Lots of people were requesting I get a drawing tablet to help with my videos. You see friends, the problem isn't with the hardware, it's with the operator! Hope everyone enjoys the video!
When working with Mercedes, if another team were to unveil such a different concept would a deep analysis go into working out the benefits and or if it’s possible to go on?
Hi Kyle, thank for the great video but I was wondering if you can you do a video on technology, software and techniques F1 teams use to copy from other teams explaining, what technology is used the proces and how it is done like from photos, tracing, eg.
Your drawings are very descriptive and ive had no problem following them. You could make your annotations better looking or cleaner, but if this is the best way youve found to get your point across then i think it is very legible.
i don't think it's ugly, not that it should matter lol mercs car looked stunning i thought the last coupla years but last year it was redbull with the fastest which i'm pretty sure all the teams would have the same priorities between performance and
Can you talk about porpoising in depth some time? I understand the basics of the floor air flow getting choked but I'd like to know more about what can be done aerodynamically instead of just stiffening suspension. Do you think there's an underlying reason we've still seen teams still struggle with it in Bahrain? Nice work as always!
Floor flex. Teams weren't quute prepared for how powerful the floor would be so the ends are flexing at high speed and causing the choke. If you look at the Mercedes you can see the stats they've added to help although at the ground clearances and speeds even that isn't quite enough
@@RCmaniac667 there are a lot of things. First the front produced way more downforce. That is easier to balance. They also did gain a lot of downforce with the floor but the percentage is a lot higher now. Most part of the rear downforce was done by the diffuser and the rear wing which are not influenced by the car in the same aspect. You also didn’t habe the tunnels. The floor was quite flat from the beginning now you are allowed to get more air under the floor because thats what ground effect is for
Nope, it's not floor flex. Imagine this: the car is drawn towards the ground so much that the air that is directed beneath the floor has no where to go so it takes other routes. In this way no more air is flowing under the floor, so the car 'stalls' and there is no more ground effect and it goes up. The air now can flow under the floor and so on and so forth
Less than 2 minutes in, and you already spoke more sense than most media outlets. Why are so many people calling this a "no sidepod design"?! As you correctly mentioned, the volume is there. It has to be there! The rads have to be somewhere... CE hardware has to be somewhere... the fuel cell has to be there somewhere. The team pulled off an absolutely spectacular sidepod design concept... but the sidepods are there! :)
I really like your video but I kind of miss the basics, would be maybe a good idea to have a video explaining the general concept of aero for a F1 car. You for often use words like vortex, front wheel wake etc. Would be nice to have them all explained
@@ignls8809 I think you are talking about the spirit of the regulations. This is legal based on the letter of the regulations. Perhaps if enough teams protest then the FiA might reconsider but this is just a clever interpretation
@@CrimsonRegalia I've always said, if it is within the letter of the regulations, it is also within the "spirit" of the regs... I you meant to say something else, then use the words clearly to say it :-)
I'm just a few years into my CFD career. I loved your vids before I knew anything about this stuff, and even just knowing a little now, your level of understanding is even more impressive. I'll never be at F1 level or your level, but you keep me inspired to be an aerodynamicist and I'm always eager for your take on these amazing racecars.
"I'll never be at F1 level or your level" Why that self-limiting attitude? The level you will reach depends on the effort you put in. The question is do you want to reach that level or not?
@2:43 Out of those three vertical fins, the four outmost ones do not connect to the mirror, as you show lateron. Can't really believe such vortex generators are allowed for 2022.
Yep, because of how the rules only state that they have to be within the mirror width when looked at from the front, they should've constrained that from the side view as well
I’m also surprised they have mirror stays that are not connected to the mirror. It becomes a legal wording judgement rather than an engineering call from there.
@@skiscHans it surely breaks the spirit and also the definition of the term 'mount' then if it's in no way connected to the mirror, it's not being used to mount anything. I hope that gets clarified by Braun et all.
