Mercedes W14 Speculation Thread

[AR3-GP]

btw i don't see them keeping the same sidepods there will be change maybe not totally different but smaller changes to improve the weaker area based on their data

The side pods gave the car the strongest low speed downforce... That's certainly an advantage you want to keep. The downside of the zero pods was a floppy floor which created huge amounts of drag because the teams had to run the car in a compromised setup.

How can we say the sidepods are responsible for the low speed downforce, but then call them a red herring and say it's not the sidepod that made the car so horrible all last year?

[PlatinumZealot]

btw i don't see them keeping the same sidepods there will be change maybe not totally different but smaller changes to improve the weaker area based on their data

The side pods gave the car the strongest low speed downforce... That's certainly an advantage you want to keep. The downside of the zero pods was a floppy floor which created huge amounts of drag because the teams had to run the car in a compromised setup.

How can we say the sidepods are responsible for the low speed downforce, but then call them a red herring and say it's not the sidepod that made the car so horrible all last year?

Flow structures vary with speed.

Mercedes biggest issue was porpoising. That had nothing to do with the side pod shape itself.

Slow speed downforce the floor is less loaded so that bad floppy effect is less. The side pod then can work as intended at allowing cleaner flow to the rear wing.

So as you can see it's not two directly linked phenomena.

[Henri]

Merc need to find 1.2 sec in order to be competitive. With ferrari and red bull

they need more than that, last year they were 1 second slower and the other teams will find big gains this season

if the rumors about the ferrari 1 second faster is true then mercedes needs more than 2 seconds just to match it

On average get a and red bull where 7 tenths aherd of merc and in the last race 3 tenths off red bull in race pace

[Vaexa]

The side pods gave the car the strongest low speed downforce... That's certainly an advantage you want to keep. The downside of the zero pods was a floppy floor which created huge amounts of drag because the teams had to run the car in a compromised setup.

How can we say the sidepods are responsible for the low speed downforce, but then call them a red herring and say it's not the sidepod that made the car so horrible all last year?

Flow structures vary with speed.

Mercedes biggest issue was porpoising. That had nothing to do with the side pod shape itself.

Slow speed downforce the floor is less loaded so that bad floppy effect is less. The side pod then can work as intended at allowing cleaner flow to the rear wing.

So as you can see it's not two directly linked phenomena.

Wouldn't zeropods allow for less flow to the rear wing than the Ferrari style due to the significantly bulkier centerline cooling? I was under the impression the Mercedes style was all about relatively unimpeded flow to the beam wing.

[Vanja #66]

Wouldn't zeropods allow for less flow to the rear wing than the Ferrari style due to the significantly bulkier centerline cooling? I was under the impression the Mercedes style was all about relatively unimpeded flow to the beam wing.

Yes, big airbox reduces rear wing performance. The amount depends on the entire car geometry and how everything works together, but some loss is always there.

[Cs98]

The side pods gave the car the strongest low speed downforce... That's certainly an advantage you want to keep. The downside of the zero pods was a floppy floor which created huge amounts of drag because the teams had to run the car in a compromised setup.

How can we say the sidepods are responsible for the low speed downforce, but then call them a red herring and say it's not the sidepod that made the car so horrible all last year?

Flow structures vary with speed.

Mercedes biggest issue was porpoising. That had nothing to do with the side pod shape itself.

Slow speed downforce the floor is less loaded so that bad floppy effect is less. The side pod then can work as intended at allowing cleaner flow to the rear wing.

So as you can see it's not two directly linked phenomena.

Surely the shape of the pod and the consequent lack of support for the floor did have an impact on porpoising. The upside/downside of a design is multifaceted and cannot be simply put down to its direct impact on flow structures.

Can you imagine what the Merc had become if the FIA hadn't intervened with floor supports in testing?

[AR3-GP]

How can we say the sidepods are responsible for the low speed downforce, but then call them a red herring and say it's not the sidepod that made the car so horrible all last year?

Flow structures vary with speed.

Mercedes biggest issue was porpoising. That had nothing to do with the side pod shape itself.

