Mercedes W13

[bosyber]

That's ridiculous. I hope such nonsense will be banned for 2023.

It is definitely taking a run with the written regulations. Although all teams do a lot more with it than just support the mirrors (see Ferrari for example saying efficiency due to better cockpit flow - that's arguably good use in the rules of a fuel-limited formule

After Ferrari introduced those extra wing bits as 'housing', then Red Bull optimized the wing over a naked mirror look, these things are clearly out of sorts with the intention. For next year they probably should limit the amount of elements, allow no gaps in 'stalks' etc. And perhaps do a standard mirror part with housing (bigger maybe too?), with let's say a limited amount of room for optimizing shapes for the stalks.

[214270]

Cue another round of movable aero device debates as that thing bends under load. Sky are frothing at the mouth lol

[chrstphrln]

That's ridiculous. I hope such nonsense will be banned for 2023.

It is definitely taking a run with the written regulations. Although all teams do a lot more with it than just support the mirrors (see Ferrari for example saying efficiency due to better cockpit flow - that's arguably good use in the rules of a fuel-limited formule

After Ferrari introduced those extra wing bits as 'housing', then Red Bull optimized the wing over a naked mirror look, these things are clearly out of sorts with the intention. For next year they probably should limit the amount of elements, allow no gaps in 'stalks' etc. And perhaps do a standard mirror part with housing (bigger maybe too?), with let's say a limited amount of room for optimizing shapes for the stalks.

Yes. In this case, Mercedes has not even tried to build in a supporting function.
If a "mirror stay" cannot fulfill its function at all because it is completely free in the air, the regulations should be able to put a stop to it.

[bosyber]

That's ridiculous. I hope such nonsense will be banned for 2023.

It is definitely taking a run with the written regulations. Although all teams do a lot more with it than just support the mirrors (see Ferrari for example saying efficiency due to better cockpit flow - that's arguably good use in the rules of a fuel-limited formule

After Ferrari introduced those extra wing bits as 'housing', then Red Bull optimized the wing over a naked mirror look, these things are clearly out of sorts with the intention. For next year they probably should limit the amount of elements, allow no gaps in 'stalks' etc. And perhaps do a standard mirror part with housing (bigger maybe too?), with let's say a limited amount of room for optimizing shapes for the stalks.

In this case, Mercedes has not even tried to build in a supporting function.
If a "mirror stay" cannot fulfill its function at all because it is completely free in the air, the regulations should be able to put a stop to it.

There are several of the other teams too (esp. those little wing bits behind the mirrors, that are in principle no different than this, though yes again, this takes it to a rather different level. I "like" how their reason for adding it is 'none' and just say 'new part added to previous bit that we had', which highlights your point.

[214270]

That's ridiculous. I hope such nonsense will be banned for 2023.

It is definitely taking a run with the written regulations. Although all teams do a lot more with it than just support the mirrors (see Ferrari for example saying efficiency due to better cockpit flow - that's arguably good use in the rules of a fuel-limited formule

After Ferrari introduced those extra wing bits as 'housing', then Red Bull optimized the wing over a naked mirror look, these things are clearly out of sorts with the intention. For next year they probably should limit the amount of elements, allow no gaps in 'stalks' etc. And perhaps do a standard mirror part with housing (bigger maybe too?), with let's say a limited amount of room for optimizing shapes for the stalks.

Yes. In this case, Mercedes has not even tried to build in a supporting function.
If a "mirror stay" cannot fulfill its function at all because it is completely free in the air, the regulations should be able to put a stop to it.

It didn’t put a stop to the upper mirror cascades which are in free air though did it?

[bosyber]

'Housing' that is, those flaps around the actual mirrors, right?! Yeah, which is why I mentioned standard parts, seems like the most sensible solution really. Perhaps with a drag reducing flap around it like the wheel wake; but let F1 rule team design it then everyone has it the same and can work with what it there, even if no doubt less optimally integrated into the whole airflow.

[chrstphrln]

It didn’t put a stop to the upper mirror cascades which are in free air though did it?

That was the door the FIA should have closed in time before such grotesque developments took place.

[henry]

To me this “mirror stay” falls in the same category as the “floor edge wing” which is not on the edge or what many would consider a wing. It’s not what it’s called it’s what the detailed geometry regulations allow.

[Shakeman]

The wing strake is yet more proof, if needed, if there's a loophole an F1 designer is going to drive a bus through it.

How do we get the Y250 vortex back....? Merc Engineer, hold my set square...

[Andi76]

These visually small changes at this stage are a good sign because it means the concept is sound.

