Mercedes W13

[Just_a_fan]

yeah of course, but the fact that they are testing does not mean, that it is legal. what u are sayin is, that everything we have ever seen during a test or practice would be legal, which clearly isnt the case.

In times of budget limits, the teams will want to be pretty sure they are testing legal stuff. What would be the point in testing an illegal design these days? They'd have to waste money making it knowing that it can't be used.

well, what was the point of the first car in Spain then? perhaps Plan A and Plan B ? Who knows.

Test the tight packaging of the stuff under the bodywork, perhaps. They've said that the mechanicals of the car haven't changed between tests, just that the upper bodywork has been altered. It also reduces the time that the other teams can respond to a "radical" design.

Likewise, why are RedBull bringing upgrade to this test? Why not just run the parts from day 1? They'll have their reasons including not wanting to give other teams long to react.

[Marty_Y]

[AeroDynamic]

I'm convinced that small black panel cover by the floor behind the 'sidepod' is an opening like the Williams!





#AMuS

[Just_a_fan]

I'm convinced that small black panel cover by the floor behind the 'sidepod' is an opening like the Williams!
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879816.jpg
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879818.jpg
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/M ... 879833.jpg
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879866.jpg
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879864.jpg
#AMuS

I'm not so sure, although it would be fun it was.

I think it's an access panel to something.

[shamyakovic]

Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.

Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure.
Ferrari raced with the halo mounted wing until the end of the season.

[vikramdinesh]

Is that bodywork damage? If yes, wonder what caused it.

[vorticism]

How about upsidedownpods? Any takes on why this path hasn't been taken in the past decade or so? i.e. why would they not want this on last years car?

[AeroDynamic]

How about upsidedownpods? Any takes on why this path hasn't been taken in the past decade or so? i.e. why would they not want this on last years car?

I look at it as a pod that is sideways relative to the inlet.

[Avtandil]

Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.

Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure

While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.

[shamyakovic]

Should a mandatory crush structure device be used as the aero solution? Much like with Ferrari's halo mounted mirror winglets one could argue that this must not be allowed and if Brackley were to purse this design the crush structure element has to be redesigned to remove any aero solutions as presented at this time.

Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure

While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.

If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.

[atanatizante]

Porpoising doesn’t look any different to bumpy braking zones so drivers probably aren’t as sensitive to it as the press pack are.
....

Porpoising effect is seen only on the main straights or also in the bumpy braking zones due to stiff suspension which is needed to have a lower and stable platform/car in order to have a better Venturi effect?

[AeroDynamic]

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/L ... 879818.jpg

Is that bodywork damage? If yes, wonder what caused it.

no, its literally taped sheet to cover the louvres and it came off.

@Albert Fabrega

[Shrieker]

Safe to say, think we haven't seen such a radical sidepod desgin since the 2011 MP4-26.

[SiLo]

Porpoising doesn’t look any different to bumpy braking zones so drivers probably aren’t as sensitive to it as the press pack are.
....

Porpoising effect is seen only on the main straights or also in the bumpy braking zones due to stiff suspension which is needed to have a lower and stable platform/car in order to have a better Venturi effect?

Bahrain is a tad bumpy these days, but the Merc was running lower than any other car it seems. I think they are slowly raising the ride height to find how it affects the performance. It's still day 1 of the second test and a large portion of the car is drastically different. Although the rest of the car is similar, so that tells me their flow structures remain fairly static as well which is interesting.

[Avtandil]

Ferrari's halo mirror winglet was not allowed coz it was sitting in a section where aero was not allowed.. ferraris interpretation was that it is a mirror support, but as the winglet was outside the legality box that mirror stay was allowed to continue and the winglet was banned.. its nothing to do with crash structure

While it has nothing to do with the crush structure it has everything to do that there was a special exemption for elements around the halo which allowed Ferrari to mount mirrors there in the first place and the very same exemption could have been applied to the winglets if they would actually serve any other purpose other than aero. The FIA was wiser to it and remedied the situation quickly. Similarly, the shroud and all the aero flicks on the crush structure are in no way, shape or form contributing to the safety future of the device and while they may sit in the allowed area them actually being there is due to some very questionable solutions to begin with.

If so u have to ban all the sidepods on all cars this year, they all use the crash structure for aero purpose, especially in the floor.

Not really, as "body work" is largely exempt but the current W13 set-up of crush structure followed by a what can only be described as a wing that is just barely attached to the sidepod, is not really "body work". More of a separate aero element hinging on a very liberal interpretation of the rules and like my Civil law 101 professor used to say when in doubt ask a person stranded on the deserted island if they say it's a wing - it's a wing.