Mercedes W14

[PlatinumZealot]

There are other details that Merceded are missing. And engineering sense tells us its the floor . Look at the width if the floor entrance here. It is definitely too restricted in an effort to deflect front wheel wake. Redbull has the widest opening. They possibly deflect the wake better or has a floor that can ingest wheel wake without issues.

Stolen from reddit:

https://preview.redd.it/qoiu8pkvtdoa1.j ... 6e1ef6aedb

https://preview.redd.it/oqf0ks7vtdoa1.j ... 91bfb31b7d

Looks like Mercedes can use the outside of the fence more effectively to push tyre wake away though.

Why are we trying to do? What does that solve? Like, how does that fix their current problems?

The AM appears draggier in a straight line than the RB and possibly the current Merc, and it handles this better, at least visually, than the Merc.

But that’s not the problem, lack of df is the problem.

You are being dismissive there. It's a ligitimate observation that can be reasoned out. Even if the majority of floor air flow comes from the centre that doesn't mean Redbull is not using the outer edge flows for something important.

[vorticism]

[Farnborough]

Isnt there an "elephant in the room here" for both the W13 and W14 (more specifically, elephant ears) those two housing for crash and mirror mount are just wings, with lift and attached to the tub to give lift, unintentionally it seems, to the whole aero platform.

They can call it downwash or whatever, but it you took those two wing and fixed together then ran a wind tunnel cycle of that structure, that would generate nothing but lift.

Downwash on a side pod is different as that air is fully on it's way to the beam wing to do it's work there, the effect not ultimately seen until it joins the air coming up from the underside of the floor.

This "elephant ear" is plainly a wing orientated to run lift at that angle of presentation to oncoming airstream, and fully resolved by having a definitive trailing edge to enact that lift. What it does after that is a different question.

Notice they can't change the angle of that element? If say it generates in the order of 200kg lift above 180mph, then this has to be countered by using more extreme front and rear wing form (they are doing this ) with the attendant drag that brings.

I believe there's more correlation than that too, depending if this is the right thread to discuss it. Mods advice please on whether to proceed here or not.

Its like watching a box set of the famous parable "the kings new clothes " in which nobody mentions the very obvious.

[AR3-GP]

Isnt there an "elephant in the room here" for both the W13 and W14 (more specifically, elephant ears) those two housing for crash and mirror mount are just wings, with lift and attached to the tub to give lift, unintentionally it seems, to the whole aero platform.

They can call it downwash or whatever, but it you took those two wing and fixed together then ran a wind tunnel cycle of that structure, that would generate nothing but lift.

The purpose of the ear is to shed a powerful vortex. The benefits of that vortex are supposed to outweight the lift it's generating. Perhaps this is more in theory than in practice.

[Big Tea]

Isnt there an "elephant in the room here" for both the W13 and W14 (more specifically, elephant ears) those two housing for crash and mirror mount are just wings, with lift and attached to the tub to give lift, unintentionally it seems, to the whole aero platform.

They can call it downwash or whatever, but it you took those two wing and fixed together then ran a wind tunnel cycle of that structure, that would generate nothing but lift.

Downwash on a side pod is different as that air is fully on it's way to the beam wing to do it's work there, the effect not ultimately seen until it joins the air coming up from the underside of the floor.

This "elephant ear" is plainly a wing orientated to run lift at that angle of presentation to oncoming airstream, and fully resolved by having a definitive trailing edge to enact that lift. What it does after that is a different question.

Notice they can't change the angle of that element? If say it generates in the order of 200kg lift above 180mph, then this has to be countered by using more extreme front and rear wing form (they are doing this ) with the attendant drag that brings.

I believe there's more correlation than that too, depending if this is the right thread to discuss it. Mods advice please on whether to proceed here or not.

Its like watching a box set of the famous parable "the kings new clothes " in which nobody mentions the very obvious.

Would it not depend on the profile? if the 'other side' (to the one you were thinking) had more area it would be downforce or neutral. It must produce some drag though

[Farnborough]

Of course the profile is important.

If you look at that wing in isolation though I doubt you'd find anyone versed in aerodynamic principle that could honestly say it's neutral or downforce generating.

Just a very simple comparison to it's own front and rear wings on the same car shows the profile is inverted.

[Big Tea]

Of course the profile is important.

If you look at that wing in isolation though I doubt you'd find anyone versed in aerodynamic principle that could honestly say it's neutral or downforce generating.

