Mercedes W13

[De Jokke]

Not expecting much for Melbourne. A new wing which won't help (see last gp).
Hope the Imola package can get them on the right track.

I hope they kick Petronas on the butt, as it seems the engine doesn't like the e10 fuel...

[mkay]

Not expecting much for Melbourne. A new wing which won't help (see last gp).
Hope the Imola package can get them on the right track.

I hope they kick Petronas on the butt, as it seems the engine doesn't like the e10 fuel...

AMuS said that the new rear wing would also include a revised beam wing too. Not sure if this was lost in translation or not.

[zibby43]

Not expecting much for Melbourne. A new wing which won't help (see last gp).
Hope the Imola package can get them on the right track.

I hope they kick Petronas on the butt, as it seems the engine doesn't like the e10 fuel...

I believe a new wing will help, for the reasons explained in the article.

It’s a proper lower-downforce specification that is set to be introduced. The Jeddah RW was literally a saw-job solution.

Considering one of Merc’s major issues is drag right now, I’d say a lower-drag RW is much-needed, and any floor tweaks, etc. would be welcome bonuses as well.

[AR3-GP]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

[continuum16]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

They’ll probably lose some, but a bespoke low-downforce wing will probably be more efficient than modifying a high-downforce one on short notice. I’m sure the front wing can be adjusted enough to keep the aero balance where they want.

[Just_a_fan]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

Perhaps a redesigned beam wing will make the rear of the floor work better and so off set the reduction in downforce from the rear wing. After all, the big rear wing was in place to recoup downforce lost from running the car on stilts to reduce porpoising. If they have revised other parts of the car, the big rear wing might not now be needed.

[AMG.Tzan]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

Perhaps a redesigned beam wing will make the rear of the floor work better and so off set the reduction in downforce from the rear wing. After all, the big rear wing was in place to recoup downforce lost from running the car on stilts to reduce porpoising. If they have revised other parts of the car, the big rear wing might not now be needed.

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

[Lefty8]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

Perhaps a redesigned beam wing will make the rear of the floor work better and so off set the reduction in downforce from the rear wing. After all, the big rear wing was in place to recoup downforce lost from running the car on stilts to reduce porpoising. If they have revised other parts of the car, the big rear wing might not now be needed.

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

It doesn't work that way.
A lower drag rear wing does not evacuate the diffusor as effectlively so throat velocity will be lower = less downforce.
it may solve the choking/stall in the floor but downforce will be lost. At best it will make the car more drivable and that may help the driver extract more lap time at the expense of tyre wear. But they may be able to race better and minimise points loss while they solve the problems with the car

[mantikos]

Won't they lose rear downforce? One does not magically reduce drag of highly mature design such as a rear wing without also losing a proportional amount of downforce and also changing the aero balance

Perhaps a redesigned beam wing will make the rear of the floor work better and so off set the reduction in downforce from the rear wing. After all, the big rear wing was in place to recoup downforce lost from running the car on stilts to reduce porpoising. If they have revised other parts of the car, the big rear wing might not now be needed.

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

The article seems to suggest the opposite, the wing was designed to generate more d/f despite higher drag because they couldn't run the floor low enough to get the expected d/f

[AR3-GP]

Perhaps a redesigned beam wing will make the rear of the floor work better and so off set the reduction in downforce from the rear wing. After all, the big rear wing was in place to recoup downforce lost from running the car on stilts to reduce porpoising. If they have revised other parts of the car, the big rear wing might not now be needed.

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

The article seems to suggest the opposite, the wing was designed to generate more d/f despite higher drag because they couldn't run the floor low enough to get the expected d/f

The wing was designed before they discovered the porpoising so your answer cannot be correct.

[AMG.Tzan]

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

The article seems to suggest the opposite, the wing was designed to generate more d/f despite higher drag because they couldn't run the floor low enough to get the expected d/f

The wing was designed before they discovered the porpoising so your answer cannot be correct.

That's what I'm saying! They've had the same rear wing since Barcelona which means they've designed it before discovering their porpoising issues!

Had they discovered porpoising through CFD they would have solved it anyway...

[mantikos]

I don't think so!

They found out about porpoising after the first test which means that the rear wing was already designed around the downforce levels the CFD was giving them without porpoising! So I think the lower downforce rear wing for Australia is just an answer let's say to the high drag + porpoising problems.

My assumption is that the lower downforce wing apart from reducing drag will also help reduce porposing thus enabling them to run lower ride height which in turn will gain them back the downforce they lost by running the lower downforce wing anyway.

The article seems to suggest the opposite, the wing was designed to generate more d/f despite higher drag because they couldn't run the floor low enough to get the expected d/f

The wing was designed before they discovered the porpoising so your answer cannot be correct.

Not my answer, just what the article is insinuating as counterintuitive as it may be

[Stu]

The article seems to suggest the opposite, the wing was designed to generate more d/f despite higher drag because they couldn't run the floor low enough to get the expected d/f

The wing was designed before they discovered the porpoising so your answer cannot be correct.

That's what I'm saying! They've had the same rear wing since Barcelona which means they've designed it before discovering their porpoising issues!

Had they discovered porpoising through CFD they would have solved it anyway...

I wonder who their source is inside Mercedes, it looks like a mis-information spread (almost on the scale of a dirty protest!!). They expected the big wings to be effective. That there was a suggestion that “at least one of the customer teams had it wrong” from JA (who else uses the Merc WT…), when Merc themselves are ‘off-target’, shows how creating a car concept in a vacuum can bite you. They were so confident! Maybe once they fix the issues (more than one area??), the big wings will go back on?

[Vanja #66]

It doesn't work that way.
A lower drag rear wing does not evacuate the diffusor as effectlively so throat velocity will be lower = less downforce.
it may solve the choking/stall in the floor but downforce will be lost. At best it will make the car more drivable and that may help the driver extract more lap time at the expense of tyre wear. But they may be able to race better and minimise points loss while they solve the problems with the car

No matter how much the floor is helped by rear and beam wings, getting it closer to the ground is several times more beneficial for downforce. Just look at RB18 at Saudi Arabia, "tiny" rear wing and floor scraping the ground all the time...

[OO7]

It doesn't work that way.
A lower drag rear wing does not evacuate the diffusor as effectlively so throat velocity will be lower = less downforce.
it may solve the choking/stall in the floor but downforce will be lost. At best it will make the car more drivable and that may help the driver extract more lap time at the expense of tyre wear. But they may be able to race better and minimise points loss while they solve the problems with the car

No matter how much the floor is helped by rear and beam wings, getting it closer to the ground is several times more beneficial for downforce. Just look at RB18 at Saudi Arabia, "tiny" rear wing and floor scraping the ground all the time...

I wonder if this is predominantly down to the design of the tunnel entrance vanes. The RB doesn't appear to turn airflow outwards as aggressively as others under the forward part of the floor.