Mercedes W13

[Just_a_fan]

??? I am surprised by this conclusion. I saw tape on every car. The McLaren or the RedBull were plastered with Al tape on the floor. Below they have strain or pressure sensors in testing.
That other teams take another approach does not mean they do not have sensors.Especially on the RedBull you could see a big bulge of sensor wires in the lower sidepod during testing.

I was talking specifically about the kiel probes that Mercedes seem to have all over the car and which others seem to have few, if any, of.

Yes, I am talking about these as well.
Why Merc is using these and others are doing more indirect measurements with strain sensors for example I do not know. But I can not see where you would put of the discussion on "prepared" or "not ready" or where you can make a conclusion on what they try to measure there. Integrating the strain sensors well into the floor needs to planned well ahead as well.
Maybe it is simply buried in the concept that Merc needs to know the flow more accurate, where others have downwash and do not care so much about this flow.
The other point of course is, that the other teams may run the strain sensors in the floor also in the coming races. They just add the wiring for FP1 and 2 and throw it out after Friday. The bigger sensors Merc uses disturb more and I think it is not so easy to remove them.

Wow, this is getting blown out of proportion. I'm not accusing anyone of not being ready although it was mentioned by someone else in the thread.

It's not a bash at any other team or me saying "yay, Mercedes are the best because they're doing this", it was simply an observation that they are using a lot of these particular sensors and I was surprised that others aren't using them to the same extent.

So, sorry if you think this was an attack on a team you support - it wasn't. It was a general observation about what Mercedes are doing compared to what others are doing.

[Big Tea]

I was talking specifically about the kiel probes that Mercedes seem to have all over the car and which others seem to have few, if any, of.

Yes, I am talking about these as well.
Why Merc is using these and others are doing more indirect measurements with strain sensors for example I do not know. But I can not see where you would put of the discussion on "prepared" or "not ready" or where you can make a conclusion on what they try to measure there. Integrating the strain sensors well into the floor needs to planned well ahead as well.
Maybe it is simply buried in the concept that Merc needs to know the flow more accurate, where others have downwash and do not care so much about this flow.
The other point of course is, that the other teams may run the strain sensors in the floor also in the coming races. They just add the wiring for FP1 and 2 and throw it out after Friday. The bigger sensors Merc uses disturb more and I think it is not so easy to remove them.

Wow, this is getting blown out of proportion. I'm not accusing anyone of not being ready although it was mentioned by someone else in the thread.

It's not a bash at any other team or me saying "yay, Mercedes are the best because they're doing this", it was simply an observation that they are using a lot of these particular sensors and I was surprised that others aren't using them to the same extent.

So, sorry if you think this was an attack on a team you support - it wasn't. It was a general observation about what Mercedes are doing compared to what others are doing.

I can only speak for my own reply of course, but I perceived just as you said, not a bait.

[basti313]

I was talking specifically about the kiel probes that Mercedes seem to have all over the car and which others seem to have few, if any, of.

Yes, I am talking about these as well.
Why Merc is using these and others are doing more indirect measurements with strain sensors for example I do not know. But I can not see where you would put of the discussion on "prepared" or "not ready" or where you can make a conclusion on what they try to measure there. Integrating the strain sensors well into the floor needs to planned well ahead as well.
Maybe it is simply buried in the concept that Merc needs to know the flow more accurate, where others have downwash and do not care so much about this flow.
The other point of course is, that the other teams may run the strain sensors in the floor also in the coming races. They just add the wiring for FP1 and 2 and throw it out after Friday. The bigger sensors Merc uses disturb more and I think it is not so easy to remove them.

Wow, this is getting blown out of proportion. I'm not accusing anyone of not being ready although it was mentioned by someone else in the thread.

It's not a bash at any other team or me saying "yay, Mercedes are the best because they're doing this", it was simply an observation that they are using a lot of these particular sensors and I was surprised that others aren't using them to the same extent.

