Essentially all the brackets are redesigned and the actuation is along a pretty different angle. The angle at which it is attached to the wing is also significantly different, but that may be due to the different wing to start with.
Essentially all the brackets are redesigned and the actuation is along a pretty different angle. The angle at which it is attached to the wing is also significantly different, but that may be due to the different wing to start with.
Agreed: suspension configuration is likely not the real issue, even though it could be related to the suspension's internal parts of to how it is operated.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row. It just seems to me, that from a conceptual point of view, their aerodynamics is not flawed in itself since we've seen RedBull incorporate design elements of the W14 into their own car and see benefits from it. But there must be something about the Mercedes' platform which is not allowing them to exploit the full potential they see from their design in CFD / wind tunnel.
We've had Ferrari sticking to their own suspension configuration, with the technical team there claiming suspension design is overrated, words which I must admit, I thought would come to bite them in the ass. However they have kind of proven their point with how that car is performing.
That's why I don't think the suspension configuration is to blame for whatever is troubling Mercedes at the moment. It's bizarre how this car was losing ~0.6s to McLaren in S1 at Jeddah. That's an enormous amount of laptime which you can't attribute to wing/downforce levels alone.
My strong suspicion is the lack of proper procedures in establishing floor performance targets. Ferrari had to reinvent their post-TD39 floor targets and design verification procedures last year - which different conditions for CFD/WT are to be used, how they are weighed to determine which design direction to follow etc. I'm sure Mercedes also did this, but somehow they seem to have missed something. Think they will need to "sacrifice" a weekend and practice sessions to perform new and expanded correlation runs, like Ferrari did in Zandvoort 2023.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row
Have we seen them run any pitot tubes underneath the floor like a lot of other teams have?Vanja #66 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 21:20My strong suspicion is the lack of proper procedures in establishing floor performance targets. Ferrari had to reinvent their post-TD39 floor targets and design verification procedures last year - which different conditions for CFD/WT are to be used, how they are weighed to determine which design direction to follow etc. I'm sure Mercedes also did this, but somehow they seem to have missed something. Think they will need to "sacrifice" a weekend and practice sessions to perform new and expanded correlation runs, like Ferrari did in Zandvoort 2023.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row
They are having problems in the high speed corners.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 21:20My strong suspicion is the lack of proper procedures in establishing floor performance targets. Ferrari had to reinvent their post-TD39 floor targets and design verification procedures last year - which different conditions for CFD/WT are to be used, how they are weighed to determine which design direction to follow etc. I'm sure Mercedes also did this, but somehow they seem to have missed something. Think they will need to "sacrifice" a weekend and practice sessions to perform new and expanded correlation runs, like Ferrari did in Zandvoort 2023.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row
As far as I saw, this year they didn't. But we saw them do it in 22 and 23.
Whatever is going on needs to be measured and correlated before it can be fixed. Last year in Monaco their floor was visibly lower (lower tunnels) than RB floor, this means raw performance which may not be as sustainable over wide range of conditions as Mercedes believes it is.Espresso wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 02:16They are having problems in the high speed corners.
just my 2 cents…
Seems they have kinda controlled stability in the lateral axis better but not at all in the longitudinal axis. Stalling the outside in the high speed corners and porpoising as result.
Micro porpoising is sadly still visible at high speed straights. MB still got a lot of homework to do…
Nice analysis.ing. wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 05:15Porpoising is ultimately an aeroelastic phenomenon so interaction between aero, elastic (suspension) and inertia loads and where damping (structural, suspension, and aero) is critical.
Since this can’t be tested or simulated prior to the roll out of the actual car and a scale model with representative weight, stiffness, suspension, etc.—similar to what is done for airplanes, sans suspension obviously—is a practical impossibility, the car needs to be properly modeled to predict its dynamic behaviour. I suspect that this is what Merc don’t have a good handle on.
Underfloor aero and floor sealing edges will be huge contributors to its behaviour as contrary to airplane design where the lifting wings are designed to avoid twisting and creating more lift as they deflect, in F1 as the floor and edge translate down and deflect (the floor edge) the DF increases—this is an unstable situation prone to aeroelastic anomalies if the damping is inadequate. I believe some teams have a better handle on this modeling and the result is better control of the porpoising through appropriate floor design (and understanding of its performance mapping) and suspension behaviour and modeling.
