Mercedes W14

[NickD]

from giorgio piola
The W14's zeropod starts 100mm further from the front tires to improve airflow and cooling.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpmsmEgXEAE ... me=900x900

Nice to see his post aligns with mine from a few days earlier...

... The sidepod intake appears to have moved back 100mm or so, more or less to the location of the vertical panel line on the W13 sidepod. ...

[RZS10]

On Sky Germany it was just confirmed - the cockpit was moved towards the front axle, by almost 20cm.

Thats what the picture I posted said, while others mentioned that it was further back. This guess was 230mm..

https://i.imgur.com/kDhgm4a.jpg

That comparison is completely useless and it's very obvious that the pictures were taken from different angles, probably with different lenses, just have to look at the front and rear wing , how they differ in size, the relative position of the front wheel deflector (which is prescribed by the rules so cannot be different)

One can look at the very same car from two angles and come to the conclusion that it's somehow different:



Any attempt to stretch or distort one image to fit the other and then to the compare cars without having a very similar picture is futile, and drawing any conclusion based on such a 'comparison' is just impossible, as even the same car will appear different otherwise, as the comparison of the projection on the red line shows:


Or to hammer the point home: the very same model of a car in Assetto Corsa viewed from just slightly different angles (camera positions are in the pic) will result in something very similar to that comparison, arguably even more believable since the proportions are still correct, et voila - the cockpit is in a different place:


As i was writing this NickD explained it really well, his analysis has the cockpit in the same place, the pictures posted by Mercedes have it in the same place, my visual analysis had it in the same place.

And to show how much 20cm would actually be i have used the vanishing point in this image of last year's car to get a decent enough estimate of a cockpit position changed by 20cm forward based on the 3.6m wheelbase:



It is hard to find an image of the W14 from a similar angle (will update the post if i see one) but i think that, apart from the fact that it would be very hard to even fit a driver into that car, it's rather clear that the cockpit simply can't be that much more forward on the W14 relative to the W13:

[101FlyingDutchman]

According to Franco Nugnes, today Ferrari was just search the correct balance of the car, exploring various heights from the ground to see when porpoising appear.

That sounds reassuring, because it really didn't look good in the afternoon.

Here's an interesting comparison of Ferrari and Mercedes :

https://postimages.org/

What surprises me here is that the W14 has a much larger rear wing. Compared to almost all other cars. This suggests that Ferrari obviously generates more downforce via the underbody than Mercedes, even though Ferrari may not have driven with the actual Bahrain wing. This brought something back to my mind - that many Italian experts in 2022 have claimed that the Mercedes concept generates less downforce than Ferrari's concept, while Mercedes itself and the British and German media have always claimed that the Zeropod concept achieves superior downforce. Mercedes could not use it only because of the higher ground clearances imposed by porpoising and had to use larger wings. But the fact that Mercedes is using very large wings again with the W14 makes me slowly doubt this version and rather believe the Italian experts. Because why should Mercedes use larger wings again with the W14 if this concept (even if it is no longer a "full" zeropod concept) brings such superior downforce values? For me this makes no sense, because if I produce superior downforce via underbody and diffuser, I use smaller wings to have less drag to have even a higher top speed.

Yeah more like baby bouncing haha. If it fast and in AOM metric who cares. Same goes for looks.

Seems Merc and Ferrari both sticked with known philosophies. Its shows that F1 aerodynamicist can skin the cat differently and still get the similar results (although HUGE caviat for now).

Would be very exiting too see if Ferrari shows more low drag character. And Merc shows more load and drag. Too me seems Ferrari very slick design.

They avoided internal aero at all cost. Arguably less skin friction hence less drag already. Still rest of car is very 2005ih philosophy really. Gills with modern pre 2022 slim coke bottle treatment. Quite cute :d although by whole grid quite gentle undercut.

Rory Byrne had a lot of influence on the design and concept of a new car for the first time since the F2007 with the F1-75. So it should come as no surprise that the F1-75 and the SF-23 that evolved from it bear much of his signature, rather than just refined detail solutions, projects, concepts and improvements he contributed to the 2017 and 2018 Ferraris. So it's fair to say that the SF-23 resembles a 2005 Ferrari or an F2004 to some extent. But I would rather say that it bears Rory Byrne's signature. It's a pity that Rory only works part time as a consultant. And from Thailand. What would be possible if he would work 250 hours a month on site in Maranello like from 1997-2004 and 2006?

Sorry Andi. Love your posts but I think you’re wrong wrt the reason Merc has bolted on this wing. They must do this for other more simple reasons eg: data correlation/getting max load on the rear end to see the floor behaviour etc. There is no way they have bolted that barn door on because “it doesn’t make enough df from the floor

[chrisc90]

Sorry Andi. Love your posts but I think you’re wrong wrt the reason Merc has bolted on this wing. They must do this for other more simple reasons eg: data correlation/getting max load on the rear end to see the floor behaviour etc. There is no way they have bolted that barn door on because “it doesn’t make enough df from the floor

Did they run the same wing all day though?

