[Team] 2022 Car Launch and Testing Thread

[dcp2685]

Why do i feel it's going to be another mercedes romp this year?

[crmalcolm]

I am reading an interesting proposal on why the Mercedes may have to be accepted:

There is a lot of variation across the grid in terms of sidepod design. AM with large pods, Williams with shrink wrapped ones and Ferrari with side pods shaped like Eau Rouge & Raidillon etc.

The fact there doesn't appear to be one prescribed route to these suggests a lot of interpretation is allowed, if not, surely they would all look very similar?

[chillibowl]

Agree with that thinking and that if it doesn’t increase the wake turbulence for those behind then it would seem to comply with the spirit of the rules as well?

That it may force teams down a spending hole might be a different argument against…but that would suggest the idea works.

And if it works then they should be rewarded as they chose to pursue a creative solution while, presumably, not spending on another area.

This may prove an interesting challenge to the logic of the budget cap.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Sky Sports F1 briefly interviewed Horner regarding the Mercedes sidepods, or lack of them.


https://www.skysports.com/watch/vide...ew-merc-design

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Which bit are they saying is illegal, the sticky-out wings near the mirrors?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Ah ok, so are they claiming the outer edge of the wing is the outer portion of the crash structure?

As others have pointed out. This wing and mirror wrap the upper side impact structure.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Having seen the photos, I see what is meant by no sidepods.

So in general what they have done is what I expected (small, but not "no sidepods"). Outside of the creativity on what they did with the upper side impact structure (which I didn't see coming). Other teams have incorporated the upper one as part of their sidepod inlets and then have tightly wrapped the bodywork around the bottom.

Mercedes has exposed the top one, but wrapped it in a wing and have done like everyone else on the bottom. And to do this that have moved more cooling to the center of the car (if you look at W13 vs W13B side by side, you can see the center has bulged a bit). Other have similar solutions (more central and less in the sidepods with minimal sidepods), but not to this level.

I have no doubt FIA/F1 didn't expect this solution (wrapping the upper side impact in a wing). But I also think it would be some weirdly worded regulations to ban this. I think if they felt this was a run away solution, they would not allow it to happen. Even if it fits the rules as written today.

Originally Posted by dcp2685

Why do i feel it's going to be another mercedes romp this year?

Time will tell. Frankly, while it is out of the box, who knows if it really is the right solution.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The fact there doesn't appear to be one prescribed route to these suggests a lot of interpretation is allowed, if not, surely they would all look very similar?

There is an infinite number of solutions here even if the regulations are relatively tight. Teams have gravitated into a few different general "groups" (large flowing sidepods, tight sidepods with more central cooling, etc.) with some being quite radically different from each other. It is highly unlikely that they all will perform similarly and there will be consolidation/gravitation toward a single "type" of solution as teams decide which style they think actually works best.

It should be no surprise that we may see significant on track performance differences this season. I think teams will develop their solutions and/or conform to what they think works best (if they think the other guy is doing a better job) this season as much as their budgets allow. I expect to see the cars look more alike next season. My 2 cents.

Richard

[Sodemo]

At this rate they will just be racing a carbon floor and a tube on top of it the way the bodywork keeps shrinking, and they vetoed shorter wheelbase cars because of "packaging" problems - that's a laugh.

[billy bleach]

Still could be worse nobody is moaning about the livery

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by dcp2685

Why do i feel it's going to be another mercedes romp this year?

Im really not that sure. watching testing the car just doesnt seem to handle well in low speed corners. the Ferrari and Mclaren seem best all around so far.

Times are meaningless at this stage, but visually both those cars seem nice to drive from the outside.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I would expect it to be anything that they'd not already thought of!

underrated comment!

i am reminded of how RB/Newey's responded to the double diffuser that his design didn't have and (iirc) also how the problem was made worse because the DD concept was not initially compatible because of their reintroduction of a pull rod suspension set up.

but over the course of the season RB made enough adjustments to their car that by seasons end they where right there and set up beautifully for the next several seasons as a result.

so if they cant have it banned, i have hope that they will again find an equally clever solutions to overcome any advantage the Merc solution may provide.

again, those were different times with much more money to play around with.

but for my money i want to see them try and work it back (plus 5 more races then compared to 2009 so more time to do it in). this is exactly the type of contest i wish to witness.

[Aysedasi]

I think we should all congratulate Mercedes on succeeding in getting Little Jack nicely uptight before the season has even started.......

