Mercedes W13

[F1Krof]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

[f1jcw]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

the Ferrari trick? Did you miss the Ferrari bouncing

[Just_a_fan]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

The big question is: what's Red Bull's trick? They are hugely fast and stable too. I'm guessing their strange suspension geometry is paying dividends.

[djones]

I think it's all relative for now.

By that I mean the track is smoother, but that means all the teams can run lower.

Until the floor is fixed properly, it's just about a compromise for now and trying to score around P4/P5 as much as possible.

Four or five races time from now I think it would incredibly surprising for this car to not make its way to being the fastest. It's clear for everybody to see the bouncing is holding this car back dramatically... probably over a second a lap.

[LM10]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

the Ferrari trick? Did you miss the Ferrari bouncing

It’s not a trick. At least 3 teams have a damper in that area. Mercedes has tried a different solution as is seen on the picture from yesterday in this thread.

As for the bouncing on the Ferrari - it’s pretty clear that not only Ferrari, but all other teams have done setup work and tried different stuff. Bouncing happened for Sainz only.

[djones]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

The big question is: what's Red Bull's trick? They are hugely fast and stable too. I'm guessing their strange suspension geometry is paying dividends.

I would imagine there is no 'trick' and they just have a very well-designed floor. Maybe their simulations were better at producing the bouncing so they had fixes for it many months ago.

[Mr5in1]

I noticed from some of the onboards and shots in FP1 that neither Lewis or George are riding the kerbs, makes sense until the car is more stable.

But this tactic alone is costing time so the issues their having you can tell are compounded

Lets hope they find a good base to provide a close race between 3 manufacturers.

[pursue_one's]

Different rear wings

[NicoS]

You know F1 is lame when you see two pages about a cut down rear wing flap.

God I miss the days of radical cars and cheap, ugly downforce.

Yes! the "golden age" of development. dearly missed

[Tvetovnato]

Even though the problems are still there, it looks like a pretty solid start all things considered. Lewis’ onboards didn’t look too bad balance wise, and the race fuel times were not that far off at the end of the session when comparing to RB.

Still very early ofc, but it looks more under control!

[Mchamilton]

...

They are carrying more wing because they are having to run the car higher off the floor to reduce the porpoising.

...

Carrying more rear wing was to reduce porpoising or to compensate for the loss of downforce due to rising the car`s ride height? So now for the fact that they are bringing a trimmed RW for here in Jeddah implies they`ll run lower the car perhaps isn't it?

Or it means they need to run less drag and downforce for jeddah than bahrain

[JordanMugen]

I agree, its seems highly unlikely that detached flows from the upper surface of the car went unnoticed in simulations and wind tunnel. In my opinion it is way more likely that the car is set to run very low, but they cannot do that because of porpoising. I think that in Mercedes case rising the car height causes a loss of downforce higher than in other cars.

There is always the possibility that they stuck too much to previous years concepts and miss out some new opportunities that the new regulations offer, but it is too early to say. I guess we will have to wait at least until Imola/Barcelona to know who was right.

Whether true or not, there is some scope for this being plausible.
a) - Mercedes had the least amount of wind-tunnel time at the beginning of last season.
b) - Mercedes had the most ground to make up to catch Red Bull at the beginning of last season (along with AMR they were more heavily affected by the floor changes).
c) - No matter what they do in the tunnel, flow detachment is difficult to spot (unless every square mm of model is covered in pressure sensors.
d) - Wind tunnel testing is limited to 180km/h, although I believe that they are allowed to model higher speeds in CFD. CFD runs are also limited.
e) - The airflow changes with speed.

As I say, whether true or not, it is plausible.

180kph is fast enough for a 60% scaled car!
If the wind is going 180kph and the model car is 2.7 meters long... The wind would be passing a full scale car at 300kph. That is more than enough methinks.

Yes, Stk=tU/L but conversely Re=UL/ν. So you could match Stokes number (inversely proportional to length) but not Reynolds number (directly proportional to length) with the smaller length with lower velocity. To match Reynolds number (i.e., to get similar boundary layer and separation characteristics) you'd need higher velocity than the full-scale object.

[matteosc]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

Porpoising:
1) Is not that related to the surface the car run on. It's 90% an aerodynamic issue
2) Is caused by the flow choking at the back of the car, t-tray has minimum effect

Also damping the porpoising in a generic sense is not the solution. It is an instability, not just a bump on the road: damping will not fix the issue, it will at best limit it, but compromising the optimal damping required by the mechanics of the car.

[Just_a_fan]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

Porpoising:
1) Is not that related to the surface the car run on. It's 90% an aerodynamic issue
2) Is caused by the flow choking at the back of the car, t-tray has minimum effect

Also damping the porpoising in a generic sense is not the solution. It is an instability, not just a bump on the road: damping will not fix the issue, it will at best limit it, but compromising the optimal damping required by the mechanics of the car.

The issue is the flow through the throat of the underfloor which is near the middle of the wheelbase, not at the rear end of the car.

[NicoS]

Still bouncing, even though the surface is much smoother. They still don't have an answer. I wonder if they missed the damper trick ala Ferrari and HAAS on the t-tray

Porpoising:
1) Is not that related to the surface the car run on. It's 90% an aerodynamic issue
2) Is caused by the flow choking at the back of the car, t-tray has minimum effect

Also damping the porpoising in a generic sense is not the solution. It is an instability, not just a bump on the road: damping will not fix the issue, it will at best limit it, but compromising the optimal damping required by the mechanics of the car.

The issue is the flow through the throat of the underfloor which is near the middle of the wheelbase, not at the rear end of the car.

flow at the rear will effect flow at the throat.
A f1 car is not made up of isolated components. there is plenty interaction.