[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

One of the new Red Bull updates from today was a new RB18-B suspension ..

The World Champion showed today his World Class !

''RBR have done it retaining the existing mounting points'' found it, and not incurring any token spend in that area

[inTgr8r]

Originally Posted by NYG

I'm not familiar with the regulations but is Mercedes allowed to change their sidepod design to be consistent with the grid? Is there a time limit to how soon they would have to do it before being prohibited?

Before quali, teams can make changes as long as still meet FIA spec and were previously approved.
After start of quali they can only change damaged parts , like for like.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by inTgr8r

Before quali, teams can make changes as long as still meet FIA spec and were previously approved.
After start of quali they can only change damaged parts , like for like.

Got it. So once Q1 goes green - the car is locked in for the season?

[inTgr8r]

Originally Posted by NYG

Got it. So once Q1 goes green - the car is locked in for the season?

No.
Locked for that weekend.

Development mods (FIA approved) are still permitted between race weekends.

[F87source]

Very interesting so far, Russell is bearing out Lewis and Latifi is beating Albon. The Ferrari so far looks legit too!

[NYG]

Originally Posted by inTgr8r

No.
Locked for that weekend.

Development mods (FIA approved) are still permitted between race weekends.

Got it - thanks. I think Mercedes will be changing their sidepods at some point this season.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by F87source

Very interesting so far, Russell is bearing out Lewis and Latifi is beating Albon. The Ferrari so far looks legit too!

Russel was on soft, Lewis was on medium. I think Lewis will still be significantly faster.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by NYG

Got it - thanks. I think Mercedes will be changing their sidepods at some point this season.

There is 'NO short term solution for the Mercedes 'Manta Ray design ..
And the W13 brakes really s@ck !

I'm pretty sure ,this weekend It's MAX vs the 2 Ferrari's !

Meanwhile HAM's W13 was bucking like a wild rodeo horse !

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by NYG

Got it - thanks. I think Mercedes will be changing their sidepods at some point this season.

Won't be easy with that extreme narrow rear end of the W13 ..
And it has to be according the FIA Spec/Regulations .

Meanwhile at Mercedes It's "Mission Impossible" !

If HAM pulls tomorrow a top-3 . Then he deserves an oscar for his hilarious Soaps !

[F87source]

Originally Posted by NYG

Got it - thanks. I think Mercedes will be changing their sidepods at some point this season.

I don't know why you peg the issue to be side pod related, the side pod on the Merc still performs it's tasks: create a large pocket in front of the inlet area to work the front edge of the floor, slim side pods to reduce drag and feed to rear beam wing + diffuser, and create down wash on the sides to help kick out wake and seal the floor. The engineering is sound and no aero dynamacist has complained yet. The issue with Merc is the floor and a few issues with it:

1) since the body is so narrow the floor is extremely wide meaning it's easier to flex down. When it flexes down it seals the floor better increasing down force which causes the car to drop lower and that causes the distance between the bottom of the floor and track to become so small air flow detaches and stalls creating the porpoising effect.

2) the floor doesn't produce strong enough vortices to seal it as effectively as McLaren. This means Merc is more susceptible to wind, and can't run a high enough ride height.

3) the floor design itself seems to stall a bit more than others as Mercs ride height, as shown by the inlet strakes needing to be cut to increase air flow.

So honestly I don't see how it could be a side pod issue, I've read up alot about it but no one seems to peg the side pod as the issue, porpoising is most definitely a floor issue. Because side pod air flow is easy to observe in CFD and the wind tunnel to see if it's doing what it's supposed to. But the floor isn't because you can't run ride heights super low in the tunnel.

Originally Posted by NYG

Russel was on soft, Lewis was on medium. I think Lewis will still be significantly faster.

Ah I didn't know that. But I still think George will be right up there if not beating Lewis, look at his gp3 and F2 results he was one of the rare drivers to win both (like Leclerc) and he absolutely destroyed Albon and Norris in equal machinery.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Won't be easy with that extreme narrow rear end of the W13 ..
And it has to be according the FIA Spec/Regulations .

Meanwhile at Mercedes It's "Mission Impossible" !

If HAM pulls tomorrow a top-3 . Then he deserves an oscar for his hilarious Soaps !

That's not true, going wider will always be easier than going narrower because you can leave the side pods empty. All Merc has to do is created wider engine covers to accompany the side pods. It's always easier for the narrower car to adopt wider body pannels because there's so much space to accommodate any crash structures, but the same isn't true if you're wide and need to fit a narrower body.


The only reason I personally see for Merc to go wide is to reduce floor width which will reduce floor flex.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by F87source

I don't know why you peg the issue to be side pod related, the side pod on the Merc still performs it's tasks: create a large pocket in front of the inlet area to work the front edge of the floor, slim side pods to reduce drag and feed to rear beam wing + diffuser, and create down wash on the sides to help kick out wake and seal the floor. The engineering is sound and no aero dynamacist has complained yet. The issue with Merc is the floor and a few issues with it:

1) since the body is so narrow the floor is extremely wide meaning it's easier to flex down. When it flexes down it seals the floor better increasing down force which causes the car to drop lower and that causes the distance between the bottom of the floor and track to become so small air flow detaches and stalls creating the porpoising effect.

2) the floor doesn't produce strong enough vortices to seal it as effectively as McLaren. This means Merc is more susceptible to wind, and can't run a high enough ride height.

3) the floor design itself seems to stall a bit more than others as Mercs ride height, as shown by the inlet strakes needing to be cut to increase air flow.

So honestly I don't see how it could be a side pod issue, I've read up alot about it but no one seems to peg the side pod as the issue, porpoising is most definitely a floor issue. Because side pod air flow is easy to observe in CFD and the wind tunnel to see if it's doing what it's supposed to. But the floor isn't because you can't run ride heights super low in the tunnel.

