Mercedes-AMG F1 W10 EQ Power+

[GrandAxe]

Look at the blue lines that I have drawn, Ferrari seems to be using as much floor area as they can, whereas Mercedes isn't.
Look at the green line and Ferrari seems to have kept the side pod opening as far back as they can and Mercedes is quite far forward.
Ferrari's front wing seems to be much wider (the box drawn).

Click to Enlarge

https://i.imgur.com/Mi2Md8S.jpg

Different angles

You can pretty much reach the same conclusion as GPR-A by comparing the rate of curvature of the floor area from the nose. Using the front wheel as reference for relative dimensions (as in the original post), it is easy to see that Ferrari's curve is more aggressive - indicating that it is closer to the wheel; while Mercs is shallower - indicating a greater distance from the wheel.

If anything, the angle of the Ferrari foreshortens its curve and somewhat hides the aggression of its curvature and makes it shallower than it really is.

[McMrocks]

Is anyone expecting another new front wing (iteration) in Melbourne as it has been like 3 weeks since test 1, so plenty of time to build another one after testing week 1 data/feedback, no? Or will merc go with the 'dicknose' from testing week 2 nonetheless, you think?

Nose changes will be difficult. In those 3 weeks you would need to design it properly (a design that is better than the current design on which they worked many hours), you would need to build them, and you would need to pass a crash test.

Front wing changes are very likely. Every front wing is currently in a early stage of its developement, so we can expect that many teams bring slightly changed front wings to Melbourne. However i doubt that Merc divert from their design to a Sauber layout in just 3 weeks, as it changes the flow further down the car a lot. If the Sauber design works a lot better we can surely expect them to introduce such a layout later this season together with new barge boards, side pod turning vanes and so on, but not in Melbourne.

[McMrocks]

Look at the blue lines that I have drawn, Ferrari seems to be using as much floor area as they can, whereas Mercedes isn't.
Look at the green line and Ferrari seems to have kept the side pod opening as far back as they can and Mercedes is quite far forward.
Ferrari's front wing seems to be much wider (the box drawn).

Click to Enlarge

https://i.imgur.com/Mi2Md8S.jpg

Different angles

You can pretty much reach the same conclusion as GPR-A by comparing the rate of curvature of the floor area from the nose. Using the front wheel as reference for relative dimensions (as in the original post), it is easy to see that Ferrari's curve is more aggressive - indicating that it is closer to the wheel; while Mercs is shallower - indicating a greater distance from the wheel.

If anything, the angle of the Ferrari foreshortens its curve and somewhat hides the aggression of its curvature and makes it shallower than it really is.

Agree, Merc is using less of the available space. I would claim that Ferrari's leading edge of the barge board vanes is dead on the "exclusion volume around the front wheels" as rules call it.



Thats why the barge boards look like cut of in a straight line.

[Just_a_fan]

The teams have different approaches to aero so they will use more or less of the available space. It feels reasonable to expect them to use all of the space available, but if they can do what they need with less, then doing so is also reasonable. Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

[godlameroso]

The teams have different approaches to aero so they will use more or less of the available space. It feels reasonable to expect them to use all of the space available, but if they can do what they need with less, then doing so is also reasonable. Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

I think you're seeing patterns where none exist.

More surface area has a bigger aero effect than less surface area. All else being equal a larger wing will produce more lift than a smaller one with equal proportions.

[Sonic]

Look at the blue lines that I have drawn, Ferrari seems to be using as much floor area as they can, whereas Mercedes isn't.
Look at the green line and Ferrari seems to have kept the side pod opening as far back as they can and Mercedes is quite far forward.
Ferrari's front wing seems to be much wider (the box drawn).

Click to Enlarge

https://i.imgur.com/Mi2Md8S.jpg

Sorry, but imho nothing is OK with your pic (front wheels are not on the same level, the FW of the Ferrari is not wider but your line is : there's a part of the wheel in the square, etc, etc). Be serious, please ! You just try to show us what you would like to see.

[Just_a_fan]

The teams have different approaches to aero so they will use more or less of the available space. It feels reasonable to expect them to use all of the space available, but if they can do what they need with less, then doing so is also reasonable. Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

I think you're seeing patterns where none exist.

More surface area has a bigger aero effect than less surface area. All else being equal a larger wing will produce more lift than a smaller one with equal proportions.

