Longer wheelbase?
Perspective of the two photos is too different to compare I think?wogx wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 14:42Longer wheelbase?
https://wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/415c519f2 ... 61fe87.gif
Howhe explained. “We knew that we are going to bring an upgrade package for test number two, and that was worth one and a half seconds.
I wasn't talking about Merc solving bouncing issues, I was talking about getting the performance back. The rear of the floor looks stiffened enough with wider sides. I don't think they'll have any issues with bouncing or aerodynamic stability (predictability?) with W14. Do I truly have more confidence in Merc than Merc fans?PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 11:58You need to accept that hypotheses need to be adjusted sometimes.
Remember the discussion was that the zero pod wasnt the core issue but the overly flexible floor. So it seems they hav kep the same or even more smaller frontal cross section of the pod but extended the rear of it like a big boat tail to make the floor stiffer.... (it seems! )
AMG.Tzan wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 11:52This is exactly what I thought they will do with the side pods!
They made the openings more vertical like the McLaren MP4/6. They seem to have moved a lot of components! Totally new front wing and clearly different concept to last years.
No changes on the suspension geometry though?
@fiagirly of all sources, too. I don't think it gets less technically credible.
That giant sidepod wing should shed a large vortex downwashing along the sides of the car and floor as it moves rearward to keep tire wake out. The air flowing across the wing is also being directed down in the rearwards direction.
It is not fatal. Your point stands for a point of inflection like on top of the sidepod where the flow dips down as the pod slopes down, no additional energy is added to the flow there.Henk_v wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 14:29Looking at all (new) cars, most cars have a clear aerodynamic household regarding to powerful airflows and lossy airflows.
Sidepod inlets create lossy air around the edges spilling over. All teams now have narrow wide inlets. This minimises losse on the sides of the sidepods. A lot of teams followed the RB route and extended the lower lip, forcing the losses to go over the top of the sidepod, keeping the most powerfull air over the floor edge and taking advantage of the lossy air over the top to place cooling exits.
I believe this is also why the cannon exits are popular. Instead of trying to spend your bodywork shape to aim the losses between the beam wing and the rear wing (prone to be messed up by sidewind, cornering etc.), expell the lossy air as close to the target as possible.
Before '22, lossy air could be cleaned up or manipulated to smash against the rear wheel by all sorts of aero devices. Now high power air is limited and needs to be savoured.
A vertical inlet is a disaster in that sense. All sorts of lossy stuff is expelled over a great length on the side of the sidepod and there is little that can be done to clean it up, use it for other lossy things etc.
I believe that is the fatal flaw in the zeropod concept. Sidepod inlet losses are mixed with the floor edge vortices and ingested by the beam wing/diffuser. I think merc miscalculated how much there was to gain from sperting powerful airstreams from lossy airstreams.
Regarding the vortex and tyre wheel wake. That vortex diameter may not be big enough to do all of that. But agreed that it is doing something over the sidepods and the rear. It may well just be creating downforce as a mid body wing and then sheilding the rear as you say but to a smaller extent. I could be wrong. But would love to see som visuals to confirm or deny.
I agree, but wouldn't you allready start with a massive messy boundary layer over the entire height of the sidepod, building up along the car and being ingested by the beamwing/diffuser?ringo wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 15:15It is not fatal. Your point stands for a point of inflection like on top of the sidepod where the flow dips down as the pod slopes down, no additional energy is added to the flow there.Henk_v wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 14:29Looking at all (new) cars, most cars have a clear aerodynamic household regarding to powerful airflows and lossy airflows.
Sidepod inlets create lossy air around the edges spilling over. All teams now have narrow wide inlets. This minimises losse on the sides of the sidepods. A lot of teams followed the RB route and extended the lower lip, forcing the losses to go over the top of the sidepod, keeping the most powerfull air over the floor edge and taking advantage of the lossy air over the top to place cooling exits.
I believe this is also why the cannon exits are popular. Instead of trying to spend your bodywork shape to aim the losses between the beam wing and the rear wing (prone to be messed up by sidewind, cornering etc.), expell the lossy air as close to the target as possible.
Before '22, lossy air could be cleaned up or manipulated to smash against the rear wheel by all sorts of aero devices. Now high power air is limited and needs to be savoured.
A vertical inlet is a disaster in that sense. All sorts of lossy stuff is expelled over a great length on the side of the sidepod and there is little that can be done to clean it up, use it for other lossy things etc.
I believe that is the fatal flaw in the zeropod concept. Sidepod inlet losses are mixed with the floor edge vortices and ingested by the beam wing/diffuser. I think merc miscalculated how much there was to gain from sperting powerful airstreams from lossy airstreams.
With the vertical inlet placed on a relativelt big surface that is facing oncoming flow bringing in more energy, the eddies will be absorbed by that high momentum of flow then the flow runs along the face then it turns over the edge or inflection point. What you say is true if the opening is near the edge or a lip right before the direction of flow changes. If there is no lip nearby and energy is being added, you dont have that problem. Hence ferrari's inlets on their 23 car as well.
They have their evaluation tools assessing not just velocity and pressure but energy, so its not easy to miss certain obvious things.
What im concerned about is the outwash undercut. They dont have much of that and that I agree with when it comes to missing out.