Mercedes W13

[SiLo]

Here's a top view of the flow-viz on Merc's sidepod undercut, also from AMuS. Seems like the outwash was no weaker due to the inlet itself being a stagnation zone, but Merc was probably trying to avoid having the high-static-pressure undercut flow flipping over the sidepod's outer spline with such a bottom-wide design.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/G ... 880226.jpg

I don't suppose anyone has a photo from the rear of the same car with that flow viz on it? That would be great because we might see what, if any, of that flow ends up going under the floor and through the diffuser.

And I don't think the inlet is in a stagnation zone - they have two large vortex devices on the tub wall in front of the inlet that will be encouraging air to flow down and on to the floor in front of the sidepod inlet.

It will be the smallest point in the venturi tunnel, which will then just slow air further up the tunnel until the car ride height rises and the flow is cleared again

[djones]

Will the Mercedes aero concept be harder for cars to follow than the others?

[ScottB]

Will the Mercedes aero concept be harder for cars to follow than the others?

Didn't Brawn say the FIA had looked at the CFD and didn't think it did anything against that goal of the new rules?

[wogx]

CFD is just a simulation, what if other drivers will start to complain about it during an official GP weekend? They will have much more opportunities to follow a Mercedes during FP/Q/Race.

[Mara Nello]

Hey guys,

I did watch the Bahrain Test closely and saw this splitted FW from Merc. By watching it "flex" I was questioning myself if this wouldn't be against the reasons for these whole new regulations.

I guess the rules on the FW and that the elements has to go into the nose itself and within no more Y250 vortex had the aim no turbulences, closer following etc.

Seems like every team puts the stabilisator and the thing where they can change FW settings at the place where y250 appeared.

This FW split, seems to be at exact this position...wouldnt that counter the whole idea behind the rules?

Assuming that is indeed what they are aiming for, why would you need this vortex on the straights (fw splits only on high speed).

But maybe I am wrong at all . Am curious what explanations and ideas you have for that split.

Thanks and a nice day to all of you
https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... wing_flex/

[matteosc]

Here's a top view of the flow-viz on Merc's sidepod undercut, also from AMuS. Seems like the outwash was no weaker due to the inlet itself being a stagnation zone, but Merc was probably trying to avoid having the high-static-pressure undercut flow flipping over the sidepod's outer spline with such a bottom-wide design.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/G ... 880226.jpg

The bottom-wide design is necessary to meet the regulations when exposing the top impact structure. You must have a maximum of two sections cutting "vertically", so you cannot produce an undercut at the bottom.

[Simone Ferrari]

Seems that the mirrors have been declared legal ..
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-me ... 06/?nrt=54

[pierrre]

How does the regs classify secondary?
The intercooler seems important.

the definitions are in article 7.4.1

Primary Heat Exchanger: a heat exchanger that uses the air flowing over or through
the car to cool a fluid, which includes all of the core, tubes, header plates, header
tanks and fins

Secondary Heat Exchanger: a heat exchanger that uses a fluid other than the air
flowing over or through the car to cool another fluid.

if these are the rules then its not difficult to only use secondary heat exchanges, just overlap between fluids

[zibby43]

I don't think Merc's in position to be complained about. They'll be fighting for 5th and 6th in no-man's land with McLaren and with the rest of the field far behind.

Wish I could predict car performance by one look at the cars...

The writing's on the wall.

I believe you predicted similarly last year.

[Andi76]

There are reports in Germany with Marc Surer, a former F1 driver, saying that someone from Mercedes told him they tried something in Bahrain because of the problems the are experiencing, but it went in the wrong direction. Marc Surer is well informed so i think this is reliable information. Relying on that, i think Mercedes will bring some new parts for the Bahrain GP and probably know where they have to go now. But where did they go in wrong direction? Obviously the big thing they tried in Bahrain was the sidepods, so may they even go back to the first version of their sidepods? Just a thought, as this was the big change in Bahrain. But of course they tested a lot of other things, too, and the Mercedes engineer could also mean some on these things with "wrong direction", of course. The GP-Weekend will show. But its also just a few days, so maybe Mercedes will not be able to correct this before the 2nd GP.

[e30ernest]

Cars go out for scrutineering today right? Should see some photos soon(ish) then?

I think if they are going back to something closer to Barcelona's spec, it would be the floor. I do not think the sidepods would be the issue here, but their simplified floor.

[Mara Nello]

Cars go out for scrutineering today right? Should see some photos soon(ish) then?

I think if they are going back to something closer to Barcelona's spec, it would be the floor. I do not think the sidepods would be the issue here, but their simplified floor.

I hope it is the same like last year and we will see some pictures today.
Hopefully nothing changed...because the round for journalists and media, that was always scheduled on a Thursday is this year on Fridays, so the teams have more time to get things done etc.
Lets see if the scrutineering isn't affected by these changes

[kris]

Does the size and shape of the sidepods have any influence on the degree/intensity of turbulence behind the car?

[DChemTech]

Does the size and shape of the sidepods have any influence on the degree/intensity of turbulence behind the car?

I think Brawn mentioned somewhere they ran a CFD simulation of the concept, and did not see any issues with the wake of the car - which I guess means it doesn't substantially differ from the other concepts in that respect?

[GrizzleBoy]

I'd guess that the drastic shaping of the floor exit, rear wing and wake from the large tyres would have too much of an impact on the airflow at the rear of the car for sidepod shape to be a decisive factor.