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think we should all congratulate Mercedes on succeeding in getting Little Jack nicely uptight before the season has even started.......

What makes me smile is that on launch, everyone was applauding the Aston and Ferrari for their side pods which are some of the biggest out there. Now merc have gone for size zero pods all of a sudden people are getting their knickers in a twist fearing that it’s going to be the best solution.

In reality no one has a damn clue which is best until qualifying.

It’s a fun test season

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Still could be worse nobody is moaning about the livery

It is a naff shade of silver though

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

What makes me smile is that on launch, everyone was applauding the Aston and Ferrari for their side pods which are some of the biggest out there. Now merc have gone for size zero pods all of a sudden people are getting their knickers in a twist fearing that it’s going to be the best solution.

In reality no one has a damn clue which is best until qualifying.

It’s a fun test season

Exactly. What looks like slick solutions may or may not work in the end. I am going to be glued to the TV for Bahrain qualifying!

Richard

[chillibowl]

indeed it is just testing but when was the last time a team was truly able to hide their form in the (last) winter test? sure some may sandbag and not reveal their true pace but the other teams, pundits, and even us here have gotten pretty good at inferring from the length of their runs, their tire choices etc what the pecking order will be.

anyways, the first race is literally next weekend so what would even be the point of sandbagging? play around a bit sure, try out all the compounds of course, but by Saturday i expect these cars to be dialed in for the first race no?

what we cant actually know is how well any given team will develop over the course of the season and to be fair we wont know about that after the first quali session either.

im excited because for me, this is basically already the first race of the season!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

indeed it is just testing but when was the last time a team was truly able to hide their form in the (last) winter test? sure some may sandbag and not reveal their true pace but the other teams, pundits, and even us here have gotten pretty good at inferring from the length of their runs, their tire choices etc what the pecking order will be.

No doubts there will be lots of number crunching to try to extract true pace out of the testing times. I will leave that up to others more skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to understanding data from pre-season testing! I think when looked at it in aggregate there might be something to see. But then again, you might have teams running the entire test using reduced power, etc. just to really hide their cards.

I think in the past, it was always a good idea to see which teams were able to get in lots of laps. That usually speaks to reliability. And that still matters. If your car is reliable out of the box, then you can focus on your testing program vs. spending hours chasing down stuff like oil leaks and loosing valuable track time.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

I predict that today a lot of CAD jockeys will have been creating their best guess of something extremely similar allied to their own chassis.tonight a selection of 3D printers will be whirring and late tomorrow/Saturday morning some wind tunnels will be humming.If its a good idea,the first update kits of the season will follow on as soon as the ability of the chassis to pass the structural tests required to fit the new system are satisfied.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

At this rate they will just be racing a carbon floor and a tube on top of it the way the bodywork keeps shrinking

Everything old is new. Shaping the car as a tube or cigar with no protrusions was certainly the thinking to minimise drag at the time I believe.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There is mandated side impact structures that are already exposed via bodywork bumps in some of the current tight designs. Those will always be there. It makes little sense to expose those significantly outside of the bodywork.

Mercedes says "hold my beer", eh?

The impact structures have to be enclosed in bodywork of some sort, but certainly it doesn't say it has to be the "main" bodywork.

13.5.1 (b) The two side impact structures must be fully enclosed by bodywork, and hence no part of them should be exposed to the external air stream.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2021-02-19.pdf

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

This crash structure seems to be the 'wing' that Red Bull are upset about.

[Sodemo]

I do wonder what the build weight is of these cars. I presume they are built quite underweight and are then ballasted up like other racing cars? With that expectation in mind, I wonder what weight the cars are built to?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I do wonder what the build weight is of these cars. I presume they are built quite underweight and are then ballasted up like other racing cars? With that expectation in mind, I wonder what weight the cars are built to?

The current cars are all at weight or overweight. This season has added:

• about ~21 kg of structural reinforcement requirements to the chassis
• about ~17kg in heavier wheels and tyres
• wheel covers about 1 kg

The original increase in minimum weight rule was from 752kg to 795kg, but this was apparently insufficient. Therefore between Barcelona and Bahrain, the FIA has agreed to further increase the minimum weight from 795kg to 798kg at the request of the teams.

The Alfa Romeo was underweight by some kilos at Barcelona but was breaking all the time and damaging the bodywork, everyone else was anywhere from 3kg to 10 kg overweight, i.e., 798kg to 805kg, inclusive of 80kg driver requirement.

