Mercedes W13

[Just_a_fan]

I think what they are doing with the wing is related to the budget cap.

Or there's no point making a wing until they know it will work and that car's porpoising issue is sorted.

Yes which ties into the budget cap.

Or it's just pragmatism- a new wing is pointless if the floor is still wrong. It all needs to work together.

[vorticism]

Isn't there a limit to the number of wings they can produce this year? By regulation. If so maybe they modify existing wings to test parameters in free practice. If not, this could be a new flap, and they only have one set of livery stickers to use, making it look cut. Also, making the letters shorter would make the logo smaller, so maybe they choose wider logo over partially truncated logo.

If its modified, consider that would make the trailing edge thicker than normal. That or the original wing had a continuous thickness trailing section in preparation for this modification.

[DarthPlagueisTheVise]

W13 T-tray solution

Mercedes don’t have a traditionally sprung bib solution like we’ve seen on the Ferrari, Red Bull and Haas but it’s clear it is using a device to bridge the gap between it and the underside of the chassis.

[PlatinumZealot]

W13 T-tray solution

Mercedes don’t have a traditionally sprung bib solution like we’ve seen on the Ferrari, Red Bull and Haas but it’s clear it is using a device to bridge the gap between it and the underside of the chassis.

https://www.linkpicture.com/view.php?im ... 1105108847

Exaclty! It was literally in front of his eyes and he denied its existence.

[ringo]

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.

Those 3 criteria do sound like a spring. it varies with force not time. It does not permanently deform. It exhibits s direct load and deformation relationship.
So a spring sounds legal.

[zibby43]

Rear wing hi-res:



PU:



Rear brake ducts:



SIS fairing and vortex generators:



Photos via RaceFans and Motorsport

[Stu]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

[izzy]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

What's Christian going to say about it? I'm looking forward to that

But yes some flo vis shots would be good wouldn't they. Presumably the flow off the front edge across that bigger gap has a good effect on the rear flow, with whatever edge profile as you say. Perhaps it gives that flow a last flick upwards.

[Stu]

Looking at the image of the PU, I am struggling to visualise why the outer bodywork is so high/broad on the Bahrain-spec car (it runs horizontally back from the halo - the Barcelona-spec engine cover was more conventional, but still fairly big in this area); there appears to be no direct ducting from the cooling system.
About the only reason that I can see to do this is to raise the height at which the louvres are able to be placed (their is a specific area that they can be placed in plan view). Otherwise the very broad cover presents a pretty significant blockage to the rear wing flow, strange when you consider how shrink-wrapped the engine cover has been previously - last year it required blisters for the new plenum chambers.
The laws of physics have not changed over the off season, so what has changed their perspective on how to manage the airflow?

[NicoS]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

What's Christian going to say about it? I'm looking forward to that

But yes some flo vis shots would be good wouldn't they. Presumably the flow off the front edge across that bigger gap has a good effect on the rear flow, with whatever edge profile as you say. Perhaps it gives that flow a last flick upwards.

Why are you always concerned wit what Horner will say?
Surely teams can cut up any part of their car? If the cut-up part remains dimensionally within regulation why would anyone have issue?

[GrizzleBoy]

Looking at the image of the PU, I am struggling to visualise why the outer bodywork is so high/broad on the Bahrain-spec car (it runs horizontally back from the halo - the Barcelona-spec engine cover was more conventional, but still fairly big in this area); there appears to be no direct ducting from the cooling system.
About the only reason that I can see to do this is to raise the height at which the louvres are able to be placed (their is a specific area that they can be placed in plan view). Otherwise the very broad cover presents a pretty significant blockage to the rear wing flow, strange when you consider how shrink-wrapped the engine cover has been previously - last year it required blisters for the new plenum chambers.
The laws of physics have not changed over the off season, so what has changed their perspective on how to manage the airflow?

It bugs the heck out of me too. The big flat box shape of the engine cover leading to the cooling exit on all merc engine cars bar the Aston Martin is so unsightly to me too.

Could it be unforeseen engine issues requiring extreme cooling measures? Could maybe explain the merc engine teams basically being back of the pack? Merc being last of the top teams. McLaren, AM and Williams all hanging around the back of the grid.

[Just_a_fan]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

The flap will have been made in the factory, not cut from the full size one at the track.

[Stu]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

The flap will have been made in the factory, not cut from the full size one at the track.

So the quote from Toto needs to be taken with a pinch of salt? Again….

Also, the “no time to get new parts made and out to Saudi” line that is being pushed?

The levels of ‘new-speak’ are getting ridiculous.

Getting fed up with it all!!

[izzy]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

The flap will have been made in the factory, not cut from the full size one at the track.

If they were making a new one they'd put the branding in the right place, doncha think? And why not do a full length chord at a shallower angle while they're at it, as that's more efficient.

So I think they trimmed an existing one as Scarbs said. Budget cap shock

[Just_a_fan]

For all of the “took a chainsaw/angle grinder to it” remarks, cutting down the flap is easy, remaking it so that it functions correctly and has the right kind of profile (without simply giving it a kamm-tail*) is a fairly substantial amount of work (the internal structures would also need to be modified).

Assuming that they have ‘made good’ on the profile, the biggest benefit of this will only be seen in DRS zones - the slot when activated will be substantially bigger.

I would expect them to have flow-viz on it today.

* “simply giving it a kamm-tail” would be a largely pointless exercise anyway.

The flap will have been made in the factory, not cut from the full size one at the track.

So the quote from Toto needs to be taken with a pinch of salt? Again….

Also, the “no time to get new parts made and out to Saudi” line that is being pushed?

The levels of ‘new-speak’ are getting ridiculous.

Getting fed up with it all!!

I'm taking it all with a pinch of salt until we see the back of that wing flap. If they just cut a bit out, they'll end up with a thick trailing edge. I doubt that's going to result in a wing that's much better than the one it's replacing.

I'm happy to be proved wrong either way.