Mercedes W12

[DarthPlagueisTheVise]

Merc testing a low downforce package aswell as 18 inch wheels ?

Look at the front wing and diffuser strakes... I believe it's either the 2019 car, or some sort of mule abomination...

Yep just saw the front brake ducts I think this is the w10 with some different parts like you said

[jjn9128]

Merc testing a low downforce package aswell as 18 inch wheels ?

Look at the front wing and diffuser strakes... I believe it's either the 2019 car, or some sort of mule abomination...

They can't test with a current car so it's a 2 y/o base with modified suspension for the 18" wheels.

[zibby43]

[dans79]

Another article, with a theory about the holes!

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... PzjqT.html

The fact that these exit holes (and presumably also the inlets) can be blanked suggests it’s just a small tuning device, possibly more useful at the higher speed corners of Imola where the volume of air passing through will be greater and the car will be sitting down further on its suspension than would be typical around a lap of Bahrain.

At these higher speeds the angle of the diffuser’s ramp effectively is reduced as the car sits down from the downforce acting upon it (which squares with speed) and these channels when opened may relieve some of the pressure around the outer part of the diffuser and reduce its tendency to stall.

[zibby43]

Another article, with a theory about the holes!

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... PzjqT.html

The fact that these exit holes (and presumably also the inlets) can be blanked suggests it’s just a small tuning device, possibly more useful at the higher speed corners of Imola where the volume of air passing through will be greater and the car will be sitting down further on its suspension than would be typical around a lap of Bahrain.

At these higher speeds the angle of the diffuser’s ramp effectively is reduced as the car sits down from the downforce acting upon it (which squares with speed) and these channels when opened may relieve some of the pressure around the outer part of the diffuser and reduce its tendency to stall.

I agree with you. They’re definitely holes/channels.

I’ve never seen Giorgio Piola duped.

“An additional detail apparent on the Imola diffuser was the opening up in Friday practice of two channels at the bottom corners of its central section. In Bahrain these were blanked off all weekend but clearly still there. At Imola they ran blanked again from Saturday onwards. They appear to be channelling air from the floor around the gearbox and directing it here.”

[Just_a_fan]

Such holes are illegal so how are they getting holes through scrutineering?

[Xwang]

Another article, with a theory about the holes!

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... PzjqT.html

The fact that these exit holes (and presumably also the inlets) can be blanked suggests it’s just a small tuning device, possibly more useful at the higher speed corners of Imola where the volume of air passing through will be greater and the car will be sitting down further on its suspension than would be typical around a lap of Bahrain.

At these higher speeds the angle of the diffuser’s ramp effectively is reduced as the car sits down from the downforce acting upon it (which squares with speed) and these channels when opened may relieve some of the pressure around the outer part of the diffuser and reduce its tendency to stall.

I agree with you. They’re definitely holes/channels.

I’ve never seen Giorgio Piola duped.

“An additional detail apparent on the Imola diffuser was the opening up in Friday practice of two channels at the bottom corners of its central section. In Bahrain these were blanked off all weekend but clearly still there. At Imola they ran blanked again from Saturday onwards. They appear to be channelling air from the floor around the gearbox and directing it here.”

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fo ... /image.jpg

Could someone find which part of the technical rules permits that?

[zibby43]

Another article, with a theory about the holes!

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... PzjqT.html

I agree with you. They’re definitely holes/channels.

I’ve never seen Giorgio Piola duped.

“An additional detail apparent on the Imola diffuser was the opening up in Friday practice of two channels at the bottom corners of its central section. In Bahrain these were blanked off all weekend but clearly still there. At Imola they ran blanked again from Saturday onwards. They appear to be channelling air from the floor around the gearbox and directing it here.”

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fo ... /image.jpg

Could someone find which part of the technical rules permits that?

Would it be this section (that addresses this area)?

“3.7.9 Diffuser height and construction

a. No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car which lies between 175mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 350mm rearward of the rear wheel centre line and is less than 450mm above the reference plane may be more than 175mm above the reference plane.

Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous (no fully enclosed holes), rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the unit comprising the survival cell/power unit/gearbox), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

b. All sprung parts of the car situated behind a line 175mm in front of the rear wheel centre line, which are visible from underneath and are more than 250mm from the car centre plane, must be at least 50mm above the reference plane.”

Also, a lot of the debate here seems to hinge on whether they’re fully enclosed holes or channels.

[SiLo]

It's literally a different material how are so many people being duped by this?!

[dans79]

Such holes are illegal so how are they getting holes through scrutineering?

The regulations are gibberish, so I could see there being some type of loophole.

To me it looks like these openings aren't passing through the floor. To me it look like they might be tunnels (for lack of a better term) between the floor and the plank, and I think that might be legal.

However that would just mean they are somehow diverting air from one spot under the floor to another.

[DarthPlagueisTheVise]

Scarbs disagrees

[zibby43]

Edit: Darth and I posted the same link from Scarbs at the same time.

Duplicate removed.

One thing Scarbs does point out is that there is no definitive photo.

I’ll add the reply by Sam Collins in lieu of removing the duplicate Scarbs link:

[Just_a_fan]

Such holes are illegal so how are they getting holes through scrutineering?

The regulations are gibberish, so I could see there being some type of loophole.

To me it looks like these openings aren't passing through the floor. To me it look like they might be tunnels (for lack of a better term) between the floor and the plank, and I think that might be legal.

However that would just mean they are somehow diverting air from one spot under the floor to another.

A tunnel would be a hole in the regulations because holes are breaks in a defined surface. The surfaces are defined by the rules and may not include any fully enclosed holes. A tunnel is just a pipe that has a fully enclosed hole at each end. Where the tunnel meets the defined surface, a hole is created. Ergo, it's illegal.

[dans79]

Such holes are illegal so how are they getting holes through scrutineering?

The regulations are gibberish, so I could see there being some type of loophole.

To me it looks like these openings aren't passing through the floor. To me it look like they might be tunnels (for lack of a better term) between the floor and the plank, and I think that might be legal.

However that would just mean they are somehow diverting air from one spot under the floor to another.

A tunnel would be a hole in the regulations because holes are breaks in a defined surface. The surfaces are defined by the rules and may not include any fully enclosed holes. A tunnel is just a pipe that has a fully enclosed hole at each end. Where the tunnel meets the defined surface, a hole is created. Ergo, it's illegal.

when the rules talk about the holes, they are referring to the floor mainly and holes passing through a reference plane.

this is all under article section 3.7
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf

for example 3.7.10
a

In an area lying 450mm or less from the car centre plane, and from 450mm forward of
the plane C-C to 350mm rearward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of
any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane
should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car

B

In an area lying 800mm or less from the car centre plane, and from 450mm forward of
the plane C-C to 175mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of
any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane
should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.

c

All bodywork that is visible from beneath the car and less than 50mm above the
reference plane, within 250mm of the car centre plane and situated behind a line
175mm ahead of the rear wheel centre line, must produce only a single, continuous
curve when intersected with any horizontal plane

Imo, the floor and the plank would both pass this test, as they are two separate components. They would only form a tunnel when joined together, and i think even then they might pass the test. Not to mention when you look at the holes you aren't going to see any other bodywork.


What I question, is what the benefit of them would be.

[dans79]

It's literally a different material how are so many people being duped by this?!

what would be the benefit of a different material from race to race?

what would be the benefit of making the floor/diffuser a more complicated lay-up for no reason whatsoever, or taking up valuable space around the transmission?