Mercedes W14

[chrisc90]

I’d be interested in how that’s possible, especially to get so wrong it’s affecting the results.

I’m no expert with 3d-design, but surely if you create a scale model (which is likely how they work in the design, then they just resize the parts by x% in order to get them to the size of the wind tunnel.

Those parts then get 3d printed straight from your software and into the wind tunnel.

[AR3-GP]

It depends on WHERE the tolerance issue occured.

Small inaccuracies in top body aero surfaces will have minimal to negligible effects.

Defects in underbody geometry will have larger effects on the aero numbers. A very dangerous error to make is getting floor heights wrong.

[PhillipM]

It could be how they're actually setup to run in the tunnel in terms of attitude/position.
It could also be how the parts are altered slightly (to compensation for the effects of reducing the size of the parts and the change in Reynolds)

[djones]

So the big gains the team seem to be talking about suddenly discovering might not be a new concept at all, it might just be adjusting the current one to work as intended (but was messed up by wind tunnel issues)?

[JordanMugen]

Notice they can't change the angle of that element? If say it generates in the order of 200kg lift above 180mph, then this has to be countered by using more extreme front and rear wing form (they are doing this ) with the attendant drag that brings.

There's no way it makes that much lift. You need a relatively large single element rear wing to make even 200kgf of lift (downforce) at just over 200 km/hr.

[JordanMugen]

https://i.postimg.cc/c1p49MZJ/Screen-Sh ... -15-PM.png

oh my this car is really ugly

Well the cooling outlets are bulbous, but this is not an angle you'd normally see. I wonder if reshaped sidepods would allow Mercedes get rid of those huge cooling outlets (or if they would even want to, maybe they are somehow beneficial?).

[Farnborough]

Notice they can't change the angle of that element? If say it generates in the order of 200kg lift above 180mph, then this has to be countered by using more extreme front and rear wing form (they are doing this ) with the attendant drag that brings.

There's no way it makes that much lift. You need a relatively large single element rear wing to make even 200kgf of lift (downforce) at just over 200 km/hr.

So it does generate lift then

That was a projected guess and at 300 km to clarify. I don't think that's far out in reality for the surface area it covers.

Everyone keeps extolling the virtues of it as "downwash" (I know the reasons to attempt that effect) and justify it as part of their design solution. The raw reality is they keep, MB, demonstrating week after week they are lost in what's going on with their concept, que mystified explanation from LH, ME, TW etc etc. If they really knew, then they'd fix it.
Their language doesn't tally with the knowledge they proclaim.

Statement of problem;- lacking downforce, heading rapidly towards two years now (inclusive of W13 gestation) and still no progress.
The floor isn't that hard to make, it achieved too much negative load in ultimately making it porpoise, the problem is something else.

Complete projection/theory IF that mid wing is producing significant lift (just look at the attack angle and say otherwise) then that's fixed for the whole year.
Corellation in W13 performance, notice how that performance improved at circuit specific air density shifting Texas-hot, Mexico-altitude, Brazil-altitude, all in which the mid wing can execute less lift to the vehicle. Each example can probably show increased front and rear wing load giving dominance over that diminished mid wing lift. Performance relative to other tracks improved.
Compare to Imola, damp conditions, LH with "trial" setup, did anyone see that car coming across the line chasing Gasly, it has very substantial front lift on chassis, and awful performance to go with it.
They look at macro correlation, when in reality a holistic view of season with W13 may tell them more.
They are trying to run an aggressive floor to counteract that mid chassis lift, unsuccessfully. The side pods need to change before they get anywhere.
This corellation is stated by LH in complaining about never being able to get a good balance, they are sitting on a knife edge, that edge is defined by proximity of wing downforce and how close it comes to cancelling mid wing lift.
Notice also, that front wing bending back under load (all teams have this) as the download of that reduces the mid wing just carries on up as speed climbs, the two effectively crossing over in the direction of their lift, that's inconsistency for you. No wonder the drivers struggle to describe it.

That's my belief, they've got to start looking at things pragmaticly, rather than references to Diva, shitbox etc. That won't solve anything.

[Farnborough]

Does anyone else think they are, MB, are making too many statements of why they think various bits of their concept do work, while proving week after week that clearly it's not ?

Then always displaying dissatisfaction when they've proved to themselves again it's not competetive really.

Seems to me they've a need chase the element that is clearly not working, rather than thinking there's some latent "goodness" hidden away somewhere. They are intelligent people, why are they letting themselves be fooled by themselves.

