Mercedes W13

[SiLo]

I think I found it, but it's still pretty vague. The FIA will have to watch this closely, because it for sure could be manipulated to have an aero benefit.

Honestly just by nature of having a damper in there it must fall foul of d, e, and f already?

Feels very odd that it's allowed, I can't quite understand how it doesn't contravene several of these basic rules. Maybe it needs it's own thread?

I think this is all off topic sadly but very interested for a mod to move it to it's own topic

[PhillipM]

Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.

Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....

[LM10]

I thought teams needed to provide CAD files to the FIA? So the FIA must have known and allowed that already.

[zibby43]

Chopped down upper flap for Jeddah.

[AMG.Tzan]

https://twitter.com/albertfabrega/statu ... 39970?s=21

Chopped down upper flap for Jeddah.

So Toto was almost true! They did use a chainsaw to trim the rear wing

Can't believe Mercedes hasn't produced a low downforce rear wing...! Even Alpine has brought one!

What were they doing during 2021??

[Hoffman900]

https://twitter.com/albertfabrega/statu ... 39970?s=21

Chopped down upper flap for Jeddah.

So Toto was almost true! They did use a chainsaw to trim the rear wing

Can't believe Mercedes hasn't produced a low downforce rear wing...! Even Alpine has brought one!

What were they doing during 2021??

They probably need more wing than the ones they produced (assuming the floor was working), but not a high downforce wing like they have (probably like a Monaco spec), so they are stuck needing something likely in-between.

[SparkyAMG]

https://twitter.com/albertfabrega/statu ... 39970?s=21

Chopped down upper flap for Jeddah.

So Toto was almost true! They did use a chainsaw to trim the rear wing

Can't believe Mercedes hasn't produced a low downforce rear wing...! Even Alpine has brought one!

What were they doing during 2021??

A lot has been made about the need to run such a big wing at the moment to allow them to use the car in this compromised state. Even if they do have a low downforce spec (I'm sure they do), it's probably not suitable until they can lower the ride height again.

I'd imagine that this carved out version of the high downforce spec is just another compromise in place for this weekend to keep them somewhat competitive. They'll only be aiming to keep themselves in that third fastest zone so they can pick up any scraps again.

[matteosc]

Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.

Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....

The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?

[izzy]

Chopped down upper flap for Jeddah.

Running it lower . It's a smoother track anyway, and perhaps they've been making progress on the floor and suspension?

[Vanja #66]

The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?

Yes, they placed some electronics in there, to further help reducing sidepod volume.

[Quantum]

Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.

Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....

The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?

Please cite what you are saying.

The front floor ruling is pretty clear, and I've not seen anything to say this is "allowed".
A link to an official source would be ideal.

d. Must not incorporate any component, mechanism or structure whose characteristics
vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature. Including, but not limited to
viscous damping, hysteretic damping and hydraulic systems.

e. Must not incorporate any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit
permanent deformation.

f. Must not be designed in such a way, or incorporate any component, mechanism or
structure that can cause it to exhibit anything other than the same load deflection
relationship measured during the test described in Article 3.15.6 whilst on the circuit
(other than minor incidental effects such as those caused by inertia).

These 3 criteria need to be met for any such spring to exist. And if they are not, then there is absolutely zero reason to have a spring in that location.

[matteosc]

Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.

Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....

The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?

Please cite what you are saying.

The front floor ruling is pretty clear, and I've not seen anything to say this is "allowed".
A link to an official source would be ideal.

d. Must not incorporate any component, mechanism or structure whose characteristics
vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature. Including, but not limited to
viscous damping, hysteretic damping and hydraulic systems.

e. Must not incorporate any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit
permanent deformation.

f. Must not be designed in such a way, or incorporate any component, mechanism or
structure that can cause it to exhibit anything other than the same load deflection
relationship measured during the test described in Article 3.15.6 whilst on the circuit
(other than minor incidental effects such as those caused by inertia).

These 3 criteria need to be met for any such spring to exist. And if they are not, then there is absolutely zero reason to have a spring in that location.

This is not the official website, but that is what I found (already posted before in this thread):
https://pledgetimes.com/f1-ferrari-f1-7 ... he-t-tray/
Edit: this is another link (still unofficial):
https://scuderiafans.com/ferrari-introd ... ahrain-gp/

[LM10]

Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.

Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....

The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?

Please cite what you are saying.

The front floor ruling is pretty clear, and I've not seen anything to say this is "allowed".
A link to an official source would be ideal.

d. Must not incorporate any component, mechanism or structure whose characteristics
vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature. Including, but not limited to
viscous damping, hysteretic damping and hydraulic systems.

e. Must not incorporate any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit
permanent deformation.

f. Must not be designed in such a way, or incorporate any component, mechanism or
structure that can cause it to exhibit anything other than the same load deflection
relationship measured during the test described in Article 3.15.6 whilst on the circuit
(other than minor incidental effects such as those caused by inertia).

These 3 criteria need to be met for any such spring to exist. And if they are not, then there is absolutely zero reason to have a spring in that location.

Which of these criteria was not met with a spring/damper in that location?

As for part "d", does it vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature? I'd say no, as it only aborbs the movement of the T-tray caused by aerodynamic load.
As for part "e", does it deform systematically or routinely or rather irregularly?
As for part "f", does it exceed the numbers in the load deflection tests? Obviously no, as it would not be on the car in that case.

That's my interpretation. Please tell me anyone, if or where I might be wrong.

[dans79]

Can the mods move the rule stuff to it's own thread, it's getting pretty far off topic now for the w13 thread.

[AR3-GP]

Here is the thread for aero reg analysis where people can discuss moving aero:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29920