Mercedes AMG F1 W06

[turbof1]

Is it correct to assume that a cooling inlet there will reduce an other somewhere else?

I guess that would be correct, but where?

By the way here's the how it looks like from the side (is it the right word to use?). The engine cover looks different due to these new inlets or is it just the angle of this photo?

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Nic ... 863304.jpg

You are correct to assume the engine cover is different. Compare it to Bahrain:

Essentially they traded a bit of the flat shark fin for the ducting (and perhaps small radiators too) of the cooling inlets.

If I had to guess where they would reduce the cooling inlet somewhere else, it would be the sidepods. They could chip away at the radiators too with this, although not by much. I don't see any distinct difference on said sidepods, but this could simply be an intermediary test to have an idea how much they chip away with this.

It's a game of compromises. The new roll hoop inlets block a bit more airflow to the rear wing, while tighter sidepods would increase airflow over the diffuser.

[prince]

I am comparing the bulges on engine cover and I see a tuck in on the new cover that is in testing. There is a slight change of directions of the car when you compare the pictures, but still the tucking is quite visible. Look at the 3 pointed star on both sides.

[turbof1]

Could it possibly be a repositioning of the intercooler?

[JDC123]

Could it possibly be a repositioning of the intercooler?

Or testing for hotter races where extra cooling is required? Hungary can get very hot.

[turbof1]

Could it possibly be a repositioning of the intercooler?

Or testing for hotter races where extra cooling is required? Hungary can get very hot.

It was the first things that crossed my mind too, but usually when it gets hotter the outlets get increased, not the inlets. Besides, Malaysia was 1 of the hottest circuits and they didn't have to use it there.

I personally very much believe they moved the cooling of specific part. My guess would be the turbo; scarbs guesses it is the ERS cooling.

[prince]

Could it possibly be a repositioning of the intercooler?

This an old article on F1 related to W05, which says its an advantage to keep the intercooler there. So why would they want to move it anywhere?
Mercedes F1 W05 - intercooler advantagel

Another 'secret weapon' that the all-conquering 2014 Mercedes appears to have is an intercooler inserted into the top area of the chassis, circled here in yellow. This intercooler cools the turbocharged airflow that is going into the engine. As illustrated by the blue arrows, airflow from underneath the car's main air intake is passed across the intercooler, reducing the internal air temperature. The cooler this airflow is the more horsepower the engine will generate. With so many different systems on the cars now requiring cooling, this is a real packaging benefit for Mercedes, and one which will be difficult for other teams to copy.

[bhall II]

I think it looks like they're trying to tighten up the bodywork around the airbox by filling previously unused space with ducts/cooling.



Higher vertical packaging, so to speak, should enable thinner horizontal packaging, which will make the rear wing more efficient.

[JDC123]

I think it looks like they're trying to tighten up the bodywork around the airbox by filling previously unused space with ducts/cooling.

http://i.imgur.com/ohzpp7L.jpg

Higher vertical packaging, so to speak, should enable thinner horizontal packaging, which will make the rear wing more efficient.

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

[turbof1]

I think it looks like they're trying to tighten up the bodywork around the airbox by filling previously unused space with ducts/cooling.

http://i.imgur.com/ohzpp7L.jpg

Higher vertical packaging, so to speak, should enable thinner horizontal packaging, which will make the rear wing more efficient.

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

The blade roll hoop? That's a different story altogether.

Unfortunaly, these days you need to do big things to have small gains.

[bhall II]

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

Unfortunaly, these days you need to do big things to have small gains.

I can see both sides to this.

Given the rash of aero updates in Barcelona that more or less failed to meet their respective teams' expectations, I've begun to wonder if the regulations are now so strict that there's virtually no scope for upgrades beyond a car's basic layout.

It's one thing for Ferrari to miss the mark, but Red Bull? I think that should give everyone a moment of pause, as it may signal a state of aerodynamic development such that potential gains are now smaller than the margins typically allowed for (unavoidable) correlation errors. We've already seen Mercedes make a major revision to the front wing that most likely did not increase overall downforce.

If so, maybe Toro Rosso got it right when they threw everything but the kitchen sink at their car during the winter tests and then said they would have no more major updates for the rest of the year.

