Mercedes W13

[OO7]

Regard Mercedes floor edge, it should be taken into account that the Barcelona update added a slot on each side, so the airflow around that region is likely to be a little different. This is in relation to comments about floor edge flexing and sealing, possibly being responsible for the bouncing.

[AA_2019]

So the theory is that W13 was performing very good on slow speed corners (at least what I heard) before the upgrade. Question is: will they rollback the current developments for Monaco, since Monaco has no high speed corners? There is still concern for bouncing coming out of the tunnel, is it worth the try? I would risk at least with one car on Thursday to see what's what.

What do you think?

The thought crossed my mind too, however they should have scope to adjust the new floor to make it less stiff and induce the flexi floor sealing that they were aiming for with the previous design but which lead to the high speed bouncing. There will be trade-offs as usual.

There is a strong suggestion that the new floor edge is adjustable to change the floor sealing characteristics.

[Ozan]

I think Merc designers need to increase the cooling capacity a little bit more because monaco and baku circuits are street tracks and these closed places increase the heat quickly, dissipating heat is harder than barcelona in my opinion. maybe we will see larger gills in sidepod and engine area.

[mantikos]

The beam wing is so low the short W13 pods probably drive it harder if anything, they'll have a lot of airflow getting there.

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Just plain wrong

[wesley123]

Considering the proximity of the beam wing to the tunnels literally everyone will have "lots of airflow" there.

[PlatinumZealot]

The beam wing is so low the short W13 pods probably drive it harder if anything, they'll have a lot of airflow getting there.

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Be careful with these statement Mr. CFD eyes! Downwashing is relative to whatever velocity hits the wing.

A wing can be downwashing too if the air comes at it upward and gets turned less upward after that. It's all depending on your frame of reference.

Without CFD i don't know how you determined that where flow from wing elements are going. I'm impressed. Not saying you are wrong but You gotta explain that one.

[Andi76]

The beam wing is so low the short W13 pods probably drive it harder if anything, they'll have a lot of airflow getting there.

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Just plain wrong

It is not. Just study the CFD that was done already, take a look at what our respected aerodynamicist Vanja said about the concepts and Mercedes big shoulders...just because you do not like it, it is not wrong.

Considering the proximity of the beam wing to the tunnels literally everyone will have "lots of airflow" there.

Why should everyone have a lot of airflow there because of the tunnels? Are the tunnels responsible for the airflow to the beamwing? Interesting...

The beam wing is so low the short W13 pods probably drive it harder if anything, they'll have a lot of airflow getting there.

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Be careful with these statement Mr. CFD eyes! Downwashing is relative to whatever velocity hits the wing.

A wing can be downwashing too if the air comes at it upward and gets turned less upward after that. It's all depending on your frame of reference.

Without CFD i don't know how you determined that where flow from wing elements are going. I'm impressed. Not saying you are wrong but You gotta explain that one.

To be honest about that wing - this analysis was done by kyleengineers. He is a former aerodynamicist of Mercedes F1 Team and i completely agree with him, as it is the only thing that really makes sense in that area.

[PlatinumZealot]

Link to said video?

[Andi76]

Link to said video?

I think its 11:20, 11:30 somewhere around that

And i think if you look at this wing, you do not need CFD eyes to see its a downwashing element...

[PlatinumZealot]

Link to said video?

I think its 11:20, 11:30 somewhere around that

And i think if you look at this wing, you do not need CFD eyes to see its a downwashing element...

It is indeed a downwashing element not argueing that, but you made a claim that it reduces flow towards the beam wing when compared to other side pods and put Mecedes at a disadvantage in this area.

Downwash does not have to move downward relative our reference frame. Our reference frame does not matter. Downwash is taken relative to the angle of incidence of the air passing the wing profile. You technically can have air moving upward towards the wing and then it is turned horizontal leaving the wing. This is still a downwash wing.

At 13:30 in the video... Kyle says the downwash and outwash from the wing guides dirty flow away from the beam wing.

This is corroborated by Andrew Green, Technical Director of Aston Martin.

So your theory that Mercedes has a weaker flow to the beam wing has stiff challenges.

[mantikos]

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Just plain wrong

It is not. Just study the CFD that was done already, take a look at what our respected aerodynamicist Vanja said about the concepts and Mercedes big shoulders...just because you do not like it, it is not wrong.

