georgekyr wrote: ↑
Mon May 09, 2022 8:04 am
carisi2k wrote: ↑
Sun May 08, 2022 11:40 pm
The mini pods are the problem because they don't give enough support to the floor and because of this the floor is flexing and fluttering causing aero problems even in the corners. Just my humble opinion.
I believe the same thing. How this can be solved -if it can be solved- is another question. I believe we saw that for a very small window the concept can be really fast and competitive, but the boundaries of this window are so small it is very difficult to setup the car properly for a full race.
In a budget restricted era, you need all the assistance you can get from low cost solutions like CFD and wind tunnel. I believe they made the strategic decision that for the longer term, it makes sense to spend more money there (which will probably have a higher added value) that bring new pieces in a "trial and error" fashion at every race to test at the track.
The package as it is requires a very advanced suspension and I believe this is the reason Russel called for active suspension a few races back. Mercedes can probably get it to work optimally in specific conditions only with each suspension setup, something that an active suspension could fix.
Let's see the new floor (or floors) they test out in Barcelona. If they fail to become competitive, I believe they will make the decision to be third in the constructors and try to optimize their CFD and wind tunnel, improve correlation and have much better tools ready for the coming years, testing more extreme solutions whenever possible.
Even if some people still do not want to even consider it - its highly likely that the sidepods are a big part of the problem. It is a fact that flexing of the floor is one of the main contributors to porpoising. And of course a floor with so much free space is more prone to flexing. But as these sidepods are a major part of the aero-concept, with trade-offs in the airflow to the rear-wing and the beamwing, its not as easy as it may seems to just put bigger sidepods on the car. The gains they make in one area means losses in another area. Thats, in my opinion, also the reason why it is so hard for Mercedes to find a proper solution, as there probably is no none. Mercedes still claims that this sidepod concept has superior downforce. Personally i doubt this, because the concept "drives" the floor with getting more air over the diffusor, but this makes them loose downforce created by the rear/beanwing assembly and letting this assembly drive the diffusor(what is more efficient) because of their huge airbox and wide engine cover(that lets much less air getting to the rear-wing/beamwing). Also it lacks the pressurisation-zone under the sidepod inlets that probably helps underfloor performance, too. But even if there is superior downforce - downforce you cannot use does not help at all. There are some examples in F1 history of cars like that. The Ferrari F2005 for example. The focus was put on maximum downforce, while McLaren and Renault put their focus on aero-efficiency and concistency. With no tyre changes and higher peak tyre loads(because the increased height of the frontwing and restrictions of the diffusor resulted in less consistent aero loadings that created more aerodynamic bouncing which the tyre had to absorb. This was also the reason why the mass-damper was such a huge advantage in 2005 as it reduced these peak loads quickly ) - creating superior downforce was a disadvantage. But i also think that the "wrong concept/approach" of Mercedes can be an advantage for the future. You learn much more from your mistakes. And if you have so many great engineers like Mercedes - this may leads to a superior concept for ground effect cars.