So, sorry if you think this was an attack on a team you support - it wasn't. It was a general observation about what Mercedes are doing compared to what others are doing.

Biting reflex again? Get over it...

I just joined the discussion which was broader than your post and had a lot of strange conclusions...sorry that I quoted there....I thought it was a good point as you pointed out the obvious, that the visible sensors are different.

[LM10]

The Merc mechanical bits are tightly packaged. They have room to grow the bodywork outwards to improve drag quite trivially...

Every significant change to the sidepod shape will require changes to the rest of the entire car as wider sidepods would mean a drastical concept change for Mercedes.
As Mercedes have already chosen their philosophy and built their whole car around it, we’ll quite surely not see a change to such extends. If they even decide to change concept, it will not be before next season until we see it.

We aren't talking about a change of concept. We're talking about reducing drag of the sidepods by some modifications to it's shape. I think you might be overthinking this. It doesn't need to be a B-spec car to change the sidepod. Cars are developed in small bits and pieces all of the time.

In your post above you wrote that the Mercedes has a tight package and that they can widen the bodywork in order to reduce drag (I assume you meant in a fashion like for example Ferrari which has less rear tyre drag from their sidepod design alone - note that I'm not taking the rest of the design into consideration, because obviously I can't do that). So for Mercedes to reduce drag by widening the bodywork, it must need to go from the tightest packaged car on the grid to a car with wide sidepods like most of the other cars. How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

[LM10]

We’ve seen them do this before with the side pods during the season. Austria 2018. There is scope for redesign.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 4s0e2.html

I cannot for the life of me open this link on mobile. Is there a better version? It just gets blocked my content blockers, and then when I turn them off it forces me to a payment page for f1tv!

That’s weird. Tested it on a few different devices and worked fine. Try this one. Let me know if it works.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 4s0e2.html

I can remember that huge upgrade package. I'm not sure they could accomplish that in this season with much less money available, though. But I'm open for surprises!

[dans79]

How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

I think he is implying something similar to what i believe. Within reason, increasing the dimensions of the sidepods is pretty easy, because you don't need to adjust/shift/alter the position the components within them. At some point internal airflow and structural concerns might need to be addressed, but in general it's almost universally easy to increase the size of something vs decreasing its's size (again within reason).

[LM10]

How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

I think he is implying something similar to what i believe. Within reason, increasing the dimensions of the sidepods is pretty easy, because you don't need to adjust/shift/alter the position the components within them. At some point internal airflow and structural concerns might need to be addressed, but in general it's almost universally easy to increase the size of something vs decreasing its's size (again within reason).

I'm aware of the relativiely easy task to increase the dimensions in comparison to decrese them, but I can't see how such a huge change of flow dynamics would not require changes to the rest of the car when the current design has been built to perfection to work in synergy with the tight sidepods.

But then again, I'm no expert of course.

[dans79]

How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

I think he is implying something similar to what i believe. Within reason, increasing the dimensions of the sidepods is pretty easy, because you don't need to adjust/shift/alter the position the components within them. At some point internal airflow and structural concerns might need to be addressed, but in general it's almost universally easy to increase the size of something vs decreasing its's size (again within reason).

I'm aware of the relativiely easy task to increase the dimensions in comparison to decrese them, but I can't see how such a huge change of flow dynamics would not require changes to the rest of the car when the current design has been built to perfection to work in synergy with the tight sidepods.

But then again, I'm no expert of course.

A lot would depend on what they want to achieve, and how adaptable what they currently have is, in short we would need Merc IP for anything more than a SWAG.

[zibby43]

[dans79]

https://twitter.com/scarbstech/status/1 ... 59969?s=21

I'm betting the mark button has gotten a lot of use over the first 3 days of testing.

[AR3-GP]

Every significant change to the sidepod shape will require changes to the rest of the entire car as wider sidepods would mean a drastical concept change for Mercedes.
As Mercedes have already chosen their philosophy and built their whole car around it, we’ll quite surely not see a change to such extends. If they even decide to change concept, it will not be before next season until we see it.