Considering the proximity of the beam wing to the tunnels literally everyone will have "lots of airflow" there.

Why should everyone have a lot of airflow there because of the tunnels? Are the tunnels responsible for the airflow to the beamwing? Interesting...

These pods have a downwashing effect. They do not drive the beamwing. Also Mercedes has a downwashing element in the area of the mirrors what further reduces flow towards the beamwing. Then you have the massive shoulders...Mercedes definetely has not a lot of air that goes to the beamwing. Red Bull maximises the flow to the beamwing being much smaller in that area. But anyway - even if some people do not want to believe it - we have CFD in this forum done by aerodynamicists that clearly shows the differences in concept, proving that Mercedes concept is to drive the floor with getting more air over the diffusor. While Red Bull and Ferrari drive their floor with the rear- and beamwing. The picture also clearly shows this for the trained eye. As did analysis by aerodynamicists on youtube. Everyone can check by himself.

Be careful with these statement Mr. CFD eyes! Downwashing is relative to whatever velocity hits the wing.

A wing can be downwashing too if the air comes at it upward and gets turned less upward after that. It's all depending on your frame of reference.

Without CFD i don't know how you determined that where flow from wing elements are going. I'm impressed. Not saying you are wrong but You gotta explain that one.

To be honest about that wing - this analysis was done by kyleengineers. He is a former aerodynamicist of Mercedes F1 Team and i completely agree with him, as it is the only thing that really makes sense in that area.

That model was off and that was discussed to death. You might want to go back and read. Turns out Merc is low drag and not high drag.

[wesley123]

Considering the proximity of the beam wing to the tunnels literally everyone will have "lots of airflow" there.

Why should everyone have a lot of airflow there because of the tunnels? Are the tunnels responsible for the airflow to the beamwing? Interesting...

You know that surfaces tend to have multiple sides, right?

Considering tunnel height, beam wing position and the rear wing itself there is very little reason to assume airflow is much different there. There simply isn't much area above or to the side of the assembly for air to end up in.

The difference in sidepod is more to manage airflow around the floor edge than to maximize airflow to the beam wing.

[Andi76]

Just plain wrong

It is not. Just study the CFD that was done already, take a look at what our respected aerodynamicist Vanja said about the concepts and Mercedes big shoulders...just because you do not like it, it is not wrong.

Considering the proximity of the beam wing to the tunnels literally everyone will have "lots of airflow" there.

Why should everyone have a lot of airflow there because of the tunnels? Are the tunnels responsible for the airflow to the beamwing? Interesting...

Be careful with these statement Mr. CFD eyes! Downwashing is relative to whatever velocity hits the wing.

A wing can be downwashing too if the air comes at it upward and gets turned less upward after that. It's all depending on your frame of reference.

Without CFD i don't know how you determined that where flow from wing elements are going. I'm impressed. Not saying you are wrong but You gotta explain that one.

To be honest about that wing - this analysis was done by kyleengineers. He is a former aerodynamicist of Mercedes F1 Team and i completely agree with him, as it is the only thing that really makes sense in that area.

That model was off and that was discussed to death. You might want to go back and read. Turns out Merc is low drag and not high drag.

So Toto was probably joking when he was complaining about the W13s drag-problems in the first few races: "We have to be realistic, we are the third force on the track"
"We have a lot of drag on the main straight," he added.

Just a note regarding CFD…
CFD does not “teach” you aerodynamics. It is used to validate and optimise a concept. You need to get the concept right in the first place. Do you think that Adrian Newey or any other top designer need CFD simulations to understand flow?

In a scientific point of view, Vanja made a claim and run a simulation to prove it. While the argument that his simulation is not very accurate, as posted by others, is probably correct, it does not prove that the simulation and his claim is wrong.

And we aren't claiming his experiment to prove a hypothesis is wrong - that's the scientific method and we admire him for doing that.

What the rest of us are saying is that it doesn't represent the Mercedes car and therefore isn't directly applicable (and I believe you are saying that too but don't want to put those words in your mouth). So his claim about the W13 is off, however it is accurate about his model.

So basically the guy accepts that his earlier claim about Vanja's analysis being totally invalid was a personal opinion (no facts), and a wrong one at that. Took his statement back basically.

What a bs way to go about it tho. Called a bunch of his friends, threw about bs in other directions, but accepted in the end.
Could've just said you wanted to feel the w13 isnt draggy and you didn't really read Vanja's analysis before.

