Mercedes W13

[PlatinumZealot]

Interesting no apparent change to the sidepods.
The floor received vortex generator treatment.
But the floor is still not as developed as the redbull. The holes in the side by the rear wheel are much simpler and the stay works in tension only to prevent buckling from low pressure, but it cannot prevent upward loads like the struts do under the redbull engine cover.
Merc is quite lethargic with updates compared to the other teams. Maybe their staff is too expensive and not worth their weight?

I disagree. I think this package was very cohesive and well thought-out from front to back. Touched on virtually every single area of the car and that middle section of the floor is now every bit as sophisticated as any other top team.

It’s the underfloor I’d love to see. Regardless, I think some people (not directing this at you) just want to see different side pods because it’s a visually dramatic change. Large bits of bodywork aren’t necessarily inherently worth huge chunks of time.

And there is still nothing to suggest that the side pods were the cause of any of the team’s issues. The aero porpoising has been cured since Barcelona. None of these upgrades were related to that issue or bottoming out. All downforce.

They’re just going to have to continue bringing downforce to the car to offset them running it higher than it was supposed to be in the tunnel.

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

Just because other teams can't figure out how to get performance with the side pods it does not mean the side pods are inherently bad. Sort of a fallacy there.

[zibby43]

Interesting no apparent change to the sidepods.
The floor received vortex generator treatment.
But the floor is still not as developed as the redbull. The holes in the side by the rear wheel are much simpler and the stay works in tension only to prevent buckling from low pressure, but it cannot prevent upward loads like the struts do under the redbull engine cover.
Merc is quite lethargic with updates compared to the other teams. Maybe their staff is too expensive and not worth their weight?

I disagree. I think this package was very cohesive and well thought-out from front to back. Touched on virtually every single area of the car and that middle section of the floor is now every bit as sophisticated as any other top team.

It’s the underfloor I’d love to see. Regardless, I think some people (not directing this at you) just want to see different side pods because it’s a visually dramatic change. Large bits of bodywork aren’t necessarily inherently worth huge chunks of time.

And there is still nothing to suggest that the side pods were the cause of any of the team’s issues. The aero porpoising has been cured since Barcelona. None of these upgrades were related to that issue or bottoming out. All downforce.

They’re just going to have to continue bringing downforce to the car to offset them running it higher than it was supposed to be in the tunnel.

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

I recently listened to Shovlin emphatically dismiss the notion that their sidepod philosophy was the primary cause of their remaining issues.

Which is why I’m skeptical of everything you set out above, including the claim that Merc have realized that their current design is not the way to go. I think everything they’ve done from a development standpoint thus far indicates the exact opposite.

[Andi76]

I disagree. I think this package was very cohesive and well thought-out from front to back. Touched on virtually every single area of the car and that middle section of the floor is now every bit as sophisticated as any other top team.

It’s the underfloor I’d love to see. Regardless, I think some people (not directing this at you) just want to see different side pods because it’s a visually dramatic change. Large bits of bodywork aren’t necessarily inherently worth huge chunks of time.

And there is still nothing to suggest that the side pods were the cause of any of the team’s issues. The aero porpoising has been cured since Barcelona. None of these upgrades were related to that issue or bottoming out. All downforce.

They’re just going to have to continue bringing downforce to the car to offset them running it higher than it was supposed to be in the tunnel.

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

Just because other teams can't figure out how to get performance with the side pods it does not mean the side pods are inherently bad. Sort of a fallacy there.

Here we are again with the same old discussion, aren't we? And no discussion and facts will change our opinions. But at the end of the day F1 Teams spent a lot of money in research. And ALL TEAMS researches said that these sidepods are not the way to go. Or these teams are just stupid because they just were not able to figure out how they work. But i highly doubt that all the other teams are either wrong or stupid. The more realistic option is another one...

[Andi76]

I disagree. I think this package was very cohesive and well thought-out from front to back. Touched on virtually every single area of the car and that middle section of the floor is now every bit as sophisticated as any other top team.

It’s the underfloor I’d love to see. Regardless, I think some people (not directing this at you) just want to see different side pods because it’s a visually dramatic change. Large bits of bodywork aren’t necessarily inherently worth huge chunks of time.

