Mercedes W13

[vorticism]

Would you say their total radiator area is less this year? If so, how? Or have they simply enlarged the central coolers and shoved more under the fuel tank?

[basti313]

Would you say their total radiator area is less this year? If so, how? Or have they simply enlarged the central coolers and shoved more under the fuel tank?

Yes, definitely.
It is openly known know, that they use special intercoolers, that bring the total sizing down.

From the point of engine cooling the rads look roughly same size and angle as on the Aston to me.

[basti313]

Anyone able to crystallise exactly what the issue is with Mercs mirrors? As I can make out the form itself isn’t unique, the fact that the mirrors appear to influence the winglets downstream isn’t unique either, AT seem to be doing it. So the only part Merc are on their own on, is that it’s mounted without any horizontal support connecting it directly to the chassis?

EDIT: Explained in the Kyle Vid.

To be honest....I do not think this is all of it and a bit short in the video.

There are two points of concern:
- Running the horizontal support within the big crash structure wing to the chassis...is already a wide interpretation. But ok...I guess this was well clarified and I see no change coming here for this season, but I fear this is not possible in the future.
- As explained in the video there is no maximum number for the winglets. Still there is article 3.2.2 (which is not mentioned in the video?) which disallows aerodynamic purpose of the mirrors. This is why the supports are so well defined and explicitly allowed, as they would otherwise be questionable. Now I completely fail to see an argument that one can add 5 mounts and cover them still as structural support while they 100% contradict 3.2.2.

I expect that neither Merc or AT are able to use the winglets long in the season. I also have my doubt on these downwash wings on the mirror, that we see on many cars.

[214270]

Anyone able to crystallise exactly what the issue is with Mercs mirrors? As I can make out the form itself isn’t unique, the fact that the mirrors appear to influence the winglets downstream isn’t unique either, AT seem to be doing it. So the only part Merc are on their own on, is that it’s mounted without any horizontal support connecting it directly to the chassis?

EDIT: Explained in the Kyle Vid.

To be honest....I do not think this is all of it and a bit short in the video.

There are two points of concern:
- Running the horizontal support within the big crash structure wing to the chassis...is already a wide interpretation. But ok...I guess this was well clarified and I see no change coming here for this season, but I fear this is not possible in the future.
- As explained in the video there is no maximum number for the winglets. Still there is article 3.2.2 (which is not mentioned in the video?) which disallows aerodynamic purpose of the mirrors. This is why the supports are so well defined and explicitly allowed, as they would otherwise be questionable. Now I completely fail to see an argument that one can add 5 mounts and cover them still as structural support while they 100% contradict 3.2.2.

I expect that neither Merc or AT are able to use the winglets long in the season. I also have my doubt on these downwash wings on the mirror, that we see on many cars.

But the same solution has been on ATs racecar since filming day? Is it really only because it’s Merc that there’s now comment? I think Binotto is quite measured so it’s surprising he’s singling out Merc only

[Andi76]

Look at the exposed internals of the W13 and the F1-75. Ferrari can't just put some different panels on and mimic the Mercedes style of sidepod. They would also have to carry out a wholesale change in their radiator design and cooling philosophy. Other teams will not be as extreme a change as Ferrari, but even Red Bull will need to change radiator designs to go down a W13-style route.

Conversely, Mercedes can just bolt on some Ferrari or RedBull style sidepods with no internal changes other than maybe a few bits of CF to carry the panels. Dead easy for them to change philosophy.

As the very fact Ferrari has the least amount of centre line cooling and therefore the slimmest airbox and shaping around, is a key part of their concept. So I don’t see what benefits Mercedes would have of simply copying Ferrari’s sidepod design.

Both teams follow concepts which could not be more different from each other. For both teams it would be a pain in the … to copy each other‘s concept.

It was more to do with who could copy which sidepod design most easily, as in it's easier for Mercedes to bulk out their sidepods than it is for others to make theirs smaller.

Because their concepts are totally different to each other, it would make no sense. Mercedes can't go "the Ferrari-way" with their huge airbox.

[Just_a_fan]

As the very fact Ferrari has the least amount of centre line cooling and therefore the slimmest airbox and shaping around, is a key part of their concept. So I don’t see what benefits Mercedes would have of simply copying Ferrari’s sidepod design.

Both teams follow concepts which could not be more different from each other. For both teams it would be a pain in the … to copy each other‘s concept.

It was more to do with who could copy which sidepod design most easily, as in it's easier for Mercedes to bulk out their sidepods than it is for others to make theirs smaller.

Because their concepts are totally different to each other, it would make no sense. Mercedes can't go "the Ferrari-way" with their huge airbox.

Sigh. It was a discussion about who could more easily change the size of the sidepods, not who could copy the entire philosophy of another team.

It's blindingly obvious that one team can make their sidepods occupy a larger volume, where others can't easily do the opposite. That's all it is.

[Andi76]

It was more to do with who could copy which sidepod design most easily, as in it's easier for Mercedes to bulk out their sidepods than it is for others to make theirs smaller.