I’m just leaving a comment to hope that you get more revenue from RU-vid cos the information your sharing is nothing that we could have figured out ourselves. Great job!
The first reason is that they were mounted to halo, and they wanted to minimise things added to the halo. The second is that this is an entirely different set of regulations. There is a tiny amount of carryover in how they are written, and as such things that were illegal are now legal and vice versa
Let's not forget Merc are the Kings of getting people to say 'Harumph i say! But surely those are illegal?!' Before turning up to race 1 with none of them or an almost entirely different car. Mark my words, the Merc will be very different singularly, at Race 1 than any of its appearances so far.
Friends at this difficult time need your little help to the Ukrainian army. Putin will be destroyed BTC: bc1qw2qslwvmtzs7yk2x2lzfxfnsxwz5ne70xkkf9t ETH: 0x9d6917b707e268EFBCF29E37728394F20Cc34CF8 -=-=
I think you'd be surprised. It's not like they're poorly compensated, but the draw and prestige of a position like that allows them to pay significantly under market compared to what you would think. SpaceX gets away with the same type of thing. Military corporations can have the opposite effect sometimes. You can make big bucks if you don't care that you're designing things that will kill people.
or they might have a couple beers, everyone who's drunk must spit out some dumb bullshit until eventually someone said something smart or at least plausible. Voila, no sidepods W13
Aot of people still seem to be worried about porpoising. Yes the merc was bouncing a lot on the straights, but they had several runs where that wasnt the case. My guess is, that they are trying to find the sweet spot, where they have a lot of downforce without porpoising. This is still testing after all.
Your videos have been such a wealth of knowledge from the perspective of a hardcore racing fan. And likely any future race car engineers going forward. Thanks 🙏
Friends at this difficult time need your little help to the Ukrainian army. Putin will be destroyed BTC: bc1qw2qslwvmtzs7yk2x2lzfxfnsxwz5ne70xkkf9t ETH: 0x9d6917b707e268EFBCF29E37728394F20Cc34CF8 -=-=
This was great. Everything I'd assumed (and heard) about the sidepods seemed to have been wrong. It makes a ton of sense now, as well as why other Merc engined teams might not be running more unusual cooling setups. Ie its not the cooling or sidepods at all, its the down washing winglet.
best explanation of the shape of that sidepod and the mirror holder/crush structure. It looks like Merc had to compromise a lot with the shapes but they really wanted that vertical small inlets and came up with a smart design, satisfying the rules. Which means it is probably worth doing it. Far much smarter than I assumed tbh.
Great explanation. Especially the 3D model section. All the other reporting focused so much on just how slim the sidepods/inlets were but I haven’t seen anyone else mention anything about the “wing” under the mirror and how Merc is justifying it as part of the sidepod.
THIS IS OUTSTANDING TECHNICAL INFORMATION, IF THERE IS ANYTHING I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT WOULD BE THE MERCEDES CFD PROGRAM ITS RUNNING WITH ITS INTERCOOLER THERMAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. YOUR CHANNEL IS TRULY ONE OF A KIND PLEASE KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!!!!!!!!
I just want to take a second and say that you have the best editing, format, and sound of almost any RU-vidr. You get right to the point, starting with the ending. Your editing is crisp, keeping the pace up with zero introductory or parenthetical comments that could be included in the title or cover jpeg. I also love the fact that your mic gain is up suffiently so that your voice is clear and can be easily heard. Love the tech content too. From an editing standpoint I think you're consistenly the best.
Was thinking the same thing. Also, what is that panel on the cockpit side? On the Barcelona version that extended rearwards from the inside mirror stay. Now it is not connected to that, so why is it there?
The thing Mercedes are doing is basically they are interpreting the rules in a different way. Reading it at first would suggest what u are saying. But with some clever interpretation with the “trimming” of the mirror stays if it’s part of the side pod they are able to move around the legalities
When there are lengthy discussions back and forth over legality of rear view mirrors, you know there are far too many overcomplicated rules and regulations...