Surely with all those minds applied to it they'd have found the "goodness" by now, it can't be that well hidden, can it Toto ?

[Vanja #66]

The floor is obviously very hard to make work in optimum window without excessive bouncing and plank wear. Varying suspension travel, tyre deformation (different compounds, different temperatures, different wear rate, etc), roll, pitch, yaw, heave - that's just the basic mechanical stuff to take care of before you even start paying attention to the actual floor aero design.

[AR3-GP]

Does anyone else think they are, MB, are making too many statements of why they think various bits of their concept do work, while proving week after week that clearly it's not ?

Then always displaying dissatisfaction when they've proved to themselves again it's not competetive really.

Seems to me they've a need chase the element that is clearly not working, rather than thinking there's some latent "goodness" hidden away somewhere. They are intelligent people, why are they letting themselves be fooled by themselves.

Surely with all those minds applied to it they'd have found the "goodness" by now, it can't be that well hidden, can it Toto ?

1 or 2 chatty lead engineers don't speak for the rest of the Mercedes aero group. We don't know that everyone in the team is getting hooked onto silver bullets. The designers doing the hard work and nitty gritty detail may in fact hold more measured and realistic outlooks. You must not forget that Mercedes has a PR game to play irrespective of reality.

[Farnborough]

My contention is that they are, by their own design intent, making a floor that targets absolute peak downforce, all while trying to cancel a significant lift elsewhere in the chassis.

What we the observers see is the relative fight between those two conditions, which they are unable to resolve.

Contrast to the fastest performers, which display very high consistency, not much chasing setup, extract high performance from tyres over deg cycle etc.

They appear to have ultimate high load generated at rear (too high, it seens) while lacking overall downforce.

Notice day two testing in Bahrain, they seemed to lower the car and "lost front download" mysteriously. That's classically a pivot point of effects.

Then commented on how low RB could run, giving away their thought process to public broadcast.

Incidentally, was LH with his shoes under the car in pre test grid pictures, surreptitiously taking measurement of static ride height on RB ? Looks like he was touching it, not parc ferme though

[carisi2k]

Also note how high the Merc looks from a COG perspective. I get the feeling it has a very high and narrow centre of gravity and pressure vs just about every other car.

Elliot is on the record stating the obvious, the shoulders are empty space. Yes, the weight of the carbon fiber is up there but that would amount to nearly nothing.

Correct, the shoulder is actually a legality issue regarding the minimum radius of the sidepod bodywork, as opposed to an intended aerodynamic feature. That's why most teams have the circular cannon outlets.

Except it is still weight regardless of how little that is up much higher then the AMR22 and especially the RB19's. If teams are removing paint to save weight then surely even just a lightweight piece of carbon fibre high up can't be beneficial either even if it has nothing inside it.

[vorticism]

My contention is that they are, by their own design intent, making a floor that targets absolute peak downforce, all while trying to cancel a significant lift elsewhere in the chassis.

I'd say it's producing as much or less floor DF than the other cars. Unpopular take is that the mid wings produce no great effect, they're mainly aero neutral and have to be there because the SIPS need to be covered.With their sidepods they ended up with the worst of both worlds: a low DF high drag car. Consider its missing one major feature that every car has had for the past two decades or so, which is essential to making the floor work well.

[continuum16]

My contention is that they are, by their own design intent, making a floor that targets absolute peak downforce, all while trying to cancel a significant lift elsewhere in the chassis.

I'd say it's producing as much or less floor DF than the other cars. Unpopular take is that the mid wings produce no great effect, they're mainly aero neutral and have to be there because the SIPS need to be covered.With their sidepods they ended up with the worst of both worlds: a low DF high drag car. Consider its missing one major feature that every car has had for the past two decades or so, which is essential to making the floor work well.

I am of the same opinion; I feel like they’d have to be fairly neutral or else you risk having a lot of induced drag.

[AR3-GP]

My contention is that they are, by their own design intent, making a floor that targets absolute peak downforce, all while trying to cancel a significant lift elsewhere in the chassis.

I'd say it's producing as much or less floor DF than the other cars. Unpopular take is that the mid wings produce no great effect, they're mainly aero neutral and have to be there because the SIPS need to be covered.With their sidepods they ended up with the worst of both worlds: a low DF high drag car. Consider its missing one major feature that every car has had for the past two decades or so, which is essential to making the floor work well.

What is this feature?