I am sorry to say this, but i doubt it is. Why are all the other teams going in a different direction? And why does Mercedes have so many problems? I think they just have the problem that they cannot change this concept in a way that they would need to. They cannot add the pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlets because their inlets go all the way down to the floor. They cannot get more air to the rear and beamwing to drive the floor, because their concept required a huge airbox and engine-cover.They did this to get more air over the top of the diffusor, and now they have to stay with that, because they cannot change everything from the sidepod inlets to the rear-axle. But this would be necessary to do changes like that and this would literally mean a new car. Just adding bigger sidepods, like some people suggested, would not work, because this means less air over the top of the diffusor, but thats an essential part of their concept and they sacrificed airflow to the rear-and beamwing because of that and their whole cooling-system was designed with the intention to get as much air as possible over the top of the diffusor. And now they just cannot change it. I think Mercedes has the problem that they are basically trapped within their concept.

Lets revisit this statement on Monday. AM is doing the exact thing you stated above. They have the merc airbox with RB sidepods. We'll see whos right after this race.

Revisit it now, a few races later? Unfortunately i was obviously right by saying Barcelona sucess was track dependant etc. And as Aston Martin seems to improve, while Mercedes still is in a lot of trouble and the gap seems to get even bigger instead of smaller, with porpoising(more or less) solved - it seems to prove what i said since the very beginning of the season - that the Zero-Pod concept is just wrong, for reasons already explained.

[nico5]

The fact that porpoising made a comeback here and Merc and Ferrari look worst, despite the aero changes made in Spain (where Merc from F1 data looked to be the least affected), is testament to a mechanical solution being the only way out of it. Does anybody know of news of Merc having a new rear suspension in the pipeline? I think I read something about Ferrari working on bringing something later this season. Having a reliable platform to work on in terms of ride height and stiffness seems to be key to extracting performance out of the car this season. If you have to compromise all the time and have to throw away any setup you'd been working on before the weekend as you put the car on track, then you're going nowhere, it's pretty clear by now.

[dialtone]

The fact that porpoising made a comeback here and Merc and Ferrari look worst, despite the aero changes made in Spain (where Merc from F1 data looked to be the least affected), is testament to a mechanical solution being the only way out of it. Does anybody know of news of Merc having a new rear suspension in the pipeline? I think I read something about Ferrari working on bringing something later this season. Having a reliable platform to work on in terms of ride height and stiffness seems to be key to extracting performance out of the car this season. If you have to compromise all the time and have to throw away any setup you'd been working on before the weekend as you put the car on track, then you're going nowhere, it's pretty clear by now.

Ferrari was very bad in FP1 with the medium DF wing, but wasn't as bad in FP2 with the low DF wing. But indeed without suspension help you can't fix it. Ferrari has a new rear suspension coming in Silverstone I think.

[cplchanb]

I am sorry to say this, but i doubt it is. Why are all the other teams going in a different direction? And why does Mercedes have so many problems? I think they just have the problem that they cannot change this concept in a way that they would need to. They cannot add the pressurisation zone under the sidepod inlets because their inlets go all the way down to the floor. They cannot get more air to the rear and beamwing to drive the floor, because their concept required a huge airbox and engine-cover.They did this to get more air over the top of the diffusor, and now they have to stay with that, because they cannot change everything from the sidepod inlets to the rear-axle. But this would be necessary to do changes like that and this would literally mean a new car. Just adding bigger sidepods, like some people suggested, would not work, because this means less air over the top of the diffusor, but thats an essential part of their concept and they sacrificed airflow to the rear-and beamwing because of that and their whole cooling-system was designed with the intention to get as much air as possible over the top of the diffusor. And now they just cannot change it. I think Mercedes has the problem that they are basically trapped within their concept.

Lets revisit this statement on Monday. AM is doing the exact thing you stated above. They have the merc airbox with RB sidepods. We'll see whos right after this race.

Revisit it now, a few races later? Unfortunately i was obviously right by saying Barcelona sucess was track dependant etc. And as Aston Martin seems to improve, while Mercedes still is in a lot of trouble and the gap seems to get even bigger instead of smaller, with porpoising solved - it seems to prove what i said since the very beginning of the season - that the Zero-Pod concept is just wrong, for reasons already explained.

baku is a street circuit as well you know... so the characteristics of monaco would probably be similar. they were struggling last year as well in baku so its not surprising that this time its the same. merc has historically focused on the grand picture in terms of track suitability which are purpose built ones. so far its just been temp street circuits. if merc gets demoed in silverstone then we'll know.

[wesley123]

Revisit it now, a few races later? Unfortunately i was obviously right by saying Barcelona sucess was track dependant etc. And as Aston Martin seems to improve, while Mercedes still is in a lot of trouble and the gap seems to get even bigger instead of smaller, with porpoising(more or less) solved - it seems to prove what i said since the very beginning of the season - that the Zero-Pod concept is just wrong, for reasons already explained.

If the zero-pod was wrong Barcelona wouldn't have been a success. If there is one track on the calendar that is heavily aero-dependent it is Barcelona.

[deadhead]

its obvious that there is more than one thing wrong with the W13...