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.
User avatar
Vanja #66
1569
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
13 Jul 2022, 16:06
If Mercedes end the season with a car that is capable of winning on merit, then changing to someone else's concept would be rather silly.
KeiKo403 wrote:
13 Jul 2022, 14:45
While I normally read your posts and believe everything you say (given you 622 rating) I want to uneducatedly disagree with you here :o
While at one point it looked like suspension and/or maybe tyre management is their biggest problem in the first 5-6 races, taking a look at things after 11 races and seeing the same pace deficit most of the time gives a different perspective. If at one point the team claimed they couldn't understand the car and set it up properly, this wasn't mentioned for a while, but the deficit is there. The only place Merc seemed closer on pace was Silverstone and it was more coming from Hamilton being fast and Sainz being slow and slowing Leclerc who was already hurt by FW damage. Changing the floor from Barcelona helped with bouncing, but this did very little to remove the lap-time deficit.

From aero perspective alone, there are two clear disadvantages of their concept:

- higher drag, shown in pre-season via CFD, confirmed in first few races by the team and demonstrated in every race since, where they used less RW (so to offset drag they lose downforce) than RB and Ferrari just to come close to their top speed; this higher drag comes from mid-wing and rear tyre drag

- incapability to induce strong floor sealing vortex due to having elongated inlets, which take away some of the air RB, Ferrari and other teams use for floor sealing; I've mentioned this several times on different topics and Gary A also mentioned this a couple of weeks later; this can be offset with lower ride-height, but this leave the car vulnerable to bouncing and sudden downforce loss with bumps on the track.

Advantage is introducing more air for the beam wing and diffuser with mid wing, but both RB and Ferrari are doing the same job with their wide designs. In fact, Ferrari has by far the slimmest rear end, as their sidepods taper inwards and engine cover is the slimmest in the field. In wind tunnel, W13 might be the fastest car, but the WT model is still just a model and it can't reflect the actual car 100%. With these rules, this showed with very different model floor stiffness compared to actual floor stiffness.

From this perspective, Merc design has a clear disadvantage with such a big exposed surface. This low stiffness, coupled with potentially smaller ride-height operating window (potential suspension problem, but definitely not as big as it seemed early in the season), leaves the car set-up options compromised. Low stiffness reflects on bouncing sensitivity by providing unstable and unpredictable floor sealing and sudden gain and loss of extra downforce. If bouncing is sorted, bumps on track and roll while cornering affect the predictability of downforce, as floor deflection and vibration increase and decrease it. I'm still not convinced Hamilton and Russell crashed in Austria Q because they pushed too far and not because of mid-corner downforce lost.

To take care of this, the only sensible solution are rod stays, since cable stays don't prevent upward deflection (i.e. floor edges are still prone to vibrations, just limited in downward direction). Rod stays are a big drag penalty, unless concealed within sidepod bodywork, which is what RB was doing from day 1. Somehow Ferrari manages things with cable stays alone, but their floor is significantly less exposed in the critical area (ahead of rear wheel) then Merc. And with wide bodywork, you can fit as many stays as you want, which can also reduce floor weight while increasing stiffness.

Zero pods would have been a clear conceptual winner in 2021, all teams were going towards it and Mercedes has been working towards it for a long time. With new rules, top two cars are completely different than their predecessors. This is not a coincidence. This does not mean Merc couldn't somehow regroup and extract 100% of that concept potential, while RB and Ferrari get stuck at 95%, making it a better car overall. But can anyone really see this happening, especially from methodical RB with their mighty Honda engine and taking budget cap into account.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

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

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54
[...]
Thanks for the full and detailed reply. =D>

I guess we will only find out one way or the other if Merc bring a big-pod design next season (or even later in this season if they go for a huge upgrade). If they persist with the no-pod design and become truly competitive with the other two front runners, then we will know it works fine. If they ditch no-pods then we know it was a blind alley design.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1569
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 13:33
Thanks for the full and detailed reply. =D>

I guess we will only find out one way or the other if Merc bring a big-pod design next season (or even later in this season if they go for a huge upgrade). If they persist with the no-pod design and become truly competitive with the other two front runners, then we will know it works fine. If they ditch no-pods then we know it was a blind alley design.
No problem, I try my best. Hope it was clear enough.

No doubt, we won't know how Mercedes truly feels about this concept until they say it clearly and show their development direction. For them, being 8-times consecutive champions, to go in a completely different direction would have been an unjustified risk - they know this design well, they invested a lot in it and they had the best results with it.