Because their concepts are totally different to each other, it would make no sense. Mercedes can't go "the Ferrari-way" with their huge airbox.

Sigh. It was a discussion about who could more easily change the size of the sidepods, not who could copy the entire philosophy of another team.

It's blindingly obvious that one team can make their sidepods occupy a larger volume, where others can't easily do the opposite. That's all it is.

Ok. I got it. Even if i do not understand its sense. Every concept has its limitations. So even if Merc could - they cannot. So sorry if this seems senseless to me.

[wogx]

But the same solution has been on ATs racecar since filming day? Is it really only because it’s Merc that there’s now comment?

For me - that one winglet is the most controversial. Why is it legal, when it doen't even touch the mirror?

BTW. AT also shouldn't be using 3 winglets. There should be a limit of max. 2 pylons per mirror.

[shamyakovic]

But the same solution has been on ATs racecar since filming day? Is it really only because it’s Merc that there’s now comment?

https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... IWgcZ6.jpg

For me - that one winglet is the most controversial. Why is it legal, when it doen't even touch the mirror?

BTW. AT also shouldn't be using 3 winglets. There should be a limit of max. 2 pylons per mirror.

You need watch the video below.. there is no limit for the number of strakes, there is an exception in that area, that's the reason why there are multiple strakes

[wogx]

OK, that's a reeeally clever interpretation of poor written rules. Mercedes 1:0 FIA

[Marty_Y]

'The Mercedes a handful for Hamilton'
Chris Medland

F1 journalist in Bahrain

When Lewis Hamilton went out on softer compounds late in the afternoon in Barcelona, he duly lowered the fastest time of the day in what looked like a settled car. The same can't be said here, as Hamilton can only go fourth fastest despite using the softest tyre available, compared to the three ahead of him - Carlos Sainz, Max Verstappen and Lance Stroll - on a slightly harder compound.

Headline lap times are notoriously difficult to deduce anything from, but how a car looks on track is a much better gauge, and it's fair to say the Ferrari has looked extremely planted and consistent.

The Mercedes appeared to be much more of a handful for Hamilton, however, with porpoising still a clear issue around the lap. The fact it was sparking so much shows they are trying to run the car lower too, which can exacerbate the problem. There's work to be done for the defending constructors' champions.

[OO7]

[RZS10]

But the same solution has been on ATs racecar since filming day? Is it really only because it’s Merc that there’s now comment?

https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... IWgcZ6.jpg

For me - that one winglet is the most controversial. Why is it legal, when it doen't even touch the mirror?

BTW. AT also shouldn't be using 3 winglets. There should be a limit of max. 2 pylons per mirror.

None of the four in the back are touching the mirror, even if it might look like they do from that perspective ... on the AT there's two that aren't touching the mirror.


I guess we've all seen Kyle's video - there he says it hinges on the word "may" with regards to being connected to the mirror, as in: they can be there and may be connected but don't have to be connected.

[Stu]

Would you say their total radiator area is less this year? If so, how? Or have they simply enlarged the central coolers and shoved more under the fuel tank?

Yes, definitely.
It is openly known know, that they use special intercoolers, that bring the total sizing down.

From the point of engine cooling the rads look roughly same size and angle as on the Aston to me.

I don’t think that it is “Yes, definitely”, for one the car requires as much cooling as any other Mercedes-engined competitor (and as much as they did with the previous non-B-spec version). The re-package looks (from a very basic point of view) as though the existing side-pod cooling has been rotated by 90 degrees, which has allowed it to ‘hug’ the chassis more; in party with this, the ‘shoulders’ of the engine cover also look to be bigger & wider, following the line of the halo. There will have been compromises made with locations for the various ECU’s, etc, that would also normally be placed in the side-pod between ducting and bodywork.

In essence, there is no free lunch; a car that utilises 1000+bhp has a certain cooling requirement.
In the last few years the Mercedes has not had a great time if buried ‘in the pack’, and quite a bit of that is down to an optimised cooling package for free running (which is what they expect to do.

This is an interesting (if slightly ugly) concept, but not radical. Front mounted cooling would be radical, this looks to be a very clever repackage. I wonder if it is interchangeable with the Barcelona-spec bodywork (giving the almost track specific side-pod options)?

[holeindalip]

But the same solution has been on ATs racecar since filming day? Is it really only because it’s Merc that there’s now comment?

https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... IWgcZ6.jpg

For me - that one winglet is the most controversial. Why is it legal, when it doen't even touch the mirror?

BTW. AT also shouldn't be using 3 winglets. There should be a limit of max. 2 pylons per mirror.

None of the four in the back are touching the mirror, even if it might look like they do from that perspective ... on the AT there's two that aren't touching the mirror.
https://i.imgur.com/NTVI8pR.png

I guess we've all seen Kyle's video - there he says it hinges on the word "may" with regards to being connected to the mirror, as in: they can be there and may be connected but don't have to be connected.

I thought you could use as many as you wanted as long as it stayed within the bounds of the mirror
https://imgur.com/sMhS1WW