Mercedes W14

[AMG.Tzan]

Any clues as to how Mercedes can run the car lower because of the new suspension? Because of more anti dive characteristics maybe?

[Venturiation]

Don't know if it was noticed but they tested both configuration in practice

[AR3-GP]

One is like Aston Martin. The other is like RB.

[PlatinumZealot]

The car is not a W14B guys. It is the same chassis. The upgrades are all standard fare.

[Farnborough]

Don't know if it was noticed but they tested both configuration in practice

In these two image, the top one doesn't immediately look like Monaco, possibly Miami ? That's from track topography view.

They are two very different levels of RW too! Also didn't think it was running anything like that low a level at Monaco

And front suspension arm top angle doesn't look consistent with the new location now in use (that's in the top image) and only at Monaco.

[Venturiation]

Don't know if it was noticed but they tested both configuration in practice

In these two image, the top one doesn't immediately look like Monaco, possibly Miami ? That's from track topography view.

They are two very different levels of RW too! Also didn't think it was running anything like that low a level at Monaco

And front suspension arm top angle doesn't look consistent with the new location now in use (that's in the top image) and only at Monaco.

I just verified and there is both versions in Monaco

Check here but you to scroll the entire weekend for the pictures i can't link it directly
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/fr/ ... 81754.html

[Farnborough]

Thank-you, yes you can see in that collection more instances, one plan view of it rounding the Portier section over the bricks, with narrow/original arrangements.

LW crashed it with narrow/original cannon exit configuration. His comments about going against advice of tech team in FP3 I wonder if they are related to that difference ?

[Venturiation]

Thank-you, yes you can see in that collection more instances, one plan view of it rounding the Portier section over the bricks, with narrow/original arrangements.

LW crashed it with narrow/original cannon exit configuration. His comments about going against advice of tech team in FP3 I wonder if they are related to that difference ?

We will see in spain they will compare both again and for sure use aero rakes wich was impossible for monaco

[Martin Keene]

Nice to get confirmation that the wishbone change was for better sidepod cooling. Don't think people will stop talking about anti-dive though...

I think I mentioned this about the RB a long while ago. That the angle of the upper wishbone triangle was perfectly aligned with the floor leading edge as if they were using it like a fairing to turn air down towards the floor LE (the nosecone is generating some upwash)

The front wishbones treat the air for everything behind it, so it’s understandable they would have to change substantially with a big change of concept.

The anti-dive thing still blows my mind and makes my head hurt. I can open up racing chassis engineering books from the 1970s and it’s talked about in depth and they have understood aero pitch sensitivity from day 1 - most of the early aerodynamicists came from aerospace anyway, but Steve Nichols has talked about it on the 1980s cars, active suspension was obviously a solution, Willem Toet as mentioned earlier gave examples, etc. NASCAR and Indy Car (before the chassis became spec) used asymmetrical anti-dive to help the cars handle on the ovals, every production car for just about ever has an element of anti-dive. It’s rudimentary stuff and the implication that Mercedes forgot something that current engineer’s grandparent’s age knew is a bit silly. There is no silver bullet on any of this.

The problem is just about anyone can create a youtube or twitter channel and parrot something they just learned about but don’f fully understand, and the media just eats it up because they don’t know ant better and because it “kinda sorta sounds plausible / smart”.

Mercedes were regarded as the leader when it came to trick hydraulic suspension systems. When all of those were remove, I think they just forgot some the basics because they hadn't used them for so long.

[michl420]

Toto Wolf said that the old upper front wishbone was a multilink design, the new one is a standard design. The prime reason for this change is to exclude a source of error he say.

[AR3-GP]

Toto Wolf said that the old upper front wishbone was a multilink design, the new one is a standard design. The prime reason for this change is to exclude a source of error he say.

"Excluding sources of error" is an interesting approach.

[Farnborough]

I think I mentioned this about the RB a long while ago. That the angle of the upper wishbone triangle was perfectly aligned with the floor leading edge as if they were using it like a fairing to turn air down towards the floor LE (the nosecone is generating some upwash)

The front wishbones treat the air for everything behind it, so it’s understandable they would have to change substantially with a big change of concept.

The anti-dive thing still blows my mind and makes my head hurt. I can open up racing chassis engineering books from the 1970s and it’s talked about in depth and they have understood aero pitch sensitivity from day 1 - most of the early aerodynamicists came from aerospace anyway, but Steve Nichols has talked about it on the 1980s cars, active suspension was obviously a solution, Willem Toet as mentioned earlier gave examples, etc. NASCAR and Indy Car (before the chassis became spec) used asymmetrical anti-dive to help the cars handle on the ovals, every production car for just about ever has an element of anti-dive. It’s rudimentary stuff and the implication that Mercedes forgot something that current engineer’s grandparent’s age knew is a bit silly. There is no silver bullet on any of this.

The problem is just about anyone can create a youtube or twitter channel and parrot something they just learned about but don’f fully understand, and the media just eats it up because they don’t know ant better and because it “kinda sorta sounds plausible / smart”.

Mercedes were regarded as the leader when it came to trick hydraulic suspension systems. When all of those were remove, I think they just forgot some the basics because they hadn't used them for so long.

I feel this is clouded by more recent iteration of MB F1 chassis. While I agree with Hoffman about anti dive geometry etc, the knowledge and use of, the extent to which they wish to build in this characteristic and all that entails in plus or minus attributes.
Prior to 2022 they were using significant skew in front geometry location, wishbone to upright mount, split/single wishbone, high and outboard top upright pivot point, adventurous pushrod outer location.... all of these to bring something of a drop (opposite to anti dive) in bringing the inner side of car lower with steering lock applied. Often to enhance ground effect of front wing plane accompanied by all the strakes they used to run underneath there along with it's lower proximity to ground starting point.

All of this was effectively written out of regulations with the shift to 2022 specification, also lifting the front wing away from that possibility.

Maybe a naive view, but with their excitement of "concept zero" aero apparent gains, did they lose sight of having a critical focus in this element of design? Were they assuming that all the teams would be on a level playing field with imposed relatively simple suspension systems across the whole of them ?

Sometimes a design that's been viewed as a negative in conventional terms has an interpretation brought into focus by application not previously considered, to then open everyone else's view on what can be achieved.

[taperoo2k]

The car is not a W14B guys. It is the same chassis. The upgrades are all standard fare.

This about as close as you can get to a B spec car in the cost cap era. The changes to the cooling systems probably entailed modifications to the chassis to ensure the repackaging of the cooling systems didn't impact the performance or reliability of the Power Unit and other systems. Rather than a B spec car, I guess you could argue that the W14 is a development platform/test mule for the 2024 car.

[pursue_one's]

Toto Wolf said that the old upper front wishbone was a multilink design, the new one is a standard design. The prime reason for this change is to exclude a source of error he say.

For sure.

[Stu]

The car is not a W14B guys. It is the same chassis. The upgrades are all standard fare.

This about as close as you can get to a B spec car in the cost cap era. The changes to the cooling systems probably entailed modifications to the chassis to ensure the repackaging of the cooling systems didn't impact the performance or reliability of the Power Unit and other systems. Rather than a B spec car, I guess you could argue that the W14 is a development platform/test mule for the 2024 car.

This would entail a new crash test (certainly for side impact, possibly for rear), whatever they have done at the front of the chassis to cater for the new suspension mount positions I bet that they have done everything possible to avoid a fresh round of crash tests. Budget cap and all that…