Mercedes W14

[Just_a_fan]

what makes upgrades expensive?

Time.

Time in CFD, time in the WT, time in the simulator, time building the moulds, time making the parts - it all has a $/hr figure attached to it and likely is much more than the simple physical resource costs.

[214270]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

[wuzak]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

How much can they learn at Monaco?

[Farnborough]

Quite a decent direct comparison in side by side illustration here, of front suspension geometry shift.

[214270]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

How much can they learn at Monaco?

Monaco isn’t ideal but something more than nothing. I guess it may also mean that zeropod has been totally abandoned & they won’t be carrying over anything from before moving forward.

[Farnborough]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

How much can they learn at Monaco?

Maybe limited for this appearance, but quite significant for next year in my view. If they find this route productive and yealding performance such that championship 24 is more realistic, then this week could prove valuable in data accumulation.

[TheRacingElf]

Quite a decent direct comparison in side by side illustration here, of front suspension geometry shift.

But if there are so many benefits to an anti-dive setup, why doesn't everybody use it as default?
Can somebody explain the drawbacks (there have to be surely) of this geometry?

[Rootsap]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

How much can they learn at Monaco?

Monaco isn’t ideal but something more than nothing. I guess it may also mean that zeropod has been totally abandoned & they won’t be carrying over anything from before moving forward.

Monaco has bumps just like every other track, I think the suspension will be tested mostly here

[Just_a_fan]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

There are some many detail changes that it's not practical to rebuild a car from one design to the other in the time available between sessions.

[214270]

How much can they learn at Monaco?

Monaco isn’t ideal but something more than nothing. I guess it may also mean that zeropod has been totally abandoned & they won’t be carrying over anything from before moving forward.

Monaco has bumps just like every other track, I think the suspension will be tested mostly here

I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that indicates the car will be more/less supple over kerbs & bumps; that’s not really what the suspension revision is aimed at advancing.

[Vanja #66]

Very interesting shaping of the undercut and floor junction, a double outwash kick. Well, the second one is hardly a kick, but it does push outwards. Could even extend fully to diffuser width, thus feeding the mouse hole with undercut air. This confirms it's a step where they completely turn away from zeropod/slimpod philosophy.



On the other hand, we might see a step between midwing and sidepod upper surface in the rear, which is why we still see the step before the inlet here. This kind of shaping would reduce both lift and drag in this zone of the sidepods.

[Martin Keene]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

I don't believe it was so much a correlation issue, more one of where there car needed to be run in to make the simulations valid was not where it could run in the real world. Example, if you could find a billiard table smooth race track to enable to run at their intended 2022 ride height, they had masses of downforce. But the real world is not billiard table smooth.

[214270]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

There are some many detail changes that it's not practical to rebuild a car from one design to the other in the time available between sessions.

Last yr HAM was testing well into the second practice session, only converging on setup in P3 (and often changing setup again for quali). I guess maybe I’m alone in thinking the focus should be on testing, I’ve been out of the loop for a bit but are they confident the correlation issue is in the rearview?

[Rootsap]

Monaco isn’t ideal but something more than nothing. I guess it may also mean that zeropod has been totally abandoned & they won’t be carrying over anything from before moving forward.

Monaco has bumps just like every other track, I think the suspension will be tested mostly here

I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that indicates the car will be more/less supple over kerbs & bumps; that’s not really what the suspension revision is aimed at advancing.

Agreed, but how it performs under braking etc. will probably be on the testing list

[214270]

I don't understand why they’re running both cars with the new parts. Surely, 1 session is avail to back-to-back against the old spec.

Given that correlation has been a sticky fixture of this new era, why not take a measured approach.

I don't believe it was so much a correlation issue, more one of where there car needed to be run in to make the simulations valid was not where it could run in the real world. Example, if you could find a billiard table smooth race track to enable to run at their intended 2022 ride height, they had masses of downforce. But the real world is not billiard table smooth.

I think it was more than that. Mismatched data between racetrack and sim because of model inaccuracies