In reply to Keith Tanner :
A sputterer's gonna sputter.
NY Nick said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
A sputterer's gonna sputter.
And while I absolutely cannot stand Horner... That website is an F1 muckracker and his comments were about the mirror mounts being literal wings and had nothing to do with the sidepods, to which he does have a point. That said, I hope RB comes DFL this year ugh.
Keith Tanner said:Maybe the first sidepods were just to screw with everyone else and give themselves another 1-2 race head start in the arms race.
I can't wait to see what that Mercedes looks like on video. I've only seen stills so far.
Kind of like Button's title in 2009. He won 6 of the first 7 races before everyone else developed their own design and he didn't win again the rest of the season and only had two more podiums. But built up such a lead and remained decent enough, he still got the WDC. .
Javelin said:NY Nick said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
A sputterer's gonna sputter.
And while I absolutely cannot stand Horner... That website is an F1 muckracker and his comments were about the mirror mounts being literal wings and had nothing to do with the sidepods, to which he does have a point. That said, I hope RB comes DFL this year ugh.
If they were used as wings or flow correctors, that's one thing. If they were neutral to the air, that would be more legal. And with the CAD requirements these days, I'd wager a bet that the FIA has that data.
In this case, I also think that Red Bull and Newey are mad they didn't think of it. They are "supposed" to be the aero gurus, in spite of Mercedes success over the entire last vehicle time.
That being said, if RBR wants to spend Newey's and Horner's energy on Mercedes' car, I'm ok with that.
I read that at the first test, under the Mercedes skin, was everything in the same spot it is for the new sidepods. Obviously, Mercedes did that to distract everyone from what they were really working on. That is an incredibly clever bunch over there at Mercedes and they know how to think outside the box (think of DAS). That car is so narrow, it must have a ton of air making it cleanly to the rear of the car. I just love that RB with the "greatest aero genius of all time" didn't think of it and to add insult to injury, the crash structure which Mercedes now uses as a wing, is built by Red Bull Technologies :0 It will not be easy for any other team to copy the zeropod design, everything has to change, including the radiators, intercoolers and exhaust.
Did you see that a documentary on Lewis Hamilton was just announced? It will be on Apple+ and some dude name Bruckheimer is involved
In reply to loosecannon :
Hopefully the rest of the teams don't cry foul on the merc,talking about the "spirit of the rules" is crap.
Either its legal or it isn't as the rules are written.
alfadriver said:Javelin said:NY Nick said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
A sputterer's gonna sputter.
And while I absolutely cannot stand Horner... That website is an F1 muckracker and his comments were about the mirror mounts being literal wings and had nothing to do with the sidepods, to which he does have a point. That said, I hope RB comes DFL this year ugh.
If they were used as wings or flow correctors, that's one thing. If they were neutral to the air, that would be more legal. And with the CAD requirements these days, I'd wager a bet that the FIA has that data.
In this case, I also think that Red Bull and Newey are mad they didn't think of it. They are "supposed" to be the aero gurus, in spite of Mercedes success over the entire last vehicle time.
That being said, if RBR wants to spend Newey's and Horner's energy on Mercedes' car, I'm ok with that.
Did you see the W13? Those are wings...
Shoot they even have vortex generators on them.
Haven't we been through "mirrors as wings" before in the past couple of years? I want to say it was on a Ferrari?
Hats off to the Haas crew for not only getting their car on the track, but being able to say what session they'd be able to hit given a certain amount of delay on their equipment. An F1 pit is a really complicated construction and knowing exactly how long it would take to build up, extract the car, prep the car, get it warmed up, get all the data systems online, etc is pretty impressive.
In reply to Javelin :
I had not. Interesting interpretation of the rules. I did see that Brawn admitted that this was not anticipated as an interpretation.
Still, the idea that this is some kind of surprise to the FIA isn't true- just like DAS wasn't. It's a shock to the other teams.
Even RB has to concede the Mercedes is legal https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-mercedes-f1-sidepods-are-extreme-but-legal/8899472/
If the process is as described (and Toto said as much) it's strange that they would have said otherwise.
Blast from the past? Mercedes T80 land speed car
I checked out preseason testing day 2 and they show Ocon going wide in a turn, I thought weird is it raining? Nope there is a sandstorm, it is dark line rain and there was a huge sand rooster tail coming off the car.
In reply to alfadriver :
Again, you're getting the side pods (the "not anticipated" but totally legal part) and the mirror wings (definitely illegal) confused.
In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :
It's not the side pods that are the problem, it's the mirror wings. The regs are very clear on mirror attachments and that wing is very illegal. Nobody is protesting the actual sidepods (which are neat as hell).