Just a very simple comparison to it's own front and rear wings on the same car shows the profile is inverted.

Maybe we can spot it in a wet race.

[AR3-GP]

Of course the profile is important.

If you look at that wing in isolation though I doubt you'd find anyone versed in aerodynamic principle that could honestly say it's neutral or downforce generating.

Just a very simple comparison to it's own front and rear wings on the same car shows the profile is inverted.

It's a downwashing wing. To downwash, there must be an upward reaction force on the wing.

It's purpose isn't to generate downforce "directly". It's purpose is to generate downforce "indirectly". The downwash is supposed to make the back of the car work better, at the expense of the small amount of lift the device itself making in order to turn the airflow down.

[Farnborough]

Can a "downwashing" wing do anything but give lift though ? That's surely part of its function, forcing the air to turn down will always give lift in wing form.

They are clearly doing something wrong, that mid wing has a very substantial area and oriented to give lift, whatever the mercedes concept people keep saying.

Yes I understand why the supply toward the beam wing is important to make the floor more effective.

This bit just doesn't seem to fit that remit as primary function. It's primary function is orientated to lift, downwash is just consequence.

None of it's immediately competitive adversary have this element!

[AR3-GP]

Can a "downwashing" wing do anything but give lift though ? That's surely part of its function, forcing the air to turn down will always give lift in wing form.

They are clearly doing something wrong, that mid wing has a very substantial area and oriented to give lift, whatever the mercedes concept people keep saying.

Yes I understand why the supply toward the beam wing is important to make the floor more effective.

This bit just doesn't seem to fit that remit as primary function. It's primary function is orientated to lift, downwash is just consequence.

None of it's immediately competitive adversary have this element!

The mid-wing is as much a part of the Mercedes concept as the sidepod and the floor. In fact, the entire purpose of the sidepod, is to allow them to run the mid wing.

I suspect that Mercedes focused too much on this loophole wing, and allowed it to guide them down a path that hasn't worked. For Mercedes to adopt a difference car concept means they will have to abandon the mid-wing. Mid-wing is not legal with an undercut sidepod. It would violate the two section rule in the yz plane.

The problem now they will run into is once they abandon the mid-wing, the SIS is in the wrong place. It's location was dictated entirely by the desire to run this loophole mid-wing. It will be a handicap until they can change the chassis again, so we won't see that until the W15.

[vorticism]

It should generate something like a Y250 vortex, just higher up, further back and smaller. The RB14/15/16 had a downwashing wing in the same area. Maybe the W14 version is more aggressive. All teams currently use sidepod downwash/outwash generating sidepod vortex generators. Question is, what does a larger one offer to the W14?

[Farnborough]

If the form of that RB is now compared to W14 you'll see just how much difference there is in that concept.

That RB and many other similar in that era had the outflow from radiator intake as it reached peak flow (restriction through sidepod) mitigate that area with overspill. It went around and above the side pod appeture to help neutralise the area for lift.

W13 was even worse than W14 in this aspect.

[AR3-GP]

It should generate something like a Y250 vortex, just higher up, further back and smaller. The RB14/15/16 had a downwashing wing in the same area. Maybe the W14 version is more aggressive. All teams currently use sidepod downwash/outwash generating sidepod vortex generators. Question is, what does a larger one offer to the W14?

https://i.postimg.cc/c12RJ35j/IMG-8859.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/tC6hngKg/IMG-8860.jpg

It's funny seeing these pictures. The W14 is very similar in it's shape in the mid-section to the pre-2019 RB/Merc formula cars.

[Farnborough]

It should generate something like a Y250 vortex, just higher up, further back and smaller. The RB14/15/16 had a downwashing wing in the same area. Maybe the W14 version is more aggressive. All teams currently use sidepod downwash/outwash generating sidepod vortex generators. Question is, what does a larger one offer to the W14?

https://i.postimg.cc/c12RJ35j/IMG-8859.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/tC6hngKg/IMG-8860.jpg

It's funny seeing these pictures. The W14 is very similar in it's shape in the mid-section to the pre-2019 RB/Merc formula cars.

Try looking at all plan view of mercedes F1 since Brawn year, the concept hasn't really changed.

Notably they've always avoided rake (they've all got to effectively work with it now in the tunnel angle underfloor) Wolf even joked about the RB "driving around doing a handstand" while that raked floor concept was building experience over in RB design direction.

[maxxer]

https://i.postimg.cc/c1p49MZJ/Screen-Sh ... -15-PM.png

oh my this car is really ugly