Mercedes W13

[mantikos]

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.

Because none of them touch, the rule isn't for them to touch but for them to be in the area occupied by the mirror when head on which this isn't - sorry the 100s of engineers at Merc are smarter than us

[the EDGE]

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)?

From my understanding the cooling layout is the same for both versions of bodywork, so I would say yes they must be interchangeable

[AR3-GP]

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)?

I think the point of distinction is the difference between the required cooling power (which is equivalent between Merc and it's customers), and the actual power density of the coolers. If Mercedes have increased the power density of their cooler, then they can use smaller coolers than their customers. I.e a smaller cooler which is more power dense rejects the same amount of heat as larger cooler which is less power dense. That goes for engine coolant, intercooler, trans cooler, and so on.

[Stu]

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)?

I think the point of distinction is the difference between the required cooling power (which is equivalent between Merc and it's customers), and the actual power density of the coolers. If Mercedes have increased the power density of their cooler, then they can use smaller coolers than their customers. I.e a smaller cooler which is more power dense rejects the same amount of heat as larger cooler which is less power dense. That goes for engine coolant, intercooler, trans cooler, and so on.

The cooling matrices have certain elements that are regulated (tube size, shapes, etc), this is actually stated within the regs as to reduce costs. No team should be looking to use anything larger than the minimum allowed (imo), so the only differentiator between each engine manufacturer is a reduced cooling requirement (but most of the usual tricks are also covered off).

[Andi76]

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)?

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept is not about getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing, creating more suction, making the tunnels work better. Instead of that they had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary and quite logical as the rear and beamwing assembly create more upwash and suction. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts and speculations after witnessing the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

[mkay]

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)?

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept did not put much effort in getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing and creating more suction. Instead of that the had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

They can easily re-design sidepods; it's just bodywork at the end of the day. Question is how would they have to amend front/beam wings, floors, etc.

Also, why would they go for less drag? And is their concept inherently less drag, especially after we've been told that it probably doesn't deal as well with tyre wake and drag as wider sidepods?

[AR3-GP]

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)?

I think the point of distinction is the difference between the required cooling power (which is equivalent between Merc and it's customers), and the actual power density of the coolers. If Mercedes have increased the power density of their cooler, then they can use smaller coolers than their customers. I.e a smaller cooler which is more power dense rejects the same amount of heat as larger cooler which is less power dense. That goes for engine coolant, intercooler, trans cooler, and so on.

The cooling matrices have certain elements that are regulated (tube size, shapes, etc), this is actually stated within the regs as to reduce costs. No team should be looking to use anything larger than the minimum allowed (imo), so the only differentiator between each engine manufacturer is a reduced cooling requirement (but most of the usual tricks are also covered off).

The regulations surrounding the primary coolers (air cooled) are rather prescriptive, but the regulations surrounding secondary coolers (like a liquid cooled intercooler) are rather open ended. The regulations say a liquid-air intercooler "must be metallic". It's not lost on me that the intercooler itself, if liquid cooled, must have that liquid being cooled by air, somewhere else, meaning there is an upper limit which winds down to the best primary cooler technology, but perhaps there is some invention here in the secondary cooler.

[izzy]

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept is not about getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing, creating more suction. Instead of that they had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

I thought the idea of the zeropods was exactly to feed more air to the rear wings, at the expense of less outwashing of the rear tyres and their wake?

But anyway porpoising can just as easily be seen as too much downforce, and the problem being how to keep as much of it as possible at slow speed. And a lot of it is the new super simple suspension that can't be as adaptable as it used to be, rather than the aero concept. They can all fix the porpoising in a moment by jacking the car up, but they don't wanna.

[AR3-GP]

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept is not about getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing, creating more suction. Instead of that they had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

I thought the idea of the zeropods was exactly to feed more air to the rear wings, at the expense of less outwashing of the rear tyres and their wake?

But anyway porpoising can just as easily be seen as too much downforce, and the problem being how to keep as much of it as possible at slow speed. And a lot of it is the new super simple suspension that can't be as adaptable as it used to be, rather than the aero concept. They can all fix the porpoising in a moment by jacking the car up, but they don't wanna.

and it seems like they can massively stiffen the suspension to get huge numbers at high speed, but at the cost of low speed performance.

[Andi76]

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)?

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept did not put much effort in getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing and creating more suction. Instead of that the had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

They can easily re-design sidepods; it's just bodywork at the end of the day. Question is how would they have to amend front/beam wings, floors, etc.

Also, why would they go for less drag? And is their concept inherently less drag, especially after we've been told that it probably doesn't deal as well with tyre wake and drag as wider sidepods?

Its not as easy to just make bigger sidepods. They are part of the whole Aero-Concept, so i do not think you just can change your sidepods. That would conpromise your whole Aero-Philosophy.
And like you say - it would not solve their problem with the rear and beamwing. They cannot do that without redesigning their car completely.