"We are obviously bringing some aero upgrades, but not a lot," he told AUTOSPORT.

"The biggest aero upgrade was obviously in test three in Barcelona.

"Now every upgrade will be much smaller."

If the best a team can do is hone the basic package, it's best to start doing it as soon as possible.

Just some OT food for thought.

[turbof1]

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

Unfortunaly, these days you need to do big things to have small gains.

I can see both sides to this.

Given the rash of aero updates in Barcelona that more or less failed to meet their respective teams' expectations, I've begun to wonder if the regulations are now so strict that there's virtually no scope for upgrades beyond a car's basic layout.

It's one thing for Ferrari to miss the mark, but Red Bull? I think that should give everyone a moment of pause, as it may signal a state of aerodynamic development such that potential gains are now smaller than the margins typically allowed for (unavoidable) correlation errors. We've already seen Mercedes make a major revision to the front wing that most likely did not increase overall downforce.

If so, maybe Toro Rosso got it right when they threw everything but the kitchen sink at their car during the winter tests and then said they would have no more major updates for the rest of the year.

"We are obviously bringing some aero upgrades, but not a lot," he told AUTOSPORT.

"The biggest aero upgrade was obviously in test three in Barcelona.

"Now every upgrade will be much smaller."

If the best a team can do is hone the basic package, it's best to start doing it as soon as possible.

Just some OT food for thought.

It's a big issue yes. Several years ago aero efficiency was at a premium, but nowadays it's really downforce, no matter what the additional drag is, that is at a premium.

It's a discussion for a different topic and for a different day, but a relaxation of the aero rules would give F1 some room to breath.

[trinidefender]

I think it looks like they're trying to tighten up the bodywork around the airbox by filling previously unused space with ducts/cooling.

http://i.imgur.com/ohzpp7L.jpg

Higher vertical packaging, so to speak, should enable thinner horizontal packaging, which will make the rear wing more efficient.

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

The blade roll hoop? That's a different story altogether.

Unfortunaly, these days you need to do big things to have small gains.

You know the blade roll hoop didn't work that well how? I was under the impression that it worked quite well but the FIA banned them on safety grounds. The fear was that they might dig into the ground if the car rolled over.

[JDC123]

It would be a major repackage for only a small gain though. The role hoop mercedes used in 2010 didn't really work that great

The blade roll hoop? That's a different story altogether.

Unfortunaly, these days you need to do big things to have small gains.

You know the blade roll hoop didn't work that well how? I was under the impression that it worked quite well but the FIA banned them on safety grounds. The fear was that they might dig into the ground if the car rolled over.

I have no information on this but considering mercedes reverted back to a conventional roll hope in 2011 even though the blade was still legal and they had spent vast resources on it in 2010 to bring a new chassis would suggest to me it didn't work as intended. Why else would you then spent time and resources reverting back within a year?

[turbof1]

You know the blade roll hoop didn't work that well how? I was under the impression that it worked quite well but the FIA banned them on safety grounds. The fear was that they might dig into the ground if the car rolled over.

They didn't completely ban it (in 2011). Viewing from the front, the fia mandated a minimum cross section. This was the result:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 2011-4.jpg

That rule change of course made the whole ordeal far less attractive, which is why I believe Mercedes went back to the more conservative approach.

Mclaren in the meanwhile introduced a whole different approach where they moved cooling options to the roll hoop. The latter approach ultimately was the more interesting option since it meant you'd be able to make room somewhere else. So in short the blade roll hoop indeed gave benefits, but those benefits got outweighted by compromising it in favour of better benefits.

Also...

Even though the blade was still legal and they had spent vast resources on it in 2010 to bring a new chassis would suggest to me it didn't work as intended.

Back in 2010 chassis were actually homologated and you could not create a structural different chassis. In reality, Mercedes had the feature on the car from the beginning, but built conventional, none-structural air inlets around it. Normally these are integrated into the chassis, but in Mercedes their case they weren't, allowing them to modify them throughout the year. I believe they actually made a first step in China that year.

[bhall II]

Oddly enough, I think they probably moved away from the "blade" design for the same reason they're now testing a new engine cover, except the focus then was on the Coke-bottle instead of the airbox: higher vertical packaging in exchange for thinner horizontal packaging.