These wings shouldnt take too long to swap out, so teams had no excuse not to bolt a new wing on for more data correlation.

[101FlyingDutchman]

Sorry Andi. Love your posts but I think you’re wrong wrt the reason Merc has bolted on this wing. They must do this for other more simple reasons eg: data correlation/getting max load on the rear end to see the floor behaviour etc. There is no way they have bolted that barn door on because “it doesn’t make enough df from the floor

Did they run the same wing all day though?

These wings shouldnt take too long to swap out, so teams had no excuse not to bolt a new wing on for more data correlation.

If they felt the need to then sure. But it clearly wasn’t in todays run plan to do so. It wastes time to be in the garage swapping parts. Best doing this stuff overnight and make sure you get as thorough data analysis as possible. Correlating it with CFD/tunnel and simulator

[Andi76]

According to Franco Nugnes, today Ferrari was just search the correct balance of the car, exploring various heights from the ground to see when porpoising appear.

That sounds reassuring, because it really didn't look good in the afternoon.

Here's an interesting comparison of Ferrari and Mercedes :

https://postimages.org/

What surprises me here is that the W14 has a much larger rear wing. Compared to almost all other cars. This suggests that Ferrari obviously generates more downforce via the underbody than Mercedes, even though Ferrari may not have driven with the actual Bahrain wing. This brought something back to my mind - that many Italian experts in 2022 have claimed that the Mercedes concept generates less downforce than Ferrari's concept, while Mercedes itself and the British and German media have always claimed that the Zeropod concept achieves superior downforce. Mercedes could not use it only because of the higher ground clearances imposed by porpoising and had to use larger wings. But the fact that Mercedes is using very large wings again with the W14 makes me slowly doubt this version and rather believe the Italian experts. Because why should Mercedes use larger wings again with the W14 if this concept (even if it is no longer a "full" zeropod concept) brings such superior downforce values? For me this makes no sense, because if I produce superior downforce via underbody and diffuser, I use smaller wings to have less drag to have even a higher top speed.

Yeah more like baby bouncing haha. If it fast and in AOM metric who cares. Same goes for looks.

Seems Merc and Ferrari both sticked with known philosophies. Its shows that F1 aerodynamicist can skin the cat differently and still get the similar results (although HUGE caviat for now).

Would be very exiting too see if Ferrari shows more low drag character. And Merc shows more load and drag. Too me seems Ferrari very slick design.

They avoided internal aero at all cost. Arguably less skin friction hence less drag already. Still rest of car is very 2005ih philosophy really. Gills with modern pre 2022 slim coke bottle treatment. Quite cute :d although by whole grid quite gentle undercut.

Rory Byrne had a lot of influence on the design and concept of a new car for the first time since the F2007 with the F1-75. So it should come as no surprise that the F1-75 and the SF-23 that evolved from it bear much of his signature, rather than just refined detail solutions, projects, concepts and improvements he contributed to the 2017 and 2018 Ferraris. So it's fair to say that the SF-23 resembles a 2005 Ferrari or an F2004 to some extent. But I would rather say that it bears Rory Byrne's signature. It's a pity that Rory only works part time as a consultant. And from Thailand. What would be possible if he would work 250 hours a month on site in Maranello like from 1997-2004 and 2006?

Sorry Andi. Love your posts but I think you’re wrong wrt the reason Merc has bolted on this wing. They must do this for other more simple reasons eg: data correlation/getting max load on the rear end to see the floor behaviour etc. There is no way they have bolted that barn door on because “it doesn’t make enough df from the floor

Of course i can be wrong. It was just a thought.

[F1Krof]

Via @MercedesAMGF1 (YouTube)

[Blackout]

On Sky Germany it was just confirmed - the cockpit was moved towards the front axle, by almost 20cm.

Thats what the picture I posted said, while others mentioned that it was further back. This guess was 230mm..

https://i.imgur.com/kDhgm4a.jpg

I'm afraid you and Sky appear to be wrong. The gif below, apparently provided by Mercedes shows, the W13 and W14 overlaid on each other. It clearly shows where the changes are. The cockpits are in identical positions. I know these are renders but a detailed comparison using camera corrected photogrammetry suggests the same. The problem lies in trying to compare two photographs. It is really, really hard to compare two pictures by overlaying one on the other. The cameras have to be identical and in an identical position. Otherwise minor changes in orientation and differences in focal length, mean any conclusions are wrong.

