Mercedes W13

[AeroDynamic]

[SiLo]

Do we think we’ll see something like RB’s “bargeboard” on the Mercedes? Seems quite a development part for them to miss

Personally, I think the omission is a bigger development that just running a panel there up to the maximum allowed in the rules. It's quite clearly a design choice by Mercedes not to run it.

[Shakeman]

Do we think we’ll see something like RB’s “bargeboard” on the Mercedes? Seems quite a development part for them to miss

Why do you assume Mercedes have missed something when it's quite clear both cars have very different aero philosophy?

Has Red Bull missed packaging the rear end like Merc?

[GrizzleBoy]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

[mkay]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

[AeroDynamic]

[Shakeman]

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

Whose CFD analysis Merc's or someone on the internet using very approximate (that's being kind) car shapes?

[AeroDynamic]

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

Whose CFD analysis Merc's or someone on the internet using very approximate (that's being kind) car shapes?

also, aren't those CFD's based on just side pods? not identical floor, diffuser, rear wing or front wing?

[Just_a_fan]

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

That analysis is interesting but so incomplete that it's impossible to say which is the better approach at this stage.

[Just_a_fan]

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

Whose CFD analysis Merc's or someone on the internet using very approximate (that's being kind) car shapes?

also, aren't those CFD's based on just side pods? not identical floor, diffuser, rear wing or front wing?

Yes. It can't be used to say anything about each car overall.

[F1Krof]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

Yes true and not true. The OP analysis only took into account the rough estimation of the sidepods and the rear wing if I'm not mistaken. The flow of the air starts with the front wing. Nobody knows for sure what every aero device does. I'm sure even the teams themselves have doubts.

[morefirejules08]

Do we think we’ll see something like RB’s “bargeboard” on the Mercedes? Seems quite a development part for them to miss

Why do you assume Mercedes have missed something when it's quite clear both cars have very different aero philosophy?

Has Red Bull missed packaging the rear end like Merc?

I don’t assume they missed anything which is why I asked. Personally I think we may see that area developed at the next test

[Vanja #66]

That analysis is interesting but so incomplete that it's impossible to say which is the better approach at this stage.

That's right. We can only take a look at where these teams might have made some gains, but not by how much to each other. The overall flow structures are also very susceptible to slight geometry changes, that we can't even say "this is what's happening for sure" let alone talk about numbers. The reason the numbers were posted is purely for transparency and filling out the "information form".

[AeroDynamic]

comparison!

[Just_a_fan]

That analysis is interesting but so incomplete that it's impossible to say which is the better approach at this stage.

That's right. We can only take a look at where these teams might have made some gains, but not by how much to each other. The overall flow structures are also very susceptible to slight geometry changes, that we can't even say "this is what's happening for sure" let alone talk about numbers. The reason the numbers were posted is purely for transparency and filling out the "information form".

Thanks for reiterating that. Some people appear to be reading it as Gospel.