You mean this discussion?

That was the end of it, and its a little bit different like you wanted to make it seem:

You haven't responded why your unoptimized flowstreams validate that a small sidepod MUST have that rear wheel flowfield. And if you admit that it doesn't, then what is the effect of varying that? You should do a sensitivity study, but either way, it isn't gonna be what W13 is doing, because there is just about 0 chance that you get the vorticity exactly right.

You are right, I haven't responded to you. I responded to mantikos and all of a sudden it felt like it was 3 against one. That's hardly fair play now, isn't it? Now that the mods seem to have deleted his intriguing reply to my last post to him, they indicate that discussion is over. So I'll get back to all your questions later this evening.

3 not-so-experts (one of them being a complete armchair-expert and rude on top of that) vs. one expert, though. Seems not fair, that's true.

Anyway - i think its time to stop the discussion, as we obviously had all this before in another thread, rear- and beamwing, sidepods, concepts etc. so its literally wasted time and energy for all of us. There literally are two opinions. Which one is right - no one knows. But laptimes and the championship clearly prove that the W13 is inferior and still was 6-8 tenths behind the RB&Ferrsri. So the one or other theory seems more reasonable than the other. And thats pretty much the only thing we can say for sure.

[holeindalip]

It is not. Just study the CFD that was done already, take a look at what our respected aerodynamicist Vanja said about the concepts and Mercedes big shoulders...just because you do not like it, it is not wrong.



Why should everyone have a lot of airflow there because of the tunnels? Are the tunnels responsible for the airflow to the beamwing? Interesting...



To be honest about that wing - this analysis was done by kyleengineers. He is a former aerodynamicist of Mercedes F1 Team and i completely agree with him, as it is the only thing that really makes sense in that area.

That model was off and that was discussed to death. You might want to go back and read. Turns out Merc is low drag and not high drag.

And we aren't claiming his experiment to prove a hypothesis is wrong - that's the scientific method and we admire him for doing that.

What the rest of us are saying is that it doesn't represent the Mercedes car and therefore isn't directly applicable (and I believe you are saying that too but don't want to put those words in your mouth). So his claim about the W13 is off, however it is accurate about his model.

So basically the guy accepts that his earlier claim about Vanja's analysis being totally invalid was a personal opinion (no facts), and a wrong one at that. Took his statement back basically.

What a bs way to go about it tho. Called a bunch of his friends, threw about bs in other directions, but accepted in the end.
Could've just said you wanted to feel the w13 isnt draggy and you didn't really read Vanja's analysis before.

You mean this discussion? That was the end of it, and its a little bit different like you wanted to make it seem.

Anyway - i think its time to stop the discussion, as we obviously had all this before in another thread, rear- and beamwing, sidepods, concepts etc. so its literally wasted time and energy for all of us. There literally are two opinions. Which one is right - no one knows. But laptimes and the championship clearly prove that the W13 is inferior and still was 6-8 tenths behind the RB&Ferrsri. So the one or other theory seems more reasonable than the other. And thats pretty much the only thing we can say for sure.

There’s a lot more to it than that though. Not having the tires in the right operating window can be worth up to 2.5sec worth of lap time. Hell williams, AM or Haas could all have better aero(doubtful) than redbull or ferrari but only time will tell in the next couple of years which aero everyone starts to converge on. Next year everyone could show up with micropods…

[Andi76]

I hardly doubt that. Probably all teams started development with sidepods similar to the ones they used in 2021. Thats usually how developement starts and all the teams had small sidepods. And all the teams, except of Mercedes, McLaren and Williams went away from micropods. And there was a reason why they did that. And Mercedes had huge problems. Williams is the worst team and McLaren was struggling, too, while all the teams with "big sidepods" improved. With the bargeboards missing, the sidepods have become important for managing the front tyre wheel wake, next to other aerodynamic purposes. And in F1 teams usually follow the concepts of the two most sucessfull teams. And thats neither Mercedes nor Williams. And as concept and design usually starts in April, its highly unlikely that any team has chosen the direction of the worst team and one of the teams struggling heavily with their design, instead of following the more successful design concepts. This would be the first time ever in F1 that teams would make the decision to say - lets take up the concept of the slowest and most struggling teams. McLarens decision to finally drop micropods too, gives a clear indication that micropods will not be the way to go for next years cars.