From my side, I am a bit sad to see design convergence so quickly. But, then again, it was very similar in 2009-10 with previous aero massive changes. Which is why I would like to see Merc keep this design and evolve it to solve the conceptual issues. Otherwise, we will have 20 almost completely identical cars next year.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

ivansskoro
ivansskoro
1
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 20:21

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54
- higher drag, shown in pre-season via CFD, confirmed in first few races by the team and demonstrated in every race since, where they used less RW (so to offset drag they lose downforce) than RB and Ferrari just to come close to their top speed; this higher drag comes from mid-wing and rear tyre drag
Could you elaborate on how the zero-pods cause higher mid-wing drag?
To confirm — mid-wind meaning the central portion of the rear wing? Or are you referring to their fighter jet-like extrusions below the mirrors.

mkay
mkay
16
Joined: 21 May 2010, 21:30

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 13:33
Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54
[...]
Thanks for the full and detailed reply. =D>

I guess we will only find out one way or the other if Merc bring a big-pod design next season (or even later in this season if they go for a huge upgrade). If they persist with the no-pod design and become truly competitive with the other two front runners, then we will know it works fine. If they ditch no-pods then we know it was a blind alley design.
Merc themselves have said multiple times that the sidepod design is a red herring and that if they wanted to try Red Bull's sidepods they could do so quickly as their packaging easily allows for any kind of sidepod design.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1569
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

ivansskoro wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 15:48
Could you elaborate on how the zero-pods cause higher mid-wing drag?
To confirm — mid-wind meaning the central portion of the rear wing? Or are you referring to their fighter jet-like extrusions below the mirrors.
Mid-wing is the wing in the middle of the car, in W13 case the mirror "strut". Central section of the rear wing is usually called like that, or spoon section this year.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

SmallSoldier
SmallSoldier
479
Joined: 10 Mar 2019, 03:54

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54
Just_a_fan wrote:
13 Jul 2022, 16:06
If Mercedes end the season with a car that is capable of winning on merit, then changing to someone else's concept would be rather silly.
KeiKo403 wrote:
13 Jul 2022, 14:45
While I normally read your posts and believe everything you say (given you 622 rating) I want to uneducatedly disagree with you here :o
While at one point it looked like suspension and/or maybe tyre management is their biggest problem in the first 5-6 races, taking a look at things after 11 races and seeing the same pace deficit most of the time gives a different perspective. If at one point the team claimed they couldn't understand the car and set it up properly, this wasn't mentioned for a while, but the deficit is there. The only place Merc seemed closer on pace was Silverstone and it was more coming from Hamilton being fast and Sainz being slow and slowing Leclerc who was already hurt by FW damage. Changing the floor from Barcelona helped with bouncing, but this did very little to remove the lap-time deficit.

From aero perspective alone, there are two clear disadvantages of their concept:

- higher drag, shown in pre-season via CFD, confirmed in first few races by the team and demonstrated in every race since, where they used less RW (so to offset drag they lose downforce) than RB and Ferrari just to come close to their top speed; this higher drag comes from mid-wing and rear tyre drag

- incapability to induce strong floor sealing vortex due to having elongated inlets, which take away some of the air RB, Ferrari and other teams use for floor sealing; I've mentioned this several times on different topics and Gary A also mentioned this a couple of weeks later; this can be offset with lower ride-height, but this leave the car vulnerable to bouncing and sudden downforce loss with bumps on the track.

Advantage is introducing more air for the beam wing and diffuser with mid wing, but both RB and Ferrari are doing the same job with their wide designs. In fact, Ferrari has by far the slimmest rear end, as their sidepods taper inwards and engine cover is the slimmest in the field. In wind tunnel, W13 might be the fastest car, but the WT model is still just a model and it can't reflect the actual car 100%. With these rules, this showed with very different model floor stiffness compared to actual floor stiffness.

From this perspective, Merc design has a clear disadvantage with such a big exposed surface. This low stiffness, coupled with potentially smaller ride-height operating window (potential suspension problem, but definitely not as big as it seemed early in the season), leaves the car set-up options compromised. Low stiffness reflects on bouncing sensitivity by providing unstable and unpredictable floor sealing and sudden gain and loss of extra downforce. If bouncing is sorted, bumps on track and roll while cornering affect the predictability of downforce, as floor deflection and vibration increase and decrease it. I'm still not convinced Hamilton and Russell crashed in Austria Q because they pushed too far and not because of mid-corner downforce lost.

To take care of this, the only sensible solution are rod stays, since cable stays don't prevent upward deflection (i.e. floor edges are still prone to vibrations, just limited in downward direction). Rod stays are a big drag penalty, unless concealed within sidepod bodywork, which is what RB was doing from day 1. Somehow Ferrari manages things with cable stays alone, but their floor is significantly less exposed in the critical area (ahead of rear wheel) then Merc. And with wide bodywork, you can fit as many stays as you want, which can also reduce floor weight while increasing stiffness.