The process only works properly in two cases. Either use an identical camera/orientation and object position/orientation for both objects. This is what Mercedes effectively did in the picture below. Or estimate the camera position and orientation with respect to the object as I did in the posts on page 36. Unlike the Mercedes photos, my calibration is not perfect, there is always a small residual error. I my case about 10-20mm usually between one end of the object and the other. Also while this second process is really effective and available to anyone with tools like Blender, it is very time consuming to characterise and calibrate the multiple images necessary generate a 3-D object from a set of 2-D pictures.


Hope this explanation is useful.

Nick

The gif is provided by me

[Andi76]

On Sky Germany it was just confirmed - the cockpit was moved towards the front axle, by almost 20cm.

Thats what the picture I posted said, while others mentioned that it was further back. This guess was 230mm..

https://i.imgur.com/kDhgm4a.jpg

That comparison is completely useless and it's very obvious that the pictures were taken from different angles, probably with different lenses, just have to look at the front and rear wing , how they differ in size, the relative position of the front wheel deflector (which is prescribed by the rules so cannot be different)

One can look at the very same car from two angles and come to the conclusion that it's somehow different:
https://i.imgur.com/1vrj3kY.png
https://i.imgur.com/TqDDy0o.png

Any attempt to stretch or distort one image to fit the other and then to the compare cars without having a very similar picture is futile, and drawing any conclusion based on such a 'comparison' is just impossible, as even the same car will appear different otherwise, as the comparison of the projection on the red line shows:
https://i.imgur.com/PDC3fnr.png

Or to hammer the point home: the very same model of a car in Assetto Corsa viewed from just slightly different angles (camera positions are in the pic) will result in something very similar to that comparison, arguably even more believable since the proportions are still correct, et voila - the cockpit is in a different place:
https://i.imgur.com/4IX5Z80.png

As i was writing this NickD explained it really well, his analysis has the cockpit in the same place, the pictures posted by Mercedes have it in the same place, my visual analysis had it in the same place.

And to show how much 20cm would actually be i have used the vanishing point in this image of last year's car to get a decent enough estimate of a cockpit position changed by 20cm forward based on the 3.6m wheelbase:
https://i.imgur.com/9GUErDh.gif
https://i.imgur.com/FT7OCYE.gif

It is hard to find an image of the W14 from a similar angle (will update the post if i see one) but i think that, apart from the fact that it would be very hard to even fit a driver into that car, it's rather clear that the cockpit simply can't be that much more forward on the W14 relative to the W13:
https://i.imgur.com/DRgZ4rc.png

Thanks for the great explanation and explanation, which are certainly completely correct. However, it is a fact that the information that Mercedes has moved its cockpit forward by about 20cm comes from a Mercedes engineer. This is what he said to a Sky reporter when they were talking about the changes to the car. And I'm sorry - but at the end of the day I believe someone who helped build this car more than picture comparisons. And for some reason it was those stretched/different angle comparisons that were correct. Unless the Mercedes engineer is lying, which I don't know why he would do.

[Andi76]

Thats what the picture I posted said, while others mentioned that it was further back. This guess was 230mm..

https://i.imgur.com/kDhgm4a.jpg

I'm afraid you and Sky appear to be wrong. The gif below, apparently provided by Mercedes shows, the W13 and W14 overlaid on each other. It clearly shows where the changes are. The cockpits are in identical positions. I know these are renders but a detailed comparison using camera corrected photogrammetry suggests the same. The problem lies in trying to compare two photographs. It is really, really hard to compare two pictures by overlaying one on the other. The cameras have to be identical and in an identical position. Otherwise minor changes in orientation and differences in focal length, mean any conclusions are wrong.

The process only works properly in two cases. Either use an identical camera/orientation and object position/orientation for both objects. This is what Mercedes effectively did in the picture below. Or estimate the camera position and orientation with respect to the object as I did in the posts on page 36. Unlike the Mercedes photos, my calibration is not perfect, there is always a small residual error. I my case about 10-20mm usually between one end of the object and the other. Also while this second process is really effective and available to anyone with tools like Blender, it is very time consuming to characterise and calibrate the multiple images necessary generate a 3-D object from a set of 2-D pictures.

https://i.ibb.co/CK0bVQp/merc.gif
Hope this explanation is useful.

Nick

The gif is provided by me

https://s9.gifyu.com/images/ezgif.com-g ... 32d7db.gif

Like i just said - Sky said it - but they said this was told to them by a Mercedes engineer. And sorry - since it makes little sense to me why either party would lie, I believe this Sky -Report. And so i also tend to believe someone who has built that car more. I think he knows better than anyone who compares it from pictures. Unfortunately, a very clear trend is emerging, whereby the statement of a Mercedes engineer naturally has the final weight, I think.

The interesting thing about this is, if true, that strangely enough the pictures that were said to be unrepresentative were the ones that showed the truth.But be it as it is - everyone should believe what he wants. I for my side believe there rather the Mercedes man. Because he should know. He knows both cars not only from photos. And now I'm going to bed - good night guys!

