Mercedes W13

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

They may even have changed their mind about something on the rear wing that was in production for this week, and shelved the idea mid point and told fabrication to go to a different spec, which they only pulled up since Friday prac. as there would not be enough difference.

No point continuing with a design close to the one they have if they have already moved on.
It must be less time consuming and costly to reconfigure a (2 at least) wing already part way through construction than to start from scratch
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

dialtone
dialtone
121
Joined: 25 Feb 2019, 01:31

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

nimoraca wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 11:33
Don't know if somebody already posted this but its a great analysis of the speed difference between Hamilton quali lap and Leclers.

Basically, most of the difference comes from the breaking where Lewis breaks much earlier. Ferarri also has a slightly higher top speed on all straights but not by much. Mercedes is faster in every single slow corner though.
I think that video is a bit misleading in a few places, for example Leclerc missed the apex in T1 didn't just choose to run wider there.

But the more questionable side is that looking at minimum speed in a corner doesn't tell the whole story, but can just be telling the style of each driver. Here's the example from that lap:

Image

HAM is indeed quite fast in terms of minimum speed through a lot of corners, but in terms of average speed through said corners he's actually quite slow across the board.

nimoraca
nimoraca
1
Joined: 16 Aug 2020, 11:43

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Its not easy to follow these charts as the Hamiltons line gets shifted as the time delta increases.

dialtone
dialtone
121
Joined: 25 Feb 2019, 01:31

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

nimoraca wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 18:47
Its not easy to follow these charts as the Hamiltons line gets shifted as the time delta increases.
You can zoom in by going directly to the link, but no the graph is on distance not time, time is not a variable in this graph so there's no time related shifting.

User avatar
humble sabot
27
Joined: 17 Feb 2007, 10:33

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Not sure how much to snip on this one so I’ve left the quote intact. The porpoising that happens with a planing boat is actually quite different in some important ways. With a boat one of the most important factors is the angle of thrust; not just relative to the center of mass but also the angle of attack of your planing surface. It’s kind of a weird three variable problem because you’ll have an optimal angle of attack depending on total mass, relative to the power you have available.
With the car situation your angle of thrust relative to your critical surface is nominally fixed, only changing a tiny bit with compression of suspension. The length of an f1 car and the fact that it’s supported at both ends means that there’s a lot less variation.
It’s apparent that the front wings of this season’s cars aren’t having the same problem, and so we can effectively rule out most arguments about cg, since they affect primarily pitching type porpoising.

The continuity and strength of floor sealing vortices may be affected by slight variations in pitch though. The front wing may retain the design downforce and drag but its wake may develop a periodicity depending on its interactions at various heights for instance.
Dee wrote:
19 Mar 2022, 01:11
Okay, I put in centre of mass and porpoising into google and came across this interesting post in a boat design forum

https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/porpoising.1155/

Not cars obviously but seemingly the same thing happening

"I have a problem with porpoising on my 12' home-built duckboat whenever I get above 3/4 throttle. I am particularly interested in the center of gravity/center of lift relationship.

Doesn't moving weight forward only lessen the frequency of the occillation in accordance with consevation of angular moment. From what I've gleaned so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, here are the dynamics of porpoising: The boat has a fixed center of mass (COM). The hull has a center of boyancy (COB) that moves aft as the wet surface of the hull decreases at higher speeds. As the COB passes aft of the COM, gravity pulls the bow down rotating on the COB point. When the bow goes down, the COB immediately and rapidly moves forward of the COM. Stability is reestablished until the COB once again moves aft of the COM.

Moving weight forward, if my thinking is correct, should only increase the likelyhood of porpoising. Though initially this might bring the bow down, and hence, move the COB forward until speed is ultimately increased enough to shift it aft of the COM again, the forward shift of the COM only appears to deminish porpoising because as the radius of arc of the ocillating COM about the COB increases, the frequency of occillation decreases to preserve the angular moment.

Trim in causes the craft to run in a more bow down attitude which serves to keep the COB forward. Porpoising is prevented until enough power is applied to move the COB aft again.

This leave me with the counterintuitive solution of moving weight aft so as to move the COM aft.

There is the possibility of my boat being overpowered (by definition of this particular instability) which moves the COB aft to the extreme, and more so than any aft movement of the COM that I would be able to achieve.