And there is still nothing to suggest that the side pods were the cause of any of the team’s issues. The aero porpoising has been cured since Barcelona. None of these upgrades were related to that issue or bottoming out. All downforce.

They’re just going to have to continue bringing downforce to the car to offset them running it higher than it was supposed to be in the tunnel.

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

I recently listened to Shovlin emphatically dismiss the notion that their sidepod philosophy was the primary cause of their remaining issues.

Which is why I’m skeptical of everything you set out above, including the claim that Merc have realized that their current design is not the way to go. I think everything they’ve done from a development standpoint thus far indicates the exact opposite.

Why? Because they are still having the same problems? Because Verstappen and Sainz were still able to gain 0,8 secs. per lap in Canada? And their developement, i am sorry, totally supports what i said. Floor stiffening with a second bracket, drag reduction and more outwash was the goal with a lot of their developements. And sorry again - all teams now go with big sidepods. What only leaves three possibilities- all other teams are wrong and Mercedes is right. All the other teams are incapable and only Mercedes is capable(as they are the only ones who can makes these sidepods work...one day maybe).- or all the other teams are right and Mercedes is wrong. What i think is the more likely option with Red Bull and Ferrari being far ahead in terms of pace with their big-sidepods.

[Longley]

One reason that no other team has adopted Mercedes solution could be that you would need a special chassis where your coolers can be arranged very close to the cars centerline. Red Bulls interpretation of the rules is possible without a special chassis. Maybe we see a higher adoption rate of Mercedes solution next season but as of now that is all hypothetical.

[Mchamilton]

No other teams has had a concept remotely similar to merc, including the SIS wing, narrow top, broad bottom sidepods. So those teams dropping said sidepods has almost zero relevance to merc needing to do so.

[SparkyAMG]

As others have alluded to, the W13 sidepod setup is made possible by their cooling arrangement, which in turn is only possible because of chassis design decisions they made last year, possibly even longer ago.

Other teams can't simply copy that within this year, so even if the concept was as good as or better than any other we're not going to see anyone copy it until next year at the earliest. The sensible thing for everyone else to do is to copy the fastest concepts that are achievable within the limits of their chassis, hence the convergence towards Red Bull/Ferrari designs.

This doesn't prove one way or another that a concept is the way to go. The W13 has a multitude of limitations but they are gradually dialing it in with small updates as the year goes on. If the team really thought their sidepods were a problem they'd have been running comparisons with their other spec months ago.

[Big Tea]

Naaah, nothing a little bit of glue can't handle.

I think one of the commentary guys said Alpine used tape on theirs.

[Big Tea]

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

McLaren and Williams are in a different position to Merc in that they are fighting for position and other teams are close to them.
Merc are in a 'notch' all to themselves and can afford the extra 'thinking time' to get the concept right, and have the knowledge to carry it over to later cars.

If they do get it right they (claim they are) getting a huge performance boost, so it is worth them persevering rather than taking a known path that is not guaranteed to give them an advantage, and will not carry over to later developments.

If they were under pressure from the likes of Alpine and Mclaren, they would probably already cut their losses and gone for the understood option.
While there is little to lose or gain they may as well learn what they can as this years title is probably out of sight anyway.

[atanatizante]

interesting top view of the W13 from the pitlane

https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ul/261.jpg

The bodywork around the front suspension mounting points looks geared to let air spill over the nose and down to the sidepods.

This bodywork/bulge/downwards slope suspension pick-up points?

[e30ernest]

interesting top view of the W13 from the pitlane

https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ul/261.jpg

The bodywork around the front suspension mounting points looks geared to let air spill over the nose and down to the sidepods.

This bodywork/bulge/downwards slope suspension pick-up points?

https://postimages.org/

Yeah.

[mantikos]

I disagree. I think this package was very cohesive and well thought-out from front to back. Touched on virtually every single area of the car and that middle section of the floor is now every bit as sophisticated as any other top team.

It’s the underfloor I’d love to see. Regardless, I think some people (not directing this at you) just want to see different side pods because it’s a visually dramatic change. Large bits of bodywork aren’t necessarily inherently worth huge chunks of time.

And there is still nothing to suggest that the side pods were the cause of any of the team’s issues. The aero porpoising has been cured since Barcelona. None of these upgrades were related to that issue or bottoming out. All downforce.

