithstanding that this has downstream design considerations, unlike the Aston Martin wing?

[Owen.C93]

Yeah it’s not different than just having 3 smaller front wing planes like Alpine. I think this is just more efficient to have 2 elements resolved to the nose.

I doubt it’s achieving any strong vortex compared to last years designs. And if teams really are going down that flow structure route then it’s the logical conclusion of that development path anyway.

Same as small outer elements, high sidepod inlets, and unresolved ends to the rear wing elements.

[Vanja #66]

Good point!

So the FIA will be likely to rewrite the rules to remove this Mercedes "feature", as they did the Aston Martin rear wing ' armchairs ' -- although will that be likely for the 2024 season or 2025 season?

It should be even easier and cheaper for teams to copy this Mercedes than to copy the Aston Martin armchair rear wing, shouldn't it -- notwithstanding that this has downstream design considerations, unlike the Aston Martin wing?

I'm not sure what's the final deadline for FIA to release final 2024 rules, if it passed then all the teams would need to agree to a rule change in the current (2024) season. Otherwise, think the FIA needs to declare something a proven safety hazard to outlaw it on its own and this obviously isn't one. So if FIA wants to intervene they can introduce a TD or wait for 2025 and this will depend on the behind-the-curtain events. I've re-read the 2024 FW rules just to be sure and this solution seems to be fully legal if some other article doesn't apply to this bodywork area.

[Sidiamal]

I'm fascinated by the P-inlet. Every other team has settled on underbite or overbite and Mercedes seem to have looked for a way to combine the two.

[LeveragedTiger]

Images from Instagram


https://i.imgur.com/FqxMAJ6.png

The blisters they've added to the centerline bodywork to the rear of the car are quite interesting. I imagine the intention is to add more downwash, but a very unique choice given how Red Bull appear to be emulating Mercedes approach in 2023.

[DChemTech]

Like situations where they decided wings were flexing too much and breached 'the (qualitative) spirit of the rules', even though they were fully compliant to all quantitative rules written on paper.

I don't agree on that point. The rules for bodywork were always the same, the teams were exploiting the way that the FIA were _testing for compliance_.

Similar to the flexy floor issue from last year, the FIA have a specific set of tests that they will perform to check for legality. This is because there has to be some constraint of the amount of time and effort they can reasonably apply to scrutineering. The teams then work out how they might be able to pass the tests while still breaking the rules to gain an advantage. The updated technical directives have set out new compliance test processes, not new rules.

No, they passed the test. If the FIA wanted to avoid further flexing at higher loads, they should have tested at higher loads, or at least prescribed how to extrapolate to behavior under that. If you only prescribe passing a certain test, and a team passes that test, it's compliance. Not exploitation. No designer can design for the things a client or regulator has in mind, only for what they put on paper. That's as far as I am going to take that here, there are other topics for this discussion.
On the topic here, I can only say that, as an RB fan, I hope MB can keep their wing as is if it indeed complies to the rules that were put on paper, no matter how much they are against spirit or intent. If the FIA has a problem with this, they should have written the rules in a way that does not allow for it.

[Venturiation]

That rear wing reminds me of last year.

It's the same wing as last year with the detached upper flap mounting points.

Interesting. They might have a new wing for Bahrain or the wing itself was not the cause of the lack of DRS efficiency.

Or they use the same wing on W13 and W14 for correlation

[stewie325]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGUGGF_XcAA ... name=large

Mercedes have had the most "innovations" around the front wing in the last two years. And yet, I can't think of many from Red Bull. The latter's front wing has been very minimal in comparison. Makes me wonder if all these tricks aren't worth the hassle in the current regs compared to before, if they would create negative effects for air entering the floor/sidepod area. In these regs, most of the downforce should be produced by the floor - and the front wing should facilitate that with little drag as possible? Red Bull always spoke of efficiency being important - can anyone speculate how such vortex generators on the new Merc might impact "aero efficiency"?

[Emag]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGUGGF_XcAA ... name=large

Mercedes have had the most "innovations" around the front wing in the last two years. And yet, I can't think of many from Red Bull. The latter's front wing has been very minimal in comparison. Makes me wonder if all these tricks aren't worth the hassle in the current regs compared to before, if they would create negative effects for air entering the floor/sidepod area. In these regs, most of the downforce should be produced by the floor - and the front wing should facilitate that with little drag as possible? Red Bull always spoke of efficiency being important - can anyone speculate how such vortex generators on the new Merc might impact "aero efficiency"?

Well, outwash in general has been nerfed pretty hard on these regulations, and most of that started at the front wing.

[AR3-GP]

It's the same wing as last year with the detached upper flap mounting points.

Interesting. They might have a new wing for Bahrain or the wing itself was not the cause of the lack of DRS efficiency.

Or they use the same wing on W13 and W14 for correlation

You know we're sick of hearing that