In line with my thinking, the reason that a rocker hull is thought to porpoise more is because the bow rides high, and therefore, has further to fall making porpoising more pronounced as opposed to making it more likely.

I guess the trick then is to balance weight distribution, trim attitude, and power for the most efficient use of thrust."

Obviously a boat not a car but generally the same issue and a very interesting insights
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

User avatar
atanatizante
115
Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 15:33

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Does the W13 car have this kinda sprung like the BR18 and F1-75 ones?
I don`t think they`ve missed just a simple trick to solve the porpoising ...

Image
via Motorsport.com

Image
"I don`t have all the answers. Try Google!"
Jesus

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

atanatizante wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:24
Does the W13 car have this kinda sprung like the BR18 and F1-75 ones?
I don`t think they`ve missed just a simple trick to solve the porpoising ...
Can you share a link to the article, I'd like to read it!

edit: I found it.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... g/9199208/

Is that supposed to be some kind of mass damper?
201 105 104 9 9 7

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

dans79 wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:32
atanatizante wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:24
Does the W13 car have this kinda sprung like the BR18 and F1-75 ones?
I don`t think they`ve missed just a simple trick to solve the porpoising ...
Can you share a link to the article, I'd like to read it!

edit: I found it.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... g/9199208/

Is that supposed to be some kind of mass damper?
Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 21:26
dans79 wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:32
atanatizante wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:24
Does the W13 car have this kinda sprung like the BR18 and F1-75 ones?
I don`t think they`ve missed just a simple trick to solve the porpoising ...
Can you share a link to the article, I'd like to read it!

edit: I found it.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... g/9199208/

Is that supposed to be some kind of mass damper?
Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.
I'm not even sure what it's supposed to do.

Between the two of them they look like some kind of hinged skid plate. Even if they don't act like mass dampers, they would be some kind of illegal suspension component, if they are designed to lessen the severity of proposing or impact with the ground because of it.
201 105 104 9 9 7

User avatar
Vanja #66
1562
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

ringo wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 16:36
One think I noticed about this car is the shape of the entry of the floor.
The opening is very high towards the middle and flatter on the outer section.
The floors on the other cars have a smoother transition in front profile than the W13. That could be an area they could investigate as well. I will try and get some comparison shots.
Indeed. That area might be very important for floor sealing and, therefore, less sensitivity to higher ride-heights. Both the top and bottom surfaces. Also, it might not work as good combined with current inlets on the floor, which would also explain why this solution was great in wind tunnel but not on track - radiator permeability correlation.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

dans79 wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 21:48
Just_a_fan wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 21:26
dans79 wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 20:32


Can you share a link to the article, I'd like to read it!

edit: I found it.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... g/9199208/

Is that supposed to be some kind of mass damper?
Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.
I'm not even sure what it's supposed to do.

Between the two of them they look like some kind of hinged skid plate. Even if they don't act like mass dampers, they would be some kind of illegal suspension component, if they are designed to lessen the severity of proposing or impact with the ground because of it.
The rules used to require a strut here to be rigid.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

PhillipM
PhillipM
386
Joined: 16 May 2011, 15:18
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 21:26
Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.
I honestly can't see how the teams are getting around this without being hit with moveable aerodynamic device rules. They're blatently sprung and damped pieces of chassis for aero advantage.

User avatar
De Jokke
0
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 02:51

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Allison confident they can fix it AND even very soon:

Mercedes AMG + Hamilton => dreamteam!
If you can't beat'em, call Masi!

99stewartL
99stewartL
0
Joined: 21 Jan 2015, 23:57

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

Although Allison seems to suggest the cause of porpoising isn't the common explanation. Does that mean it's not flow to the diffuser being choked by the ride height lowering? And if so what else could possibly be causing it

matteosc
matteosc
30
Joined: 11 Sep 2012, 17:07

Re: Mercedes W13

Post

PhillipM wrote:
24 Mar 2022, 00:40
Just_a_fan wrote:
23 Mar 2022, 21:26
Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.
I honestly can't see how the teams are getting around this without being hit with moveable aerodynamic device rules. They're blatently sprung and damped pieces of chassis for aero advantage.
They were specifically allowed to put a spring-damper device in the area. It is not a mass damper at all, not even close. No idea of why the "mass damper" thing was even mentioned.