Mercedes W15

[Matt2725]

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

It doesn`t matter if I like or not like it. The only thing is that if this is legal than it could be also legal on the other FW elements. Is it allowed? With this complicated rules I don´t know, and I assume 99 percent of people here in the forum feel the same way. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. We'll know for sure on Sunday after the first GP.

Craig Scarborough seems to believe it's within the rules. Can't speak for if this is something they could do for the second and third elements also. You'd think they'd have gone for it if so.

[michl420]

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

It doesn`t matter if I like or not like it. The only thing is that if this is legal than it could be also legal on the other FW elements. Is it allowed? With this complicated rules I don´t know, and I assume 99 percent of people here in the forum feel the same way. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. We'll know for sure on Sunday after the first GP.

Craig Scarborough seems to believe it's within the rules. Can't speak for if this is something they could do for the second and third elements also. You'd think they'd have gone for it if so.

I see it this way too

[PhF1x]

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

It doesn`t matter if I like or not like it. The only thing is that if this is legal than it could be also legal on the other FW elements. Is it allowed? With this complicated rules I don´t know, and I assume 99 percent of people here in the forum feel the same way. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. We'll know for sure on Sunday after the first GP.

The wing that they have isn't that far off from what sauber ran before. If its possible expect to see it during the first race because they're either going to show it off early so it could be a problem before the race starts or this wing is the most radical they plan on going.

[Matt2725]

I fully expect them to run this in anger so to speak.

In this cost cap era, I challenge any team that can afford to make radical design choices at risk of being outlawed so easily.

[Vanja #66]

Some would call it clever. But I guess it depends what team you support as to whether it's genius or not.

The solution consists of two governing features:

1) reducing the flap Y cross section to a minimal radius circle to conform with the rules
2) generating an abrupt transition in flap trailing edge to enable vortex generation

Feature 1 one was first applied by Mercedes a year ago to enable more outwash near FW endplate as an answer to small rule rewording making their W13 Miami-spec FW endplates outlawed:



Feature 2 was notably applied by Alpine in Hungary last year:



Are Mercedes the first team to put those two together? Or did everyone else decide to follow the intention of the rules, which were made quite clear years ago by Ross Brawn for FOM and FIA technical delegates:

1) complete removal of intentional, flap-tip-originating stream-wise vortices on the front wing except the outboard tip vortices
2) removal of complex, vorticity-dependant barge boards
3) removal of rear wing endplate tips to reshape the trailing edge vortices and enable cleaner airflow for the following car
4) introduction of free-to-design, ground-effect floors which don't depend so much on external vortices to keep the dirty air out and improve floor performance

You can see the "we want to eradicate vortex-dependency" idea behind it and all the teams agreed with these intentions before the rules were formalised. Both FOM and FIA made clear the intent of the rules is an important factor for them and all the gray areas which significantly breach this will be removed promptly - 2022 AMR Hungry RW endplates as an example:

It wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as Y250, would it?

You'd be surprised. That 4th flap has a decent chord and a big AoA and the vortex feeds on local low pressure, energising it further.

[matt_s]

Like situations where they decided wings were flexing too much and breached 'the (qualitative) spirit of the rules', even though they were fully compliant to all quantitative rules written on paper.

I don't agree on that point. The rules for bodywork were always the same, the teams were exploiting the way that the FIA were _testing for compliance_.

Similar to the flexy floor issue from last year, the FIA have a specific set of tests that they will perform to check for legality. This is because there has to be some constraint of the amount of time and effort they can reasonably apply to scrutineering. The teams then work out how they might be able to pass the tests while still breaking the rules to gain an advantage. The updated technical directives have set out new compliance test processes, not new rules.

[michl420]

Is the rear suspension push-rod?

Yes

https://i.imgur.com/qD9G5VO.jpeg

I am very interested in how this thing is built!

[dans79]

Like situations where they decided wings were flexing too much and breached 'the (qualitative) spirit of the rules', even though they were fully compliant to all quantitative rules written on paper.

I don't agree on that point. The rules for bodywork were always the same, the teams were exploiting the way that the FIA were _testing for compliance_.

Exactly this. The FIA knows everything flexes, and that everything makes vortices. what matters is why and to what extent.

[matt_b]

It's fun reading these comments from people scared and rattled by this new front and the advantage it will bring Mercedes for 2024 and that it must be banned. Takes me back to DAS which was allowed for the whole season despite many crying and begging for it to be banned. I love this sport, take a bow Mercedes, take a bow

[Blackout]

Strange top front wishbone on the render, it has 3 arms.

[Cs98]

Like situations where they decided wings were flexing too much and breached 'the (qualitative) spirit of the rules', even though they were fully compliant to all quantitative rules written on paper.

I don't agree on that point. The rules for bodywork were always the same, the teams were exploiting the way that the FIA were _testing for compliance_.

Similar to the flexy floor issue from last year, the FIA have a specific set of tests that they will perform to check for legality. This is because there has to be some constraint of the amount of time and effort they can reasonably apply to scrutineering. The teams then work out how they might be able to pass the tests while still breaking the rules to gain an advantage. The updated technical directives have set out new compliance test processes, not new rules.

No, it's because the rule as written (aero bodywork must be "immobile") is not enforcable. The compliance tests are the de facto rules for bodywork flex.

[NoDivergence]

Some would call it clever. But I guess it depends what team you support as to whether it's genius or not.

The solution consists of two governing features:

1) reducing the flap Y cross section to a minimal radius circle to conform with the rules
2) generating an abrupt transition in flap trailing edge to enable vortex generation

Feature 1 one was first applied by Mercedes a year ago to enable more outwash near FW endplate as an answer to small rule rewording making their W13 Miami-spec FW endplates outlawed:

https://i.imgur.com/dIZbEK8.jpeg

Feature 2 was notably applied by Alpine in Hungary last year:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1Z4C9NXsAU ... name=large

Are Mercedes the first team to put those two together? Or did everyone else decide to follow the intention of the rules, which were made quite clear years ago by Ross Brawn for FOM and FIA technical delegates:

1) complete removal of intentional, flap-tip-originating stream-wise vortices on the front wing except the outboard tip vortices
2) removal of complex, vorticity-dependant barge boards
3) removal of rear wing endplate tips to reshape the trailing edge vortices and enable cleaner airflow for the following car
4) introduction of free-to-design, ground-effect floors which don't depend so much on external vortices to keep the dirty air out and improve floor performance

You can see the "we want to eradicate vortex-dependency" idea behind it and all the teams agreed with these intentions before the rules were formalised. Both FOM and FIA made clear the intent of the rules is an important factor for them and all the gray areas which significantly breach this will be removed promptly - 2022 AMR Hungry RW endplates as an example:

https://storage.googleapis.com/the-race ... 24x706.jpg

It wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as Y250, would it?

You'd be surprised. That 4th flap has a decent chord and a big AoA and the vortex feeds on local low pressure, energising it further.

This is literally no different in implementation than your Feature 1

[Luscion]

Looks like the purple is back

[Venturiation]

[Luscion]

Images from Instagram