We aren't talking about a change of concept. We're talking about reducing drag of the sidepods by some modifications to it's shape. I think you might be overthinking this. It doesn't need to be a B-spec car to change the sidepod. Cars are developed in small bits and pieces all of the time.

In your post above you wrote that the Mercedes has a tight package and that they can widen the bodywork in order to reduce drag (I assume you meant in a fashion like for example Ferrari which has less rear tyre drag from their sidepod design alone - note that I'm not taking the rest of the design into consideration, because obviously I can't do that). So for Mercedes to reduce drag by widening the bodywork, it must need to go from the tightest packaged car on the grid to a car with wide sidepods like most of the other cars. How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

The assumption you have made is incorrect. Changing a sidepod does not mean turning it into a Ferrari. It just means optimizing the current shape a little bit more.

[LM10]

We aren't talking about a change of concept. We're talking about reducing drag of the sidepods by some modifications to it's shape. I think you might be overthinking this. It doesn't need to be a B-spec car to change the sidepod. Cars are developed in small bits and pieces all of the time.

In your post above you wrote that the Mercedes has a tight package and that they can widen the bodywork in order to reduce drag (I assume you meant in a fashion like for example Ferrari which has less rear tyre drag from their sidepod design alone - note that I'm not taking the rest of the design into consideration, because obviously I can't do that). So for Mercedes to reduce drag by widening the bodywork, it must need to go from the tightest packaged car on the grid to a car with wide sidepods like most of the other cars. How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

The assumption you have made is incorrect. Changing a sidepod does not mean turning it into a Ferrari. It just means optimizing the current shape a little bit more.

I've not said anything even close to turning it into a Ferrari. Just used Ferrari as an example because their sidepod design reduces drag on rear tyres.

[Just_a_fan]

I've not said anything even close to turning it into a Ferrari. Just used Ferrari as an example because their sidepod design reduces drag on rear tyres.

In one simulation that used a model of a car that wasn't the Ferrari. As discussed elsewhere, the simulations are great and very interesting but we can't draw black and white conclusions from them because they are far from complete.

[AR3-GP]

In your post above you wrote that the Mercedes has a tight package and that they can widen the bodywork in order to reduce drag (I assume you meant in a fashion like for example Ferrari which has less rear tyre drag from their sidepod design alone - note that I'm not taking the rest of the design into consideration, because obviously I can't do that). So for Mercedes to reduce drag by widening the bodywork, it must need to go from the tightest packaged car on the grid to a car with wide sidepods like most of the other cars. How do you think that they would not need to have pretty much a B-spec car to achieve that? That's not what I would consider developing in small bits and pieces.

The assumption you have made is incorrect. Changing a sidepod does not mean turning it into a Ferrari. It just means optimizing the current shape a little bit more.

I've not said anything even close to turning it into a Ferrari. Just used Ferrari as an example because their sidepod design reduces drag on rear tyres.

I'm referring to a Ferrari sidepod just as you were. I'm not sure I understand what the confusion is. Mercedes can trivially massage their sidepod shape to provide a drag reduction. It's not a binary on/off thing where it needs a wholesale change to "look like a Ferrari sidepod". Within this shape that we are calling a "micropod" there are near infinite number of permutations, some very close to the initial design, which may offer a further drag reduction. A tighter radius here, a more blunt edge there, a taller ramp here, an "bump" there, etc etc. Drag reduction doesn't require a concept change.

[LM10]

I've not said anything even close to turning it into a Ferrari. Just used Ferrari as an example because their sidepod design reduces drag on rear tyres.

In one simulation that used a model of a car that wasn't the Ferrari. As discussed elsewhere, the simulations are great and very interesting but we can't draw black and white conclusions from them because they are far from complete.

You're right, it wasn't the Ferrari, but the sidepod-concept (or philosophy if you wish) was. If Vanja and others managed to build a model which showed less drag penalty, then Ferrari will have managed it too, at the very least.