[mechanoit]

I'm afraid you and Sky appear to be wrong. The gif below, apparently provided by Mercedes shows, the W13 and W14 overlaid on each other. It clearly shows where the changes are. The cockpits are in identical positions. I know these are renders but a detailed comparison using camera corrected photogrammetry suggests the same. The problem lies in trying to compare two photographs. It is really, really hard to compare two pictures by overlaying one on the other. The cameras have to be identical and in an identical position. Otherwise minor changes in orientation and differences in focal length, mean any conclusions are wrong.

The process only works properly in two cases. Either use an identical camera/orientation and object position/orientation for both objects. This is what Mercedes effectively did in the picture below. Or estimate the camera position and orientation with respect to the object as I did in the posts on page 36. Unlike the Mercedes photos, my calibration is not perfect, there is always a small residual error. I my case about 10-20mm usually between one end of the object and the other. Also while this second process is really effective and available to anyone with tools like Blender, it is very time consuming to characterise and calibrate the multiple images necessary generate a 3-D object from a set of 2-D pictures.

https://i.ibb.co/CK0bVQp/merc.gif
Hope this explanation is useful.

Nick

The gif is provided by me

https://s9.gifyu.com/images/ezgif.com-g ... 32d7db.gif

Like i just said - Sky said it - but they said this was told to them by a Mercedes engineer. And sorry - since it makes little sense to me why either party would lie, I believe this Sky -Report. And so i also tend to believe someone who has built that car more. I think he knows better than anyone who compares it from pictures. Unfortunately, a very clear trend is emerging, whereby the statement of a Mercedes engineer naturally has the final weight, I think.

The interesting thing about this is, if true, that strangely enough the pictures that were said to be unrepresentative were the ones that showed the truth.But be it as it is - everyone should believe what he wants. I for my side believe there rather the Mercedes man. Because he should know. He knows both cars not only from photos. And now I'm going to bed - good night guys!

But you didn’t hear it directly from a Mercedes engineer and instead heard it through Sky. It is more likely that Sky have misunderstood, misinterpreted or mischaracterised what the Mercedes engineer told them. 200 mm change in cockpit position is massively significant. Even more so considering that it is already the most forward cockpit of all the cars. Mercedes render comparisons are more accurate and I believe the cockpit positions haven’t changed at all. But if they have, then I think it’s minimal. It’s more likely that the Mercedes engineer said something else to Sky who, as usual, completely messed up in their reporting. As is famously said, Lost in translation.

[Andi76]

The gif is provided by me

https://s9.gifyu.com/images/ezgif.com-g ... 32d7db.gif

Like i just said - Sky said it - but they said this was told to them by a Mercedes engineer. And sorry - since it makes little sense to me why either party would lie, I believe this Sky -Report. And so i also tend to believe someone who has built that car more. I think he knows better than anyone who compares it from pictures. Unfortunately, a very clear trend is emerging, whereby the statement of a Mercedes engineer naturally has the final weight, I think.

The interesting thing about this is, if true, that strangely enough the pictures that were said to be unrepresentative were the ones that showed the truth.But be it as it is - everyone should believe what he wants. I for my side believe there rather the Mercedes man. Because he should know. He knows both cars not only from photos. And now I'm going to bed - good night guys!

But you didn’t hear it directly from a Mercedes engineer and instead heard it through Sky. It is more likely that Sky have misunderstood, misinterpreted or mischaracterised what the Mercedes engineer told them. 200 mm change in cockpit position is massively significant. Even more so considering that it is already the most forward cockpit of all the cars. Mercedes render comparisons are more accurate and I believe the cockpit positions haven’t changed at all. But if they have, then I think it’s minimal. It’s more likely that the Mercedes engineer said something else to Sky who, as usual, completely messed up in their reporting. As is famously said, Lost in translation.

So I don't know how the Sky reporters are where you come from, but the German Sky reporters already understand what 20cm towards the front axle means...and with the Sky reporters in Germany it's not that they are a disaster. Or say they talked to a Mercedes engineer and when they did not. Why would you do that? Makes no sense. In retrospect, it would come out anyway. Our German Sky reporters already have that much brain.

[NickD]

The gif is provided by me

Ooops sorry about that. I didn't read carefully enough. In which case, outstanding post. Hope you'll forgive me!

Nick

[Unc1eM0nty]

200mm would be massive shift forward, the front of the tub has always looked very tight on pics, where's George going to put his feet ?

He'll be during crossed legged

[Vanja #66]

Cockpit is where it was on W13 too, it's not forward since driver's feet would be sticking out of the tub. Who knows what kind of a joke the Merc engineer was telling German commentators... It wasn't moved back like I thought from Silverstone photos either. Let's move on, there are loads of actual car features to discuss about