They’re just going to have to continue bringing downforce to the car to offset them running it higher than it was supposed to be in the tunnel.

I totally disagree with what you say about the sidepods. There is definetely a lot that suggests that these sidepods are a big reason for their problems.

There were three teams at the beginning of the season with "Micropods". Mercedes, Williams and McLaren. McLaren went away from that philosophy a few races ago. Now also Williams has left this path. They did not do that because these sidepods were advantageous and did not cause issues.
Next to the problems this design brings in relation to flexing of the floor(which was clearly proven by the addition of a second bracket in Canada)and its relation to porpoising, they obviously have realised in CFD and the windtunnel that these sidepods are not the way to go. Of course they must have a lot of disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics etc. otherwise they would not do such a huge change concept-wise.

With the bargeboards missing the front wheel wake hits the rear of the car, disturbing the airflow and also giving a drag penalty in comparison to the "big-sidepods" which are "pushing" the front-wheel wake away from the car, hitting the rear-tyres instead and reducing drag. Thats pretty obvious and was proven by CFD simulations in this forum. Even if some people here still doubt that, the performance and the problems of the cars were exactly what these CFD simulations suggested. In Mercedes case you also have the inlets going all the way down to the floor what takes away the possibility to create a lot of outwash and a pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlet. They try to compensate that with all these winglets and the massive wing they have in this area, but this also seems like a pretty draggy and less effective solution. Toto Wolfs comments in the first few races "we have to lose drag" and their problems regarding Topspeed were also exactly the problems to expect with CFD simulations like that. And Mercedes ongoing changes in that area support further supports this.

But anyway - at the end of the day all the teams now have gone in the opposite direction, leaving Mercedes the one and only team with these kind of sidepods. And that pretty much says everything. Especially in the era of the budget cap. Williams and McLaren would not have spent a lot of resources on changing the sidepods if they would not have been a source of their performance issues and the area they can improve the most. In the era of the budget cap, you do not change the sidepod-philosphy of your car completely if it is not the cause of any of your teams-issues.

Just because other teams can't figure out how to get performance with the side pods it does not mean the side pods are inherently bad. Sort of a fallacy there.

Indeed, especially since none of the other teams mentioned are at the same technical level, nor have the chassis and engine integrated like Merc. There is a distinction between micro and zero pods.

I mean Merc was pretty much the only low or no rake car and still won 8 years in a row. You don't have to ape someone else to win when you have strong ideas of your own.

[mantikos]

The bodywork around the front suspension mounting points looks geared to let air spill over the nose and down to the sidepods.

This bodywork/bulge/downwards slope suspension pick-up points?

https://postimages.org/

Yeah.

It pretty much said as much in the FIA doc - aero fairing for front suspension

[Just_a_fan]

Why? Because they are still having the same problems? Because Verstappen and Sainz were still able to gain 0,8 secs. per lap in Canada? And their developement, i am sorry, totally supports what i said. Floor stiffening with a second bracket, drag reduction and more outwash was the goal with a lot of their developements. And sorry again - all teams now go with big sidepods. What only leaves three possibilities- all other teams are wrong and Mercedes is right. All the other teams are incapable and only Mercedes is capable(as they are the only ones who can makes these sidepods work...one day maybe).- or all the other teams are right and Mercedes is wrong. What i think is the more likely option with Red Bull and Ferrari being far ahead in terms of pace with their big-sidepods.

AM have the Red Bull type sidepods and can't get out of Q1 this weekend - Williams have got through to Q3 with their micro-pod but their Red Bull ramp design didn't get out of Q1. The sidepod design is not the defining issue with these cars - there are basically three sidepod designs in the top of the grid - Red Bull's long slope, Ferrari's "big dish", Mercedes's micro-pods.

Mercedes's problem is not caused by their choice of sidepod design, it's a combination of the underfloor and the suspension. They have been working on the underfloor as evidenced by the changes at Silverstone. Suspension is a more involved issue to sort mid season.

[PlatinumZealot]

Exactly! The Red Bull side pod design didn't help Williams when slower speed downforce was needed in the wet. It shows that it's more of an operating envelop issue than one design being inherently better than the other.