Mercedes W13

[NicoS]

I agree that we haven't seen the proper floor for this car yet. If they spotted the problem 2 weeks ago, they will be taking their time to carefully produce the solution for the race.

Look out in FP1 for the new floor.

Ok. We will.

[LM10]

Next week...still I fear we will see nothing different than 2014....we may never see the real power of the 2022 engine in Q.

Because...?

[RZS10]

MOD EDIT: Removal of deleted posts references
[My edit: removal of further references to now deleted posts.
Context here was that the proportions of the car had changed and the question why there was no top down image of the Bahrain spec yet]

Mercedes themselves haven't posted any image from the top apart from the render afaik, they have no influence with regards to what any photographer does, so the only logical conlusion is that there simply isn't any photograph available.
[...]

[shamyakovic]

True, I was surprised to see the floor stay there for second test in a row... and also they have a very basic floor. I guess a new floor will solve most issues.
I am guessing they had a production issue or they made went the wrong direction with the floor and are now awaiting for new floor

The floor stay for the second test looked far less improvised than the one that appeared at the first test.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/105970/f ... cedes.html

It looks like the FIA allowed the stay which can be used legally used.
Mercedes thinking it will not be useful

For Mercedes, this is not the case. At the German team, there are doubts about the FIA's solution. An engineer from the team spoke to AMuS: '' Sometimes it helps, but sometimes it doesn't.'' This is also evident with the W13 still bouncing hard over the track.

I have a tin foil idea

Are Mercedes exaggerating their bouncing issues to convince the FIA (we know there is a meeting on this tuesday to confirm the weight issues and bouncing issues) to allow packers, dampers in the suspension again?
I could be wrong, but its a possibility

[LM10]

The floor stay for the second test looked far less improvised than the one that appeared at the first test.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/105970/f ... cedes.html

It looks like the FIA allowed the stay which can be used legally used.
Mercedes thinking it will not be useful

For Mercedes, this is not the case. At the German team, there are doubts about the FIA's solution. An engineer from the team spoke to AMuS: '' Sometimes it helps, but sometimes it doesn't.'' This is also evident with the W13 still bouncing hard over the track.

I have a tin foil idea

Are Mercedes exaggerating their bouncing issues to convince the FIA (we know there is a meeting on this tuesday to confirm the weight issues and bouncing issues) to allow packers, dampers in the suspension again?
I could be wrong, but its a possibility

As 8 (or 9?) of 10 teams need to accept a probable rule change, I doubt that would happen.

[chrisc90]

The floor stay for the second test looked far less improvised than the one that appeared at the first test.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/105970/f ... cedes.html

It looks like the FIA allowed the stay which can be used legally used.
Mercedes thinking it will not be useful

For Mercedes, this is not the case. At the German team, there are doubts about the FIA's solution. An engineer from the team spoke to AMuS: '' Sometimes it helps, but sometimes it doesn't.'' This is also evident with the W13 still bouncing hard over the track.

I have a tin foil idea

Are Mercedes exaggerating their bouncing issues to convince the FIA (we know there is a meeting on this tuesday to confirm the weight issues and bouncing issues) to allow packers, dampers in the suspension again?
I could be wrong, but its a possibility

I think that idea would be very quickly shot down by teams who have managed to make a car that doesn't bounce along the road. If a few teams can do it, then there's no reason for those teams who cant do it to improve ideas to make their car not bounce. I think it wouldnt be very good to change the rules because one team cant make a car that doesnt bounce, whilst others can.

[shamyakovic]

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/105970/f ... cedes.html

It looks like the FIA allowed the stay which can be used legally used.
Mercedes thinking it will not be useful

For Mercedes, this is not the case. At the German team, there are doubts about the FIA's solution. An engineer from the team spoke to AMuS: '' Sometimes it helps, but sometimes it doesn't.'' This is also evident with the W13 still bouncing hard over the track.

I have a tin foil idea

Are Mercedes exaggerating their bouncing issues to convince the FIA (we know there is a meeting on this tuesday to confirm the weight issues and bouncing issues) to allow packers, dampers in the suspension again?
I could be wrong, but its a possibility

As 8 (or 9?) of 10 teams need to accept a probable rule change, I doubt that would happen.

Yes its 8 /10
It could all be a give or take kind of situation.
They can argue as Merc doesn't seem to suffer with weight issues, so if others want the weight increased then merc want dampers back! Otherwise merc teams wont wont for the weight increase its just some tin foil time

[holeindalip]

Yes, the hot air cannons got increased with the new sidepods, in one of the hottest races(testing I might add). So what happens when they go to cooler tracks? I’m assuming they will have a smaller engine cover will smaller cannons and/or the gills closed off…

[El_KaPpa]

I read an article where they said that Merc are really sandbagging: "The Silver Arrows have sat mid-leaderboard throughout testing, onboard footage of the W13 does show however both drivers avoiding eighth gear at times, resulting in a significantly lower top speed compared to their rivals. The W13 will be fully unleashed next weekend at the first Grand Prix of the season, only then will the paddock understand where Mercedes are in comparison to the other teams. Mercedes have gathered plenty of data across the three day test, the W13 is proving to be impeccably reliable."

