Mercedes W13

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

krmx37 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:50
Just_a_fan wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:38
krmx37 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:29


yeah of course, but the fact that they are testing does not mean, that it is legal. what u are sayin is, that everything we have ever seen during a test or practice would be legal, which clearly isnt the case.
In times of budget limits, the teams will want to be pretty sure they are testing legal stuff. What would be the point in testing an illegal design these days? They'd have to waste money making it knowing that it can't be used.
well, what was the point of the first car in Spain then? perhaps Plan A and Plan B ? Who knows.
Test the tight packaging of the stuff under the bodywork, perhaps. They've said that the mechanicals of the car haven't changed between tests, just that the upper bodywork has been altered. It also reduces the time that the other teams can respond to a "radical" design.

Likewise, why are RedBull bringing upgrade to this test? Why not just run the parts from day 1? They'll have their reasons including not wanting to give other teams long to react.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Marty_Y
Marty_Y
28
Joined: 31 Mar 2021, 23:37

Re: Mercedes W13

Post











Last edited by Marty_Y on 10 Mar 2022, 13:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AeroDynamic
349
Joined: 28 Sep 2021, 12:25
Location: La règle du jeu

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

I'm convinced that small black panel cover by the floor behind the 'sidepod' is an opening like the Williams!
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
#AMuS

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

I'm not so sure, although it would be fun it was.

I think it's an access panel to something.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

shamyakovic
shamyakovic
-2
Joined: 26 Dec 2013, 22:40

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Avtandil wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:54
Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.
Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure.
Ferrari raced with the halo mounted wing until the end of the season.

vikramdinesh
vikramdinesh
0
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 05:29

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Image

Is that bodywork damage? If yes, wonder what caused it.

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

How about upsidedownpods? Any takes on why this path hasn't been taken in the past decade or so? i.e. why would they not want this on last years car?
𓄀

User avatar
AeroDynamic
349
Joined: 28 Sep 2021, 12:25
Location: La règle du jeu

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

vorticism wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:11
How about upsidedownpods? Any takes on why this path hasn't been taken in the past decade or so? i.e. why would they not want this on last years car?
I look at it as a pod that is sideways relative to the inlet.

Avtandil
Avtandil
1
Joined: 17 Nov 2019, 11:18

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

shamyakovic wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:06
Avtandil wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:54
Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.
Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure
While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.

shamyakovic
shamyakovic
-2
Joined: 26 Dec 2013, 22:40

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Avtandil wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:15
shamyakovic wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:06
Avtandil wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 12:54
Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.
Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure
While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.
If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.

User avatar
atanatizante
115
Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 15:33

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Shakeman wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 09:56
Porpoising doesn’t look any different to bumpy braking zones so drivers probably aren’t as sensitive to it as the press pack are.
....
Porpoising effect is seen only on the main straights or also in the bumpy braking zones due to stiff suspension which is needed to have a lower and stable platform/car in order to have a better Venturi effect?
"I don`t have all the answers. Try Google!"
Jesus

User avatar
AeroDynamic
349
Joined: 28 Sep 2021, 12:25
Location: La règle du jeu

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

vikramdinesh wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:10
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879818.jpg

Is that bodywork damage? If yes, wonder what caused it.
no, its literally taped sheet to cover the louvres and it came off.

@Albert Fabrega
Image

User avatar
Shrieker
13
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 23:41

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Safe to say, think we haven't seen such a radical sidepod desgin since the 2011 MP4-26.
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk

User avatar
SiLo
138
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 19:09

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

atanatizante wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:17
Shakeman wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 09:56
Porpoising doesn’t look any different to bumpy braking zones so drivers probably aren’t as sensitive to it as the press pack are.
....
Porpoising effect is seen only on the main straights or also in the bumpy braking zones due to stiff suspension which is needed to have a lower and stable platform/car in order to have a better Venturi effect?
Bahrain is a tad bumpy these days, but the Merc was running lower than any other car it seems. I think they are slowly raising the ride height to find how it affects the performance. It's still day 1 of the second test and a large portion of the car is drastically different. Although the rest of the car is similar, so that tells me their flow structures remain fairly static as well which is interesting.
Felipe Baby!

Avtandil
Avtandil
1
Joined: 17 Nov 2019, 11:18

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

shamyakovic wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:16
Avtandil wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:15
shamyakovic wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 13:06

Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure
While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.
If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.
Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.