Slow speed downforce the floor is less loaded so that bad floppy effect is less. The side pod then can work as intended at allowing cleaner flow to the rear wing.

So as you can see it's not two directly linked phenomena.

Surely the shape of the pod and the consequent lack of support for the floor did have an impact on porpoising. The upside/downside of a design is multifaceted and cannot be simply put down to its direct impact on flow structures.

Can you imagine what the Merc had become if the FIA hadn't intervened with floor supports in testing?

That regulation along with a few others last year definitely spared the W13 from a winless season.

[ringo]

I just smile reading some of these conclusions on smaller sidepods. There is more flow to the rear of the car with the smaller pods.
There is a lot of confusion regarding why some pods are wider and some not.

What i suspect need to be fixed for the w14 is vanes added upstream of the radiator inlets.
They may have been added to improve cooling or increase pressure over the shoulder of the sidepod. But merc stand to gain if they can revise the sidepod opening and still maintain a small profile for the sidepods.


I am expection a zero pod with 1 of 2 funky shapes. An MP4-26 type zero pod or one of the low slung pods of the 80s f1 cars. Just hoping for a drastic revision if theyre gonna stick to it.
If they copy redbull or ferrari, they have no chance of winning as they will be behind.

The zero pods can be fixed. I very much doub the rear will wake theory. The floor sealing theory holds more merrit. And that one is acheivable with a revised zero pod.

[organic]

Ex-merc aerodynamicist who helped win multiple wcc/wdcs talks about the wheel wake management more than anything else in his w13 video but you know better!

What is it exactly that you find implausible about the general discussion/consensus of why some sidepods are wide, and what the benefits of that are? Can you explain what you believe about the benefits/drawbacks of each approach? You keep alluding to it on various threads without going into detail; it's fine not agreeing but without explanation it just looks like an excuse/method to shut down others' ideas without a valid point

We can continue this in the 2023 car speculation thread if that seems more appropriate, depending on how you wish to reply to this

[carisi2k]

I am expection a zero pod with 1 of 2 funky shapes. An MP4-26 type zero pod or one of the low slung pods of the 80s f1 cars. Just hoping for a drastic revision if theyre gonna stick to it.
If they copy redbull or ferrari, they have no chance of winning as they will be behind.

Those small 80's pods never did any good and were always on some of the worst cars on the grid. Oh and that mp4/26 was not the most successful car either.

[Vanja #66]

The floor sealing theory holds more merrit. And that one is acheivable with a revised zero pod.

To improve this with zeropods, inlet can't go down to the floor, let alone being the widest in that zone. This would mean there is no room for rule interpretation allowing the mid wing. And everything points to mid wing downwash being the greates benefit of zeropod design.

[Venturiation]

remember when lewis explained that to reduce porpoising they had to downgrade the floor to reduce downforce alot and reduce engine power

if they find a solution that means the can get back that downforce and work from it?

[carisi2k]

They never downgraded the floor. They had to raise the ride height to offset the porpoising. They most definitely didn't downgrade there powerplant either. Only Ferrari had to do that because of reliability.

[Vanja #66]

They most certainly did downgrade the floor with Barca update. Floor throat height increased by 20-30mm at least and the profile was completely changed. This was done so they could set the car a bit lower, closer to intended ride height, since all previous races they ran with compromised suspension setup.

Top is post-barca, bottom is original floor.

[organic]

They never downgraded the floor. They had to raise the ride height to offset the porpoising. They most definitely didn't downgrade there powerplant either. Only Ferrari had to do that because of reliability.

Couldn't find the quotes immediately but both drivers around the time of the Barcelona 2022 floor upgrade discussed how the update was solving porpoising but at the same time they were removing performance by doing so. They were able to reduce the ride height and gained grip by doing this.

But I believe these quotes are not really relevant anymore. At that stage Mercedes didn't really understand the magnitude of the w13 woes to be honest, and it seems they've opted for the entirely different aero map according to toto which is in line with other comments he's made

So I think this "lost performance" from Barcelona floor onwards was performance that's never really accessible in reality for these cars. But I'm happy to eat my words if they come with the og 2022 concept again and this time don't porpoise