The barge boards and associated turning vanes aren't there to directly create downforce. They are there to turn, direct and condition air flow. If you can do what you need in a given space, why use more space?

[roon]

The barge boards and associated turning vanes aren't there to directly create downforce. They are there to turn, direct and condition air flow.

Which says a lot about aero development in this series. The parts arguably most crucial to the current aero formula do not actually produce downforce themselves (not much at least, may even cause lift in some cases, who knows). Could say the same about many other parts of the car (engine cover, suspension arms, brake ducts, halo covers, etc.) but the barge board area is the least constrained by the regulations.

[PlatinumZealot]

New, smaller radiator inlets will be coming. They are too big compared to the level of development on the engine.

[zibby43]

New, smaller radiator inlets will be coming. They are too big compared to the level of development on the engine.

They're already incredibly tight. Some of the best, if not the best, packaging in the field. You can see the crash structure exposed. The openings just have a more traditional shape and appear bigger because they're taller, as opposed to wider.

Not sure why you're suggesting that they'll be changed, but I'm willing to listen.

[ClarkBT11]

New, smaller radiator inlets will be coming. They are too big compared to the level of development on the engine.

They're already incredibly tight. Some of the best, if not the best, packaging in the field. You can see the crash structure exposed. The openings just have a more traditional shape and appear bigger because they're taller, as opposed to wider.

Not sure why you're suggesting that they'll be changed, but I'm willing to listen.

The opinion is predicting further development on the side pods. Your opinion is that Mercedes isn't considering developing their side pods. Do you have data from the test to say otherwise.

[zibby43]

New, smaller radiator inlets will be coming. They are too big compared to the level of development on the engine.

They're already incredibly tight. Some of the best, if not the best, packaging in the field. You can see the crash structure exposed. The openings just have a more traditional shape and appear bigger because they're taller, as opposed to wider.

Not sure why you're suggesting that they'll be changed, but I'm willing to listen.

The opinion is predicting further development on the side pods. Your opinion is that Mercedes isn't considering developing their side pods. Do you have data from the test to say otherwise.

The section in bold is quite obvious.

What I asked (quite explicitly; underlined for emphasis), is why? Why will the side pod design be changed? To what end, specifically? Such a change would trigger fundamental changes elsewhere. It's not like bolting on a different t-wing.

Isn't asking for clarification a reasonable question in a technical discussion?

What data from the test do you have that suggests that Mercedes is considering developing their side pods further (specifically, making them even smaller)?

And where did I say that I have data that they didn't? I merely pointed out that the W10 already made massive gains in this area.

Changing the entire sidepod structure mid-season is a massive undertaking that would take anywhere from 3-6 months. The minor tweaks Mercedes made to the bodywork around their side pods last year didn't arrive until Austria.

Next?

[OO7]

The teams have different approaches to aero so they will use more or less of the available space. It feels reasonable to expect them to use all of the space available, but if they can do what they need with less, then doing so is also reasonable. Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

An example of this is diffuser volume.

[Just_a_fan]

Filling the available space just because they can, might actually give them less performance.

An example of this is diffuser volume.

Exactly. Nice example.

[ClarkBT11]

They're already incredibly tight. Some of the best, if not the best, packaging in the field. You can see the crash structure exposed. The openings just have a more traditional shape and appear bigger because they're taller, as opposed to wider.

Not sure why you're suggesting that they'll be changed, but I'm willing to listen.

The opinion is predicting further development on the side pods. Your opinion is that Mercedes isn't considering developing their side pods. Do you have data from the test to say otherwise.

The section in bold is quite obvious.

What I asked (quite explicitly; underlined for emphasis), is why? Why will the side pod design be changed? To what end, specifically? Such a change would trigger fundamental changes elsewhere. It's not like bolting on a different t-wing.

Isn't asking for clarification a reasonable question in a technical discussion?

What data from the test do you have that suggests that Mercedes is considering developing their side pods further (specifically, making them even smaller)?

And where did I say that I have data that they didn't? I merely pointed out that the W10 already made massive gains in this area.

Changing the entire sidepod structure mid-season is a massive undertaking that would take anywhere from 3-6 months. The minor tweaks Mercedes made to the bodywork around their side pods last year didn't arrive until Austria.

Next?

Why Mercedes would change the size of inlet is quite obvious, and I don't understand why you would question his opinion when the answer is technically simple.

He wasn't talking about changing an entire side pod resructure or shrinking the coke bottle.