[smilodon]

I have a question.
Imagine if Mercedes wants the left side of their car with zeropod and the right side with the old one.... I know it wouldn't work, but there's my question...

Is it allowed to make an asymmetric car or they have to make the left and the right side with the same layout?

[Vyssion]

Alright...

• Comparisons, metaphors, personifications, anthropromorphisations, and all manner of other linguistic or loquatious descriptors, when aptly employed, are perfectly fine to use

• However, not all literary symbolism of the types listed above are created equal; and as such, comments which "skirt the line" without any real justification as to why the comparison need be made, serve no other purpose than to promote discord and waste my time moderating it

• The "sex" of the comparisons does not matter in this overarching blanket guidance: we are all aware of the male "penis noses" which were mocked in years past, and should there ever arise an instance where some clearly understandable female equivalent comes into the regulations, I would hope that all users on whatever side of the fence you choose to be on, would see it for what it would simply be: "a light-hearted "wtf?" design aspect with which we could all chuckle at, before sitting down to watch the races we all love"

• The report function is there to draw attention to this kind of thing; to those of you who used it correctly, thankyou... and to those of you whom sought to abuse it and the downvote system as a way to spam my inbox with double digits worth of copy-pasted report justifications, let this be a general reminder, for everyone, to allow at least "some" time for us to see it and act

• Finally, this is the internet... engaging in a comment-war with people with whom you have just reported, whether you seek to convince, out-smart, win, force, or some other adverb entirely... you will never achieve it... we all know how trolls work (as evidenced in all your many report comments) so rather than feed the cycle, break it

Back on topic.

[NicoS]

Comparing launch spec W13 to current version...
appears that a many components have been moved higher.
Launch spec quite slim


current spec: area under air intake occupies a lot more volume.



Curiously not many images available for direct comparison.

[ringo]

I'm not sure if its just good downforce. It might be weight as well. Does anyone have an order of cars by wheel base length? I've been curious to learn where the cars are different in that aspect.

The Mercedes has lived up to its recent trend of concept: efficiency and low drag over downforce. The concept is extreme and the downforce performance hinges on that floor maybe even more than the other cars with the bulk-sidepods. So, the fact that their unresolved porpoising is in their way from really activating the peak potential of that car concept is not surprising. The more the raise the ride height, perhaps the greater the ratio of downforce loss there is on their car because its even more sensitive and dependent on this than the others?

If they sort out the porpoising (and I have no doubt they will) I won't be surprised if that car supersedes the rest with margin.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/G ... 880386.jpg

I agree. The other cars may have a larger % of their downforce coming from wings and beam wing. W13 may have gambled all their chips on the floor.

[holeindalip]

Comparing launch spec W13 to current version...
appears that a many components have been moved higher.
Launch spec quite slim
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... -w13-1.jpg

current spec: area under air intake occupies a lot more volume.
https://d3cm515ijfiu6w.cloudfront.net/w ... anetf1.jpg
https://static.motor.es/fotos-noticias/ ... 7556_2.jpg

Curiously not many images available for direct comparison.

No components have been moved, they just opened the space up for the hot air cannons, post pictures of the internals that shows components have been moved.

[dialtone]

I'm not sure if its just good downforce. It might be weight as well. Does anyone have an order of cars by wheel base length? I've been curious to learn where the cars are different in that aspect.

The Mercedes has lived up to its recent trend of concept: efficiency and low drag over downforce. The concept is extreme and the downforce performance hinges on that floor maybe even more than the other cars with the bulk-sidepods. So, the fact that their unresolved porpoising is in their way from really activating the peak potential of that car concept is not surprising. The more the raise the ride height, perhaps the greater the ratio of downforce loss there is on their car because its even more sensitive and dependent on this than the others?

If they sort out the porpoising (and I have no doubt they will) I won't be surprised if that car supersedes the rest with margin.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/G ... 880386.jpg

I agree. The other cars may have a larger % of their downforce coming from wings and beam wing. W13 may have gambled all their chips on the floor.

Sorry but... do you have some pointers for this conclusion?



From this picture F1-75 has both less front wing and less rear wing than the W13.



RB-18 has perhaps somewhat slightly more rear wing, although primarily behind the centerline cooling which is less used, and less front wing.

But as a comment overall I'm not sure what benefit would be being more floor or more wing, it's a balance, on slow corners the floor will not help much, while the wings will get in the way on a straight. Any way to allocate the downforce is going to come down to a compromise with how they have other areas in the car setup like suspensions.