Mercedes-AMG F1 W10 EQ Power+

[roon]

Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

An example of this is diffuser volume.

In the spirit of dubiously useful space-filling, I've been somewhat disappointed that, since the introduction of the new bargeboard volumes in 2017, no one has put their heat exchangers in there and eliminated traditional sidepods.

[miguelalvesreis]

The opinion is predicting further development on the side pods. Your opinion is that Mercedes isn't considering developing their side pods. Do you have data from the test to say otherwise.

The section in bold is quite obvious.

What I asked (quite explicitly; underlined for emphasis), is why? Why will the side pod design be changed? To what end, specifically? Such a change would trigger fundamental changes elsewhere. It's not like bolting on a different t-wing.

Isn't asking for clarification a reasonable question in a technical discussion?

What data from the test do you have that suggests that Mercedes is considering developing their side pods further (specifically, making them even smaller)?

And where did I say that I have data that they didn't? I merely pointed out that the W10 already made massive gains in this area.

Changing the entire sidepod structure mid-season is a massive undertaking that would take anywhere from 3-6 months. The minor tweaks Mercedes made to the bodywork around their side pods last year didn't arrive until Austria.

Next?

Why Mercedes would change the size of inlet is quite obvious, and I don't understand why you would question his opinion when the answer is technically simple.

He wasn't talking about changing an entire side pod resructure or shrinking the coke bottle.

Why is it obvious? Why do you think that is the most relevant part to improve?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

[ClarkBT11]

The section in bold is quite obvious.

What I asked (quite explicitly; underlined for emphasis), is why? Why will the side pod design be changed? To what end, specifically? Such a change would trigger fundamental changes elsewhere. It's not like bolting on a different t-wing.

Isn't asking for clarification a reasonable question in a technical discussion?

What data from the test do you have that suggests that Mercedes is considering developing their side pods further (specifically, making them even smaller)?

And where did I say that I have data that they didn't? I merely pointed out that the W10 already made massive gains in this area.

Changing the entire sidepod structure mid-season is a massive undertaking that would take anywhere from 3-6 months. The minor tweaks Mercedes made to the bodywork around their side pods last year didn't arrive until Austria.

Next?

Why Mercedes would change the size of inlet is quite obvious, and I don't understand why you would question his opinion when the answer is technically simple.

He wasn't talking about changing an entire side pod resructure or shrinking the coke bottle.

Why is it obvious? Why do you think that is the most relevant part to improve?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

It wasn't my opinion for the side pods to be the most relevant part to improve. It was another member that thought Mercedes could reduce the size of the side pod inlet in the upcoming races.
My question is why Zibby43 is asking a question he already knows the answer to.(why would Mercedes want to reduce the area of the side pod inlet) the answer is at the top of this post.

[zibby43]

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

It wasn't my opinion for the side pods to be the most relevant part to improve. It was another member that thought Mercedes could reduce the size of the side pod inlet in the upcoming races.
My question is why Zibby43 is asking a question he already knows the answer to.(why would Mercedes want to reduce the area of the side pod inlet) the answer is at the top of this post.

No, I didn't already know the answer. I asked a question out of curiosity, and said I was willing to listen to the answer. You interjected with some condescending comments directed at me.

Which, respectfully, is kind of humorous, since you're having trouble separating nuance here. There is a difference between asking what the general effect of reducing side pod inlet size is (a question I do know the answer to, and a question I did not ask) and asking why Mercedes would want to make an already impressively compact (albeit more traditionally-shaped) side pod design even smaller.

How was that going to help solve the problematic behaviors the car exhibited in testing?

To spell it out further, there has been no indication from the team, from analysts, from watching the car on track, that the side pod inlet volume is anywhere near the top of the list of problems to rectify on the W10. If anything, most have marveled at how impressively compact that area of the car is, despite the more traditional lower mounting and more conventional shape.

Every indication, including from the team, is that the W10 is lacking rear downforce. As a consequence, the car is unbalanced, particularly in high speed corners.