Zero pods would have been a clear conceptual winner in 2021, all teams were going towards it and Mercedes has been working towards it for a long time. With new rules, top two cars are completely different than their predecessors. This is not a coincidence. This does not mean Merc couldn't somehow regroup and extract 100% of that concept potential, while RB and Ferrari get stuck at 95%, making it a better car overall. But can anyone really see this happening, especially from methodical RB with their mighty Honda engine and taking budget cap into account.
Great Post Vanja!

User avatar
Maax70
11
Joined: 29 May 2022, 22:57

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Agree.
May be is not by chance that slimmer rear (coca-cola) was introduced by Barnard in '83 when the ground effect was banned after the dead of Gilles the year before.

Image

Now that the ground effect is back, the sidepods should be designed as a consequence of underfloor design, Ferrari and Redbull are moving in that direction.

I already wrote somewhereelse what you said: Mercedes and Williams did a good job, but one year in delay.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1569
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

SmallSoldier wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 17:02
Great Post Vanja!
Cheers, mate! :)

Maax70 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 20:09
May be is not by chance that slimmer rear (coca-cola) was introduced by Barnard in '83 when the ground effect was banned after the dead of Gilles the year before.

https://imageshack.com/i/pnvVA53bj

Now that the ground effect is back, the sidepods should be designed as a consequence of underfloor design, Ferrari and Redbull are moving in that direction.
Yes, it's hard not to see the similarities between that period and now. Even if full-width sidepods in that time came from "copying" De Havilland Mosquito wing. But the best solutions can and do come as a lucky coincidence, it's not impossible designers didn't even consider anything different then.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

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

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54

...

In the wind tunnel, W13 might be the fastest car, but the WT model is still just a model and it can't reflect the actual car 100%. These rules showed a very different model of floor stiffness compared to actual floor stiffness.

...

You should check what Kyle - a former Merc aerodynamicist - said about why teams couldn`t model bouncing/porpoising in the wind tunnel:


Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54

...

I'm still not convinced Hamilton and Russell crashed in Austria Q because they pushed too far and not because of mid-corner downforce loss.

...

I back this statement with some evidence proofs:

In both Q1 and Q2 HAM & RUS were fuelled for some 8-9 laps in order to do some 2 or 3 hot laps bearing in mind that they needed 2 laps to warm up the soft tyres ... then in Q3 the cars were fuelled up for only 4 laps which led to not enough load and a slighter raised car with negative consequences:
- a lower downforce level from the Venturi tunnels and
- light bottoming in high-speed corners something they didn`t get rid of yet ...

All these above-mentioned were in conjunction with the soft tyres that were not enough warmed up thus providing less grip, that`s why HAM was aborting the first hot lap even though he set the fastest S1 time up until then ... and last but not least it was the first time in the whole weekend when they run such a low fuel car together with the race PU mode.

...

On a maybe off-topic note, do you think that now after we could see a slightly higher rake RB18 that they are having more downforce coming from the diffuser (with a maybe higher than usual slope) rather than what`s coming out of the Venturi tunnels?
"I don`t have all the answers. Try Google!"
Jesus

User avatar
chrisc90
41
Joined: 23 Feb 2022, 21:22

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

atanatizante wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 21:22


I back this statement with some evidence proofs:

In both Q1 and Q2 HAM & RUS were fuelled for some 8-9 laps in order to do some 2 or 3 hot laps bearing in mind that they needed 2 laps to warm up the soft tyres ... then in Q3 the cars were fuelled up for only 4 laps which led to not enough load and a slighter raised car with negative consequences:
- a lower downforce level from the Venturi tunnels and
- light bottoming in high-speed corners something they didn`t get rid of yet ...

All these above-mentioned were in conjunction with the soft tyres that were not enough warmed up thus providing less grip, that`s why HAM was aborting the first hot lap even though he set the fastest S1 time up until then ... and last but not least it was the first time in the whole weekend when they run such a low fuel car together with the race PU mode.

...

On a maybe off-topic note, do you think that now after we could see a slightly higher rake RB18 that they are having more downforce coming from the diffuser (with a maybe higher than usual slope) rather than what`s coming out of the Venturi tunnels?
We will never know what fuel load the cars are carrying during qualifying. Teams just wont disclose that information.

As I mentioned to someone in another thread, even if we did know the fuel loads that were mentioned, your only talking 3-4kg of fuel extra, so the difference in ride heights would be microscopic. Given if the Merc suspension is as stiff as it is, it throws even more weight behind the fact of the car being lower. This is effectively the same as putting a small pack of potatoes or a 5L bottle of screen wash in the boot of your car and it dropping noticeably. Which would be even more on a road car given the position of the boot in relation to the rear axle. And a F1 car with the tank in the middle which would mean your fuel weight is distributed more over 4 springs rather than at the very rear of a road car and the weight being predominantly over the rear.