Like I said, I'm a structural eng. and my scope of aero is definitely nowhere near the level of F1 design but like I mentioned, without CFD/air rake/flowviz analysis, all I can do is apply basic fundamentals of fluids. I can very well be wrong but without taking into account all the additional factors used to counter-design for the weakness of this setup - there's 9 other teams that opted not to use that design with more wind tunnel hours and guys like Adrian Newey taking part in the design. If you draw some streamlines over the sections and disregard other components, it's not a great design.

1. The width doesn't matter as long as there's support points under the car.

2. True

3. This one I need to look at, can't comment.

[MontyB1]

Originally Posted by NYG

Like I said, I'm a structural eng. and my scope of aero is definitely nowhere near the level of F1 design but like I mentioned, without CFD/air rake/flowviz analysis, all I can do is apply basic fundamentals of fluids. I can very well be wrong but without taking into account all the additional factors used to counter-design for the weakness of this setup - there's 9 other teams that opted not to use that design with more wind tunnel hours and guys like Adrian Newey taking part in the design. If you draw some streamlines over the sections and disregard other components, it's not a great design.

1. The width doesn't matter as long as there's support points under the car.

2. True

3. This one I need to look at, can't comment.

There is a strong view that Merc has created a very efficient and low drag but high downforce solution. But it seems that they are then struggling to control this. Get it right and balance it out and it could amazing, but they haven’t managed it yet. Tweaks to the floor, suspension and ride and more will be required I suspect they will tweak everything but not radically change it.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by NYG

Like I said, I'm a structural eng. and my scope of aero is definitely nowhere near the level of F1 design but like I mentioned, without CFD/air rake/flowviz analysis, all I can do is apply basic fundamentals of fluids. I can very well be wrong but without taking into account all the additional factors used to counter-design for the weakness of this setup - there's 9 other teams that opted not to use that design with more wind tunnel hours and guys like Adrian Newey taking part in the design. If you draw some streamlines over the sections and disregard other components, it's not a great design.

1. The width doesn't matter as long as there's support points under the car.

2. True

3. This one I need to look at, can't comment.

That's the thing though, other teams might not have been able to successfully package this narrow due to engine cooling concerns and put packaging concerns. Only Mercedes focused that much on getting an engine small enough and cooling good enough the side pods could get reduced small enough where air flow to the rear was sufficient without huge cuts. Overall the designs are still doing the same function as per what I keep hearing from guys like scarbs, Kyle, b sports, and the rumbling on F1 technical.


1) there's no under body supports, it's a 1 piece bit of molded carbon fiber. You can't have things supporting the floor edge under Neath because where would they mount? They can't cross over to the middle of the car because that'll restrict flow to the tunnels. So it's just a confirmed bit of carbon, and the larger the area the more it can flex when subjected to the immense pressure differential.

3) idk Merc has been reworking the roof of the floor etc to try to prevent stalling. But so far it's not helping too much.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by F87source

That's not true, going wider will always be easier than going narrower because you can leave the side pods empty. All Merc has to do is created wider engine covers to accompany the side pods. It's always easier for the narrower car to adopt wider body pannels because there's so much space to accommodate any crash structures, but the same isn't true if you're wide and need to fit a narrower body.


The only reason I personally see for Merc to go wide is to reduce floor width which will reduce floor flex.

I said it wont be easy and probably a mission impossible , because the Mercedes wind tunnel time testing is restricted by RWTT (Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing)
Currently I see the Mercedes W13 Manta Ray Design as a complete failure ..

Article 9.3.2

[M5Rick]

HAM has come on again to say that he is not lying insisting the 13's problems run deeper than just set up.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

I said it wont be easy and probably a mission impossible , because the Mercedes wind tunnel time testing is restricted by RWTT (Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing)
Currently I see the Mercedes W13 Manta Ray Design as a complete failure ..

Article 9.3.2

Yeah the wind tunnel testing limits will make it harder, so if anything they could revert to the original side pods which have been tried and tested in the last era of cars.

Originally Posted by M5Rick

HAM has come on again to say that he is not lying insisting the 13's problems run deeper than just set up.

IMO I think its the floor, as evident in the massive porpoising and mercedes constantly revising it.


But I did say before I didn't think merc were sand bagging, they weren't sand bagging last year and they aren't sand bagging now.

[irunalot]

No team has used all of their CFD and wind tunnel time just to start the season. They all know they need to develop all year to be competitive.

The Merc looks like it makes gobs of down force but they are having issues getting it under control. The car shows some major flashes of speed as GR hit a few purple sectors especially in the S2 but could never get a good lap together.

As far as Ham and Russ times, they were on different tires and Ham is holding back as he often does FP. When hes that far back its on purpose. Like him or not hes won 7 championships and that cant be done without talent. In identical cars, Bottas won 0 and Rosberg won 1 and it nearly killed him. Russ may have beat a lot of other teammates but none of them are F1 champions.

[MontyB1]

Originally Posted by F87source

Yeah the wind tunnel testing limits will make it harder, so if anything they could revert to the original side pods which have been tried and tested in the last era of cars.


IMO I think its the floor, as evident in the massive porpoising and mercedes constantly revising it.


But I did say before I didn't think merc were sand bagging, they weren't sand bagging last year and they aren't sand bagging now.

The difference isn’t huge though, it’s a 2.5% difference per place so Redbull aren’t far behind, but Ferrari will get more.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

HAM has come on again to say that he is not lying insisting the 13's problems run deeper than just set up.

Ocon's hole looked really bad !

[///M Power-Belgium]

The McLaren wing has a setting for angle of attack

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Ocon's hole looked really bad !

An ''ultimate'' rip off there.