[humble sabot]

In the spirit of dubiously useful space-filling, I've been somewhat disappointed that, since the introduction of the new bargeboard volumes in 2017, no one has put their heat exchangers in there and eliminated traditional sidepods.

That's a fascinating idea. There might be a way of doing it, but in terms of the space available, I'm not sure if there's a drag benefit. Especially comparing to the Mercedes here, the heat exchangers are very streamlined into the whole package. To balance out the drag of the radiating surface itself may or not be doable if you both move them forward, and provide less overall space to merge the outflow into the flow you're hoping to feed the wing or underfloor with. The other thing is that pipework is shorter as is, saving weight.
I imagine you're thinking something like the BT 52? Having a fully exposed face in line with the flow will both absorb some of the speed of the air passing by it due to its roughness, and require far more radiator since it won't be flowing as much air directly through it, so you'd have to rely more in the actual heat capacity of the thing to absorb the excess heat of the systems you're trying to cool.

Fun brain experiment, but I think within the current rules, effectively a dead end.

Also, why do people keep talking about the radiator duct opening on the W10 as though they're huge? They're quite narrow if you consider just how wide the space is that is handled by the side vanes, at full height especially.

[Just_a_fan]

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

Not necessarily. Making the opening smaller means more air has to be directed around the sidepod. Turning air adds drag.

Changing the entry opening means changing many other bits.

[zibby43]

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

Not necessarily. Making the opening smaller means more air has to be directed around the sidepod. Turning air adds drag.

Changing the entry opening means changing many other bits.

Well said.

[ClarkBT11]

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

It wasn't my opinion for the side pods to be the most relevant part to improve. It was another member that thought Mercedes could reduce the size of the side pod inlet in the upcoming races.
My question is why Zibby43 is asking a question he already knows the answer to.(why would Mercedes want to reduce the area of the side pod inlet) the answer is at the top of this post.

No, I didn't already know the answer. I asked a question out of curiosity, and said I was willing to listen to the answer. You interjected with some condescending comments directed at me.

Which, respectfully, is kind of humorous, since you're having trouble separating nuance here. There is a difference between asking what the general effect of reducing side pod inlet size is (a question I do know the answer to, and a question I did not ask) and asking why Mercedes would want to make an already impressively compact (albeit more traditionally-shaped) side pod design even smaller.

How was that going to help solve the problematic behaviors the car exhibited in testing?

To spell it out further, there has been no indication from the team, from analysts, from watching the car on track, that the side pod inlet volume is anywhere near the top of the list of problems to rectify on the W10. If anything, most have marveled at how impressively compact that area of the car is, despite the more traditional lower mounting and more conventional shape.

Every indication, including from the team, is that the W10 is lacking rear downforce. As a consequence, the car is unbalanced, particularly in high speed corners.

I read your original reply as condescending.
I agree reducing the inlet is an area Mercedes could develop, your opinion is they won't or can't. What part of this discussion has anything to do with the handling charistics of the car.

[ClarkBT11]

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

Not necessarily. Making the opening smaller means more air has to be directed around the sidepod. Turning air adds drag.

Changing the entry opening means changing many other bits.

Would less air going through the radiators not reduce drag?
Is more air going over the side pods be beneficial to the rear downforce of the car?

[Just_a_fan]

Would less air going through the radiators not reduce drag?
Is more air going over the side pods be beneficial to the rear downforce of the car?

It might but it would also reduce the cooling capability of the radiators.

The cooling openings are carefully chosen to give the required cooling in all of the expected conditions. Changing them might help drag but it might also cause reliability issues.

[zibby43]

I read your original reply as condescending.
I agree reducing the inlet is an area Mercedes could develop, your opinion is they won't or can't. What part of this discussion has anything to do with the handling charistics of the car.

Which is strange, since the reply wasn't even directed at you. And my goal is to treat everyone here with the same courtesy and respect I'd treat them with in person, so there was no condescension intended.