Mercedes would be 3.5-4 kg overweight, Ferrari would be in the "fork" between 5 and 10 kg, with Red Bull close to the highest value. The only F1 2022 that could afford ballast was Alfa Romeo thanks to the use of an ultra-light base which, however, proved too fragile. With the C42 that must be strengthened, it is legitimate to expect a minimum weight increase...

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...cordo/8725227/

https://the-race.com/formula-1/why-w...teams-in-2022/

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/2...rease/8873869/

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I predict that today a lot of CAD jockeys will have been creating their best guess of something extremely similar allied to their own chassis.tonight a selection of 3D printers will be whirring and late tomorrow/Saturday morning some wind tunnels will be humming.If its a good idea,the first update kits of the season will follow on as soon as the ability of the chassis to pass the structural tests required to fit the new system are satisfied.

just a side thought really and probably a silly one at that...

still not sure all the ins and outs of the budget cap but would flying out extra parts (outside of the FOM/FIA arranged transport) count against the budget cap?

if so then surely there is an advantage to being able to produce parts while away from home base. with the advent of 3d printing how much can a team fabricate on location? do modern f1 teams have the ability to carry out some small part of the manufacturing process trackside?

obviously i dont want to underestimate the size and multitude of machines required to make parts but would this be an area teams could find an advantage in?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Mercedes says "hold my beer", eh?

Yeah, I have to eat my words on that one. I was thinking... What is the benefit of having them stick out out there in the wind? Mercedes said "a wing". Frankly, I think if they didn't have to have the crash structure, they would have just had something smaller for the mirror. But they couldn't delete the side impacts structure, and had to do something, so they made used of it.

I do wonder if we will see some wording in 2023 that prevents this solution next year? Something just doesn't feel quite right about having that side impact structure hanging out there like it does. But maybe it's no different than if it was covered in a light skin for the sidepod inlet like everyone else does?

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Yeah, I have to eat my words on that one. I was thinking... What is the benefit of having them stick out out there in the wind? Mercedes said "a wing". Frankly, I think if they didn't have to have the crash structure, they would have just had something smaller for the mirror. But they couldn't delete the side impacts structure, and had to do something, so they made used of it.

I do wonder if we will see some wording in 2023 that prevents this solution next year? Something just doesn't feel quite right about having that side impact structure hanging out there like it does. But maybe it's no different than if it was covered in a light skin for the sidepod inlet like everyone else does?

Richard

Yeah, it seems like every other team went with 'how do we incorporate the impact elements into our design', whilst mercedes went with 'let's go with our design, and incorporate the impact elements later'.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Yeah, I have to eat my words on that one. I was thinking... What is the benefit of having them stick out out there in the wind? Mercedes said "a wing". Frankly, I think if they didn't have to have the crash structure, they would have just had something smaller for the mirror. But they couldn't delete the side impacts structure, and had to do something, so they made used of it.

I do wonder if we will see some wording in 2023 that prevents this solution next year? Something just doesn't feel quite right about having that side impact structure hanging out there like it does. But maybe it's no different than if it was covered in a light skin for the sidepod inlet like everyone else does?

Richard

I get where you’re coming from with the crash structure ‘sticking out’, however in reality the sidepods are just a thin covering of carbon fibre so the side impact structure are often exposed in a heavy crash. It’s also nothing unusual, on previous gen formula E cars the SIPS were also exposed and used as ‘wings’

Check out ScarbsTech Twitter earlier today for an explaination

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

just a side thought really and probably a silly one at that...

still not sure all the ins and outs of the budget cap but would flying out extra parts (outside of the FOM/FIA arranged transport) count against the budget cap?

if so then surely there is an advantage to being able to produce parts while away from home base. with the advent of 3d printing how much can a team fabricate on location? do modern f1 teams have the ability to carry out some small part of the manufacturing process trackside?

obviously i dont want to underestimate the size and multitude of machines required to make parts but would this be an area teams could find an advantage in?

I would be amazed if any of the teams did not have the ability to create quite a range of parts in the field.I would expect it to stop short of producing prototypes of components that are required to pass structural tests however.Turning,milling,welding and sheetmetal machinery has been in transporters for a very long time and 3D printers arrived several years ago.I don't think they are as capable as the 3D printers that create the elements of the halo or that the post printing heat treatment is feasible.