Also, the PU mode would have been the same from Q1 onwards as thats when you have to 'lock in' your setup and PU mode. They were never running a higher PU mode in Q3 than Q1 or Q2.

If you have 'evidence proofs' of ANY of those points you made, feel free to share them
Mess with the Bull - you get the horns.

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

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 21:41
atanatizante wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 21:22


I back this statement with some evidence proofs:

In both Q1 and Q2 HAM & RUS were fuelled for some 8-9 laps in order to do some 2 or 3 hot laps bearing in mind that they needed 2 laps to warm up the soft tyres ... then in Q3 the cars were fuelled up for only 4 laps which led to not enough load and a slighter raised car with negative consequences:
- a lower downforce level from the Venturi tunnels and
- light bottoming in high-speed corners something they didn`t get rid of yet ...

All these above-mentioned were in conjunction with the soft tyres that were not enough warmed up thus providing less grip, that`s why HAM was aborting the first hot lap even though he set the fastest S1 time up until then ... and last but not least it was the first time in the whole weekend when they run such a low fuel car together with the race PU mode.

...

On a maybe off-topic note, do you think that now after we could see a slightly higher rake RB18 that they are having more downforce coming from the diffuser (with a maybe higher than usual slope) rather than what`s coming out of the Venturi tunnels?
We will never know what fuel load the cars are carrying during qualifying. Teams just wont disclose that information.

As I mentioned to someone in another thread, even if we did know the fuel loads that were mentioned, your only talking 3-4kg of fuel extra, so the difference in ride heights would be microscopic. Given if the Merc suspension is as stiff as it is, it throws even more weight behind the fact of the car being lower. This is effectively the same as putting a small pack of potatoes or a 5L bottle of screen wash in the boot of your car and it dropping noticeably. Which would be even more on a road car given the position of the boot in relation to the rear axle. And a F1 car with the tank in the middle which would mean your fuel weight is distributed more over 4 springs rather than at the very rear of a road car and the weight being predominantly over the rear.

Also, the PU mode would have been the same from Q1 onwards as thats when you have to 'lock in' your setup and PU mode. They were never running a higher PU mode in Q3 than Q1 or Q2.

If you have 'evidence proofs' of ANY of those points you made, feel free to share them
Weight (strictly, mass) dents lap time. A driver that has extra fuel weight on board might try too hard to compensate and thus have an off. It happens.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

tummalakoushik
tummalakoushik
1
Joined: 02 Jan 2022, 04:09

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jul 2022, 11:10

There was rain overnight before the main race and Leclerc asked for some changes to the car after the sprint race. So Sunday and Saturday were completely different in more ways than you mentioned. I don't think W13 is anywhere near the top two cars conceptually, they should come up with a solution for wider sidepods with a high inlet to test it this year. Otherwise, W14 will also be compromised.
Did ferrari actually made changes from Saturday to Sunday? I didn't know of this. Are there any reports suggesting this?

warpomex
warpomex
3
Joined: 13 May 2018, 05:15

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

mkay wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 15:57
Just_a_fan wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 13:33
Vanja #66 wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 09:54
[...]
Thanks for the full and detailed reply. =D>

I guess we will only find out one way or the other if Merc bring a big-pod design next season (or even later in this season if they go for a huge upgrade). If they persist with the no-pod design and become truly competitive with the other two front runners, then we will know it works fine. If they ditch no-pods then we know it was a blind alley design.
Merc themselves have said multiple times that the sidepod design is a red herring and that if they wanted to try Red Bull's sidepods they could do so quickly as their packaging easily allows for any kind of sidepod design.
They can put any sidepod on their car as their packaging allows for that, indeed. But they can't reinforce their floor by any other mean than exposed stays or making the floor stiffer (heavier).

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

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

warpomex wrote:
15 Jul 2022, 07:18
mkay wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 15:57
Just_a_fan wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 13:33


Thanks for the full and detailed reply. =D>

I guess we will only find out one way or the other if Merc bring a big-pod design next season (or even later in this season if they go for a huge upgrade). If they persist with the no-pod design and become truly competitive with the other two front runners, then we will know it works fine. If they ditch no-pods then we know it was a blind alley design.
Merc themselves have said multiple times that the sidepod design is a red herring and that if they wanted to try Red Bull's sidepods they could do so quickly as their packaging easily allows for any kind of sidepod design.
They can put any sidepod on their car as their packaging allows for that, indeed. But they can't reinforce their floor by any other mean than exposed stays or making the floor stiffer (heavier).
If they put on Red Bull type pods, they could do a Red Bull type internal beam to carry the floor. Red Bull also have external stays they're just short.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.