Williams FW40 Mercedes

[Juzh]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin

I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.

Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?

[cramr]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin

I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.

Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?

This also means higher moments of inertia (more mass away from the CoG) which is maybe even worse than a higher CoG.

[dren]

It looks like the beam wing is missing or only shown partially in certain rear photos.

That's the upper suspension links. With the lower rear wing, it looks like a beam wing in some pictures.

[Bonker T]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech

Narrow sidepods despite wider versions allowed. Engine cover conspicuously size-zero-esque behind cockpit padding & around fin

I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.

Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?

I wonder how much lower they can make the sidepods, because of the crash structure that is already visible at the top end of the sidepod. Is for example Mclaren L shaped side pod still within the crashrules of today?

[Scuderia1967]

I've got to be honest, I never thought any team was going to take up the option of wider sidepods since the packaging requirements inside the car weren't going to change it didn't make much sense to me.

From increased width overall of the floor and track anyone keeping their sidepod width as before would automatically get whatever benefit Sauber tried to conjure a few years ago with their ridiculously slim sidepods.

I'm probably missing something.

Lower COG with wider, more spread out packaging as opposed to thinner and higher?

I wonder how much lower they can make the sidepods, because of the crash structure that is already visible at the top end of the sidepod. Is for example Mclaren L shaped side pod still within the crashrules of today?

I don't think so. In the past few years it wasn't, that's for sure

[SectorOne]

Is this rule still on? Flow conditioner in the middle of the image.

[Sevach]

It looks like the beam wing is missing or only shown partially in certain rear photos.

No beam wing allowed this year, so naturally the car is not going to feature one. More can be found and discussed here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =6&t=23606

More interestingly, at this point the car doesn't feature those extensions of bodywork shaped like wings like last years car, it's very clean and zero fuss down there.

[tomazy]

Did anyone here mentioned before the bump inside the cocpit? I dont remmember seeing it there before and I wonder what they are. Maybe they are ther for the drivers to rest there heads in more vertical position in corners becouse of the bigger G-forces this year?

[LookBackTime]

Did anyone here mentioned before the bump inside the cocpit? I dont remmember seeing it there before and I wonder what they are. Maybe they are ther for the drivers to rest there heads in more vertical position in corners becouse of the bigger G-forces this year?

Correct! Nothing new. In Indy Car they used it for years. I think Sebastian Vetel had something similar at RB.

My guess: they done it for Lance Stroll. His experience with very high g forces is limited.
It is nice to see this kind of attention to details.

[SR71]

New minimum radius rule already allowing massive floor leading edge foils.

Nice.

[frosty125]

The floor looks like it has an unusual shape in certain areas.

[Formula Wrong]

The Barge Board is suspiciously undeveloped.

Weren't they supposed to be bigger?

[LookBackTime]

[LookBackTime]

[roon]

There is a black line that almost looks like a slot above Randstad and behind T camera. It doesn't belong to the livery, I wonder what this could be. Testing cant come quick enough, I need pics of the real car hehe

It seems to be T-shaped in cross section. It may be a vortex generator of some sort.








SR71, I think you are on the right track regarding the floor. The simplest way to explain the slope of the floor's leading edge is the new 100mm radius floor edge rule. Looks like its rising by about that amount.