Less drag without sacrificing downforce is always beneficial...thats the reason why they could do it. I do not think we were told that wider sidepods mean less drag...we were told Ferraris tube-sidepods mean less drag. For sure the tyre wake management is better with wider sidepods, and this can reduce drag, but at the end of the day drag depends on much more than that. You cannot say that a wider sidepod necessarily means less drag... Mercedes clearly got rid of some drag in the sidepod area... and they have even more space and huge downwashing element that suggests they get even more air over the top of the diffusor. We do not know the drag of this element. And we do not know the drag compared to the old sidepods. But it seems possible to me that today modifications give them less drag, without sacrificing downforce. Probably even more downforce. No F1 team makes such a change if there is no gain in downforce or less drag.

But anyway- its just some thoughts. Maybe i am totally wrong.

[NoDivergence]

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept did not put much effort in getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing and creating more suction. Instead of that the had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

They can easily re-design sidepods; it's just bodywork at the end of the day. Question is how would they have to amend front/beam wings, floors, etc.

Also, why would they go for less drag? And is their concept inherently less drag, especially after we've been told that it probably doesn't deal as well with tyre wake and drag as wider sidepods?

Its not as easy to just make bigger sidepods. They are part of the whole Aero-Concept, so i do not think you just can change your sidepods. That would conpromise your whole Aero-Philosophy.
And like you say - it would not solve their problem with the rear and beamwing. They cannot do that without redesigning their car completely.

Less drag without sacrificing downforce is always beneficial...thats the reason why they could do it. I do not think we were told that wider sidepods mean less drag...we were told Ferraris tube-sidepods mean less drag. For sure the tyre wake management is better with wider sidepods, and this can reduce drag, but at the end of the day drag depends on much more than that. You cannot say that a wider sidepod necessarily means less drag... Mercedes clearly got rid of some drag in the sidepod area... and they have even more space and huge downwashing element that suggests they get even more air over the top of the diffusor. We do not know the drag of this element. And we do not know the drag compared to the old sidepods. But it seems possible to me that today modifications give them less drag, without sacrificing downforce. Probably even more downforce. No F1 team makes such a change if there is no gain in downforce or less drag.

But anyway- its just some thoughts. Maybe i am totally wrong.

What problem with the beam wing and rear wing? They have the most clean flow on the floor which goes to the the diffuser roof and the beam wing, which then supports the diffuser and rear wing. Their issues aren't downforce, it's balance and getting the suspension and tires working in conjunction.

[Sieper]

After listening to some experts, trusted journalists, Aero-Experts and watching todays test, i made some thoughts - i underline - some thoughts

Isn't it possible that Mercedes realised that their car isn't leading the pack anymore and decided to go for less drag? Their concept is not about getting as much air as possible to the rear-wing and beamwing, creating more suction. Instead of that they had chosen to get as much air as possible over the top of the floor. But getting as much air as possible to the rearwing and beamwing is probably a much better solution with this kind of regulary. Maybe thats also the reason why Mercedes is suffering from porpoising more than others. I do not think its a coincidence that the two teams with small sidepod-concept/air over top of the diffusor concept(Mercedes and Williams)are hit hardest by porpoising. Couldn't it be possible that Mercedes realised their concept is not the way to go? But as they could not change their whole concept completely, they went radical and now try it with minimising the drag and getting even more air over the top of the diffusor? Couldn't the concept itself be the problem? That would be a disaster, as they could not change it without totally redesigning the car...

Its just some thoughts since i witnessed the horrible behaviour of Mercedes today...

I thought the idea of the zeropods was exactly to feed more air to the rear wings, at the expense of less outwashing of the rear tyres and their wake?

But anyway porpoising can just as easily be seen as too much downforce, and the problem being how to keep as much of it as possible at slow speed. And a lot of it is the new super simple suspension that can't be as adaptable as it used to be, rather than the aero concept. They can all fix the porpoising in a moment by jacking the car up, but they don't wanna.

This. It is very clear (imho) that the Merc with all the room for the air to flow, had by far the most downforce. So much so that when setting it (too) low you get heavy porpoising. So now they are looking how to keep it as low as possible and still have a controllable car. Ferrari already made some cuts in the floor. Toto in the close up today in the live feed could not hide the smile imho.

[Andi76]

They can easily re-design sidepods; it's just bodywork at the end of the day. Question is how would they have to amend front/beam wings, floors, etc.

Also, why would they go for less drag? And is their concept inherently less drag, especially after we've been told that it probably doesn't deal as well with tyre wake and drag as wider sidepods?

Its not as easy to just make bigger sidepods. They are part of the whole Aero-Concept, so i do not think you just can change your sidepods. That would conpromise your whole Aero-Philosophy.
And like you say - it would not solve their problem with the rear and beamwing. They cannot do that without redesigning their car completely.