And, who knows, perhaps Merc’s choice of having a quite horizontal rear push rod layout is not providing sufficient motion ratio so damping effectiveness is compromised.
+1 Well said. They might look and learn from the past how it has been done. Not taking lessons from the past is a missed opportunity. Also understanding the correlation (read working together) seems to me a missing piece of the puzzle. They are in deer need of someone (like ing. ) who has a bird´s eye view and grasp off the whole context.
If I’m not mistaken, Fallows made some comments that implied he wasn’t fully convinced about the rear suspension he inherited from Merc though trying to figure what exactly was the issue would be pure speculation.Stu wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 11:41Nice analysis.ing. wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 05:15Porpoising is ultimately an aeroelastic phenomenon so interaction between aero, elastic (suspension) and inertia loads and where damping (structural, suspension, and aero) is critical.
Since this can’t be tested or simulated prior to the roll out of the actual car and a scale model with representative weight, stiffness, suspension, etc.—similar to what is done for airplanes, sans suspension obviously—is a practical impossibility, the car needs to be properly modeled to predict its dynamic behaviour. I suspect that this is what Merc don’t have a good handle on.
Underfloor aero and floor sealing edges will be huge contributors to its behaviour as contrary to airplane design where the lifting wings are designed to avoid twisting and creating more lift as they deflect, in F1 as the floor and edge translate down and deflect (the floor edge) the DF increases—this is an unstable situation prone to aeroelastic anomalies if the damping is inadequate. I believe some teams have a better handle on this modeling and the result is better control of the porpoising through appropriate floor design (and understanding of its performance mapping) and suspension behaviour and modeling.
And, who knows, perhaps Merc’s choice of having a quite horizontal rear push rod layout is not providing sufficient motion ratio so damping effectiveness is compromised.
I do wonder how much of their issue is related to the change to 18” wheels/tyres and the removal of TMD’s from the suspension system. This would complicate modelling and has a big knock-on effect on suspension rates & system control, couple that with the very acute pushrod position (and it’s effect on motion ratio), so they may have solved their modelling issues and created a kinematic issue?
Some will question this (because Aston Martin…), but from the outside it seems plausible.
I would imagine Merc have some pretty clever boffins working this but I also imagine it’s not a simple task. The science of aeroelasticity in aerospace is quite mature but adapting the principles to a ground (and ground effects) vehicle is not the work of a few days. Unlike in aerospace I don’t imagine there is much literature and exchange of knowledge on the subject.Espresso wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 12:49+1 Well said. They might look and learn from the past how it has been done. Not taking lessons from the past is a missed opportunity. Also understanding the correlation (read working together) seems to me a missing piece of the puzzle. They are in deer need of someone (like ing. ) who has a bird´s eye view and grasp off the whole context.
Well W14 is the same philosophy actually. Nothing changed just a midseason sidepod "upgrade". The chassis and floor concept was the same as W13 but a bit "tamer" so they could get a better base-line.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row. It just seems to me, that from a conceptual point of view, their aerodynamics is not flawed in itself since we've seen RedBull incorporate design elements of the W14 into their own car and see benefits from it. But there must be something about the Mercedes' platform which is not allowing them to exploit the full potential they see from their design in CFD / wind tunnel.
We've had Ferrari sticking to their own suspension configuration, with the technical team there claiming suspension design is overrated, words which I must admit, I thought would come to bite them in the ass. However they have kind of proven their point with how that car is performing.
That's why I don't think the suspension configuration is to blame for whatever is troubling Mercedes at the moment. It's bizarre how this car was losing ~0.6s to McLaren in S1 at Jeddah. That's an enormous amount of laptime which you can't attribute to wing/downforce levels alone.
Vanja #66 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 21:20My strong suspicion is the lack of proper procedures in establishing floor performance targets. Ferrari had to reinvent their post-TD39 floor targets and design verification procedures last year - which different conditions for CFD/WT are to be used, how they are weighed to determine which design direction to follow etc. I'm sure Mercedes also did this, but somehow they seem to have missed something. Think they will need to "sacrifice" a weekend and practice sessions to perform new and expanded correlation runs, like Ferrari did in Zandvoort 2023.Emag wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024, 20:45What's peculiar about Mercedes is that they have undergone a rather significant philosophy shift from the W13 and W14, and yet the high speed weakness + bouncing is still haunting them.
This hints towards a deeper fundamental issue that somehow Mercedes is missing the third year in a row