Mercedes W14

[mantikos]

Technical analyses are based on facts, accurate comparisons and hard data. Wishful thinking, subjectivity and zealous approach are not really the right tools for technical discussions.

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

[Venturiation]

Technical analyses are based on facts, accurate comparisons and hard data. Wishful thinking, subjectivity and zealous approach are not really the right tools for technical discussions.

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

If you go back to the W14 speculations thread and W13 they were saying any changes to sidepods means Mercedes is a failure and the zeropods is a mistake

Basically any technical changes Mercedes made to improve them = bad

I trust kyle in his analysis of the W14 he says the zeropds concept is the same and the car is even slimmer in some parts like the bottom part that was melted on the W13
And the porpoising wasn’t caused by the exposed floor or the the zeropods
He was an aerodynamicist for Mercedes for some years

[Mchamilton]

This totally goes against the major reasoning behind porpoising we've been told last season. I thought it was caused by the floor getting too close to the ground or even hitting it and eventually choking. The big floor surface/exposed floor on the Mercedes was told to be especially prone to flexing, but at the same time the car needed to be as low as possible to extract the expected performance out of the concept.
Now we see a Mercedes with a much less exposed floor, but this was never the issue to begin with? I'm confused.

The reason that the media and most forum members kept pushing yes, doesn't mean it's correct. Kyle did a video last year explain what he thought it was, and what he thought it wasn't.

and in this viddeos he says he thinks that the ride height is whats causing it
mercedes found extreme gains in the under of the car aero but it needs to run at that ride height wich hard without causing porpoising
all that exposed floor or flexing floor doesn't make sense he says

Yes, it doesn't make sense..as in saying that that is cause of porpoising doesn't make sense.

[mantikos]

Technical analyses are based on facts, accurate comparisons and hard data. Wishful thinking, subjectivity and zealous approach are not really the right tools for technical discussions.

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

If you go back to the W14 speculations thread and W13 they were saying any changes to sidepods means Mercedes is a failure and the zeropods is a mistake

Basically any technical changes Mercedes made to improve them = bad

I trust kyle in his analysis of the W14 he says the zeropds concept is the same and the car is even slimmer in some parts like the bottom part that was melted on the W13
And the porpoising wasn’t caused by the exposed floor or the the zeropods
He was an aerodynamicist for Mercedes for some years

Couldn't agree more - actual aero guy who has recent experience with a extremely successful team has way more credibility. Heck even he allows more leeway with his disclaimers than some posters here.

[Vanja #66]

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

Lot more than the extra drag W13 had over F1-75 in early and a few more races. That was at least 5% if you recall.

On a different note, I'd really like to know who are the people saying zeropods are the only reason the car was bouncing?

[NoDivergence]

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

Lot more than the extra drag W13 had over F1-75 in early and a few more races. That was at least 5% if you recall.

On a different note, I'd really like to know who are the people saying zeropods are the only reason the car was bouncing?

Your recent statements are so funny they are absurd. Trying to dictate volume from a 2D planform? Trying to say your generic unoptimized flow structures were accurate boundary conditions to state that Ferrari concept was less draggy and to even dare to put a percentage on it. Hilarious. But oh yeah, the Ferrari nose, wing, suspension, brake ducts, and floor were identical to Merc so outwash and vortex direction and strength were all identical

[Sevach]

[AR3-GP]

@Blackout has a very good theory on the reason for this.

I believe that Blackout pointed this out on the Red Bull and Alpine last year.

[chrisc90]

Just me or does the nosecone start off as a completely different shape to the main tub?

[AR3-GP]

Also technically speaking, the twitter user is not correct. If wheelbase is the same or similar, then the center of mass cannot move because the front to rear weight distribution measured at the wheels is regulated.

[Vanja #66]

Your recent statements are so funny they are absurd. Trying to dictate volume from a 2D planform?

Trying to say your generic unoptimized flow structures were accurate boundary conditions to state that Ferrari concept was less draggy and to even dare to put a percentage on it. Hilarious.

I could share my assessment for SF-23 and W14 too, but I get a feeling you're not gonna like it...

Didn't really take render fisheye distortion and different perspectives "lens" axes into account...

[mantikos]

Since you have the exact facts for data based hard hitting technical analysis can you please share how many mm^3 additional volume does the W14 body work enclose and how many extra mm does the side pod protude at the widest and thinnest points compared to the W13.

Lot more than the extra drag W13 had over F1-75 in early and a few more races. That was at least 5% if you recall.

On a different note, I'd really like to know who are the people saying zeropods are the only reason the car was bouncing?

Right, still waiting on your numbers in mm and mm^3
Less than 5% chance we'll get anything factual.

[pursue_one's]

[PlatinumZealot]

Toto says yes, the sidepods are the first iteration and it is already planned to have revised them after a few races.
For me, that means that it was noticed too late that the revised concept simply doesn't have the potential that Mercedes had hoped for for a long time.
Even if Toto downplays the influence of the sidepods, the interview sounds very much like a farewell to their current sidepod concept.

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel ... n-23021511

You didn't read the whole sentence though! Toto said the sidepod will "change a little bit" which confirms they are sticking to the zero pod concept.

To be honest, the discussion about whether red is still called red even though yellow has been mixed in is too unimportant to me. It's orange for me now. And if Toto pours in more yellow after a few races and wants to keep calling it red for marketing reasons, so what?

Poor anology though.
Changing Red to Orange is gone a bit too far... That's far from "a little bit"

[ringo]

An effort to establish the relation between W13 and W14 sidepods. Due to massively different came angles and fish-eye distortion (no surprises there!), the only reference for sidepod width is the floor width, since both designs are widest at the floor in order to incorporate mid wing.

https://i.ibb.co/4m3rpBc/comp-13-14.jpg

My verdict - sidepods are slightly wider at the widest point, rear end (the one where the problems were) is far wider and along the Z-axis W14 sidepods are clearly much bigger by design. Undoubtedly empty extra volume, used for external flow conditioning, much like all other teams chose to do last season.

Anyone wanting to dispute this comparison - knock yourself out

Same volume. You seem to be forcing some kind of narrative. Do this same thing from the front view with the lines.
And yes flow conditioning, but nothing to do with tyre wake.
Since 2022, some posters have maintained the belief the sidepods were not an issue. Now the truth is out, people are trying to blur the lines to not admit that they who think it was an issue were wrong. And there is no shame in that.
This car is a very slim sidepod car, with even slimmer dimensions at the front, where the tyre wake is even more critical. And light years away from resembling anything Ferrari or Redbull are trying.
It's just very clear that maybe just maybe, the forum was just over analyzing something that just was not there to begin with; this tyre wake and bouncing connection with the sidepods.