It should be the other way around. The engine design is to enable Merc to run a tighter body package with zero pod, not having zero pod so they can run the engine hotter.rifrafs2kees wrote: ↑05 Oct 2023, 08:59All things being equal, an engine is more efficient the hotter it runs, provided its material properties can tolerate the conditions. So if Merc powerplant can be run relatively hotter, they could easily adopt redbull-like aero philosophy, yet maintain smaller radiator apertures and get the best of both worlds.
I therefore don't buy the speculation that a perceived need to run the engine hotter led to zero pod. It is totally conceivable that the reverse occurred, i.e., a desire for tighter body work influenced engine design.
I do however, wonder if merc failed to accurately project the impact of badge board removal from the current rule-set. It seems Newey fully grasped the implications and correctly focused on using the bodywork to generate sufficient outwash and do away with the problem. Merc seems to have accepted a compromise of some dirty air over the diffuser, assuming shear mass flow afforded by zero pod concept would sufficiently compensate for laminar flow shortcomings. Indeed the compromise seems to pay off at high altitude/low pressure, where shear mass flow is critical. Everywhere else, the dirty air bites.
On the part about running the engine hotter, that is from the interview talking about next year's car and the advantage of running the engine harder. Is there an optimal operating temp for engine?