Less drag without sacrificing downforce is always beneficial...thats the reason why they could do it. I do not think we were told that wider sidepods mean less drag...we were told Ferraris tube-sidepods mean less drag. For sure the tyre wake management is better with wider sidepods, and this can reduce drag, but at the end of the day drag depends on much more than that. You cannot say that a wider sidepod necessarily means less drag... Mercedes clearly got rid of some drag in the sidepod area... and they have even more space and huge downwashing element that suggests they get even more air over the top of the diffusor. We do not know the drag of this element. And we do not know the drag compared to the old sidepods. But it seems possible to me that today modifications give them less drag, without sacrificing downforce. Probably even more downforce. No F1 team makes such a change if there is no gain in downforce or less drag.

But anyway- its just some thoughts. Maybe i am totally wrong.

What problem with the beam wing and rear wing? They have the most clean flow on the floor which goes to the the diffuser roof and the beam wing, which then supports the diffuser and rear wing. Their issues aren't downforce, it's balance and getting the suspension and tires working in conjunction.

Floor over the Top of the floor does not really suppoer the beamwing or rear-wing. And its a huge difference in these concepts.

I quote Vanja, our aerodynamicist here, who explained this in another thread

"In my view, it makes a lot of sense to hear Ferrari tried developing this nano-pod design, they were minimizing sidepods consistently from 2017-2021. It also makes a lot of sense they opted for something different if it showed greater potential - something completely different in this case.

To improve the aerodynamic floor performance with any given floor design you have to get more air to the rear wing and then to the beam wing, in that order. Getting more air on top of the diffuser is tertiary. Rear wing creates more suction and will help beam wing as a secondary effect as well. To that end, I'd never go Mercedes direction and start putting stuff higher, clogging up the flow ahead of rear wing...."

So getting air over the top over the diffusor is always beneficial, but it does neither support the rear-or beanwing a lot nor does it get close to the amount of suction you get from getting more air to the rearwing. Also their problems have nothing to do with balance, suspension or tyres working in conjunction...not at all. Porpoising has nothing to do with balance or the suspension or tyres working in conjunction. You can use the one or the other as part of the solution, but its not part of the problem itself. So sorry if i have to say you are totally wrong in that regard.

[SiLo]

Its not as easy to just make bigger sidepods. They are part of the whole Aero-Concept, so i do not think you just can change your sidepods. That would conpromise your whole Aero-Philosophy.
And like you say - it would not solve their problem with the rear and beamwing. They cannot do that without redesigning their car completely.

Less drag without sacrificing downforce is always beneficial...thats the reason why they could do it. I do not think we were told that wider sidepods mean less drag...we were told Ferraris tube-sidepods mean less drag. For sure the tyre wake management is better with wider sidepods, and this can reduce drag, but at the end of the day drag depends on much more than that. You cannot say that a wider sidepod necessarily means less drag... Mercedes clearly got rid of some drag in the sidepod area... and they have even more space and huge downwashing element that suggests they get even more air over the top of the diffusor. We do not know the drag of this element. And we do not know the drag compared to the old sidepods. But it seems possible to me that today modifications give them less drag, without sacrificing downforce. Probably even more downforce. No F1 team makes such a change if there is no gain in downforce or less drag.

But anyway- its just some thoughts. Maybe i am totally wrong.

What problem with the beam wing and rear wing? They have the most clean flow on the floor which goes to the the diffuser roof and the beam wing, which then supports the diffuser and rear wing. Their issues aren't downforce, it's balance and getting the suspension and tires working in conjunction.

Floor over the Top of the floor does not really suppoer the beamwing or rear-wing. And its a huge difference in these concepts.

I quote Vanja, our aerodynamicist here, who explained this in another thread

"In my view, it makes a lot of sense to hear Ferrari tried developing this nano-pod design, they were minimizing sidepods consistently from 2017-2021. It also makes a lot of sense they opted for something different if it showed greater potential - something completely different in this case.

To improve the aerodynamic floor performance with any given floor design you have to get more air to the rear wing and then to the beam wing, in that order. Getting more air on top of the diffuser is tertiary. Rear wing creates more suction and will help beam wing as a secondary effect as well. To that end, I'd never go Mercedes direction and start putting stuff higher, clogging up the flow ahead of rear wing...."

So getting air over the top over the diffusor is always beneficial, but it does neither support the rear-or beanwing a lot nor does it get close to the amount of suction you get from getting more air to the rearwing. So sorry if i have to say you are totally wrong in that regard.

It would also be wise to remember just how much downforce the floor creates as an overall percentage of the cars total downforce.

[El_KaPpa]

What exactly did Sainz mean by this regarding the GPS: “I think it’s typical Mercedes, typical George, hyping up the others and then coming to the first race and blowing the competition away. As you can imagine, I don’t believe much. In the GPS we can already see what they’re doing. ”