Also, I've not once said Mercedes "can't" or "won't" develop that area.

You've put words in my mouth and incorrectly assumed (on multiple occasions) my intent and the nature of my questions. You've also conflated concepts such as reducing the size or volume of the inlet vs. changing the shape of the inlet and the bodywork around it (which Merc already did during the second week of the test).

Not to mention, you've been kind of rude. So, respectfully, I'm done with this conversation.

[NutritionFact]

Look at the blue lines that I have drawn, Ferrari seems to be using as much floor area as they can, whereas Mercedes isn't.
Look at the green line and Ferrari seems to have kept the side pod opening as far back as they can and Mercedes is quite far forward.
Ferrari's front wing seems to be much wider (the box drawn).

Click to Enlarge

https://i.imgur.com/Mi2Md8S.jpg

Same game, look at the rear, merc has much more floor they use as Ferrari.

[ClarkBT11]

I read your original reply as condescending.
I agree reducing the inlet is an area Mercedes could develop, your opinion is they won't or can't. What part of this discussion has anything to do with the handling charistics of the car.

Which is strange, since the reply wasn't even directed at you. And my goal is to treat everyone here with the same courtesy and respect I'd treat them with in person, so there was no condescension intended.

Also, I've not once said Mercedes "can't" or "won't" develop that area.

You've put words in my mouth and incorrectly assumed (on multiple occasions) my intent and the nature of my questions. You've also conflated concepts such as reducing the size or volume of the inlet vs. changing the shape of the inlet and the bodywork around it (which Merc already did during the second week of the test).

Not to mention, you've been kind of rude. So, respectfully, I'm done with this conversation.

I was talking about the volume of the inlet everything else came out of your mouth.

Next

[miguelalvesreis]

Why Mercedes would change the size of inlet is quite obvious, and I don't understand why you would question his opinion when the answer is technically simple.

He wasn't talking about changing an entire side pod resructure or shrinking the coke bottle.

Why is it obvious? Why do you think that is the most relevant part to improve?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

It wasn't my opinion for the side pods to be the most relevant part to improve. It was another member that thought Mercedes could reduce the size of the side pod inlet in the upcoming races.
My question is why Zibby43 is asking a question he already knows the answer to.(why would Mercedes want to reduce the area of the side pod inlet) the answer is at the top of this post.

And why would he not ask? I do not see it as so obvious right now! They've just made a totally new sidepod! Do you think is obvious that they didn't shrunk it the maximum they could? So, why not? Honest question mate, cause I'm really njot understanding yours and the original poster reasoning!
Which data do you have to back up the reasoning that the inlet is poorly developded in comparision with the engine and cooling system packaging?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

[ClarkBT11]

Why is it obvious? Why do you think that is the most relevant part to improve?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

Reducing the side pod inlet will improve areo efficiency, reducing drag.

It wasn't my opinion for the side pods to be the most relevant part to improve. It was another member that thought Mercedes could reduce the size of the side pod inlet in the upcoming races.
My question is why Zibby43 is asking a question he already knows the answer to.(why would Mercedes want to reduce the area of the side pod inlet) the answer is at the top of this post.

And why would he not ask? I do not see it as so obvious right now! They've just made a totally new sidepod! Do you think is obvious that they didn't shrunk it the maximum they could? So, why not? Honest question mate, cause I'm really njot understanding yours and the original poster reasoning!
Which data do you have to back up the reasoning that the inlet is poorly developded in comparision with the engine and cooling system packaging?

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

Andy Cowell said in an interview Mercedes made big efforts on the cooling of the engine.
The volume of the inlets look big. Its a fair guess Mercedes might decrease the volume of the inlet after the real world data they gathered from testing. My understanding is the more air going through the radiators causes drag less air decreases drag. Possibly more air flowing to the rear of the floor increasing rear downforce.

Him questioning why? Why would you not change something if it's going to improve aerodynamics or performance.