In reply to Javelin :
I find it hard to fathom that Mercedes would have shared data with the FIA on the sidepods but not the mirror wings, i'm with alfadriver on this one. Brawn said their interpretation of the regs was not anticipated, not that it was not legal.
EDIT: F1 Technical chief Pat Symonds take on the W13:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-f1-car-borrows-a-few-tricks-from-rocket-technology/8894802/
Anyone else see the highlight of Fernando and Lance on track together? I saw it on instagram so I don't know how to link it here. Looks promising for some decent racing this year.
In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :
Did you read the article? Not one mention of the mirror wings.
EDIT - Like 6 articles earlier explaining what the issue is: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-spaceship-mirrors-prompt-ferrari-calls-for-f1-rules-clampdown/8892201/
In reply to Javelin :
Yes, did you? From the article
The sidepods and cooling concept aside, Symonds suggested that nothing else on the W13 had caught his eye.
"I think the rest of it looks dare I say reasonably conventional, if there's such a thing as conventional. The front wing treatment, very much what we expected to see.
Even in the article you quote, while Binotto has questions about the mirrors, he does not say they are illegal. “I'm not arguing [against] the idea. I think they found a solution that is interesting, but I think in the spirit of what we intend to do, certainly for the future, it is something that we need to discuss.”
And from that same article you posted
The two-piece mirror body that formed part of that design have been on the cars since 2017. They serve as an interesting aerodynamic function that many of the teams have picked up on since and have reworked into their 2022 designs.
This is a function of how the regulations have been written, with teams cleverly readapting what is defined as the ‘mirror stalk’ within the regulations.
The two most interesting designs in this respect are the AlphaTauri and Mercedes designs, both of which have a series of vortex generators mounted on the outer edge of the sidepod to help with controlling the airflow in that region in combination with the mirrors.
EDIT: And, while it may look like a wing, based on the contour from this angle, it may offer no discernable aerodynamic benefit other than forcing air towards the smaller sidepod opening. That profile does not look to support downforce generation, in any event, the FIA has the CAD drawings and aero numbers. If it was illegal under the current rules intrepretation, they would have told Mercedes so. They may make it illegal in the future (like the DAS system) but for now, it isn't.
It's amazing how critical aero is to these cars. They're just so fast and yet are handicapped with open wheels and cockpits. The teams will do anything they can to find a fraction of a percentage. It's fascinating.
And then two drivers bump each other and carbon goes flying off :)
Javelin said:In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :
It's not the side pods that are the problem, it's the mirror wings. The regs are very clear on mirror attachments and that wing is very illegal. Nobody is protesting the actual sidepods (which are neat as hell).
Isn't the regulation something like " you can't use the mirror mounting as an aero device"?
I see this as using an aero / crash structure device to mount the mirrors.
The difference is that I believe it would be legal as a standalone device and mount the mirrors elsewhere if they can't be mounted TO an aero device.
Small wording / thought difference, huge impact to legality.
Keith Tanner said:It's amazing how critical aero is to these cars. They're just so fast and yet are handicapped with open wheels and cockpits. The teams will do anything they can to find a fraction of a percentage. It's fascinating.
And then two drivers bump each other and carbon goes flying off :)
And then set fast lap....
wvumtnbkr said:Keith Tanner said:It's amazing how critical aero is to these cars. They're just so fast and yet are handicapped with open wheels and cockpits. The teams will do anything they can to find a fraction of a percentage. It's fascinating.
And then two drivers bump each other and carbon goes flying off :)
And then set fast lap....
Or go 2s/lap slower with no visible damage.
Is it me or does the first thing that came to mind for me was as much about driver safety. Looking at those big air flow diverters and all I can think of is diving into turn 1 and where in prior years, they may hit the barge board, Now they hit all of that and it sends a mess of carbon everywhere either in a single piece or multiple pieces flying up into the air.
I could be completely off base but I see that sitting on the track at some point during the weekend more often than not.
Looked up what part of the issue was- and it's pretty clear that the teams don't actually think that the Mercedes design is illegal. What they have issues with is the possible arms race with the clever idea that Mercedes did.
Also, the mirror is mounted on the upper side impact structure. So those little vanes on the sides not attached to the mirror are not part of the mirror rules.
Again, the entire development process for all of the teams is overseen by the FIA. So the interpretation of the rules had to be reviewed, just like DAS was- which was legal for that season.
I expect that the rules will be clarified at some point regarding the unique designs.
Dany Ric is sick. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ricciardo-tests-positive-for-covid-19-will-miss-final-f1-test-day/8906117
No testing for him this weekend but he should be ok for the race..
The drivers yesterday were talking about the continuation of testing and introducing new bits during the season. I still don't understand how that will work with the CAP. I would imagine that would still want to test with the wind tunnel?
You'll need to log in to post.