Hi Kyle - I enjoy your channel very much, and your style of explaining complex concepts very clearly. A request - would you consider putting together a video that explains the processes the Teams go through to take the rules, break them down to develop a concept that they think will be the best performing within those rules, and then develop all of the features and intricate details that turn that concept into the car that hits the track. It must be an incredible challenge, when the time and budgets are constrained there is so much at stake.
Pretty sure FIA released a statement that they investigated the design in CFD and found no significant effect on dirty air. Might have just been Ross brawn, and I could be wrong
The teams can protest the design. If majority agree its not in spirit of regs they can get f.i.a. to issue a change. I.m.o. the regs really wanted a certain look and required sidepod min box size with swept back. Like aston or alpha. So we shall see but merc could have issues cooling this certain places plus it may not actually be a huge advantage over Rbr design 4 example.
@@captaintoyota3171 You need 8 teams to agree. Merc has Williams, McLaren and Aston Martin as engine customers. Williams can't go against Merc ever. You need to convince the other two teams. McLaren may become the works team with Merc if/when Merc leaves the sport. So there is no way any part of Merc will be declared by the teams. Same for Ferrari.
Great detailed explanation - I’ve learnt so much of what I didn’t fully understand of my favourite sport in the last three weeks from you - so thanks 👍🏼🤝. Just have to say that my biggest surprise from the Mercedes’ new side pod design is the side crash structure. I had always assumed that it also compromised an upright section to form an upturned L shape. Thus I didn’t realise just how vulnerable the drivers actually are on either side and amazed that there hasn’t been a serious injury from something piercing the side of the chassis underneath the side crash structure. It’s also a testament to how strong they are when thinking about all the accidents similar to Verstappen’s 2021 Silverstone one; the forces at work and it withstanding them is quite something. 🤯🤯
While I can see it passes the technical rules, and side impact tests - these are focused on the driver of that car. What do you think about safety to other cars and drivers? It looks like a big sharp pole that could pierce a tyre, or worse the halo protection in a collision scenario.
It doesn't look to me that it goes above the rest of the bodywork, so in order for it to present a special safety concern the car would have to be struck while already off the ground. It also doesn't extend past the edge of the floor, so risk to tires only really presents in collisions that already present a serious risk of tire puncture, and a side impact that would bring it into range of a drivers head would have to get through a significant amount of the crash structures of both cars. Certainly looks hazardous at a glance, but I don't think it's a meaningful danger all things considered.
All cars have the same impact structure sticking out like this. It's just hidden behind sidepods. But the sidepods just crumple when hit so really it seems like it'd be no difference?
I keep checking this channel to see if he's uploaded anything about it but he never does. Maybe he can't or doesn't want to for various reasons, could be complicated considering he worked for Mercedes AMG.
You should make a video explaining more in depth about the causes of porpoising and how it can be avoided without losing much downforce. It's pretty interesting from an engineering point of view.
That was very much appreciated, especially in light of that the F1 channel puts up dunderheads on "tech" presentations who think pointing out trivial differences in looks is technical description. One of them recently remarked on the Merc, presuming the inlet is smaller, "I don't know how they are going to get sufficient air into the engine." That's not all they don't know. They ought to have you on, but I'm subscribing here today.
Great video and content! I have a question though: if I remember correctly, in some other analysis videos you mentioned how the shape of more conventional side pods would create an outwash that pushes the flows away from the rear tires. In this new design it looks like this is not possible given the narrow section of the car body: isn't this a drawback of this interpretation? Or rather, the vortices spun by the winglet they introduced in place of the pod are sufficient to limit this adverse side-effect? Thanks again for sharing your expertise, your channel is amazing!
Can you do a video explaining how the flow vis paint works. Or really, what information the teams get from using it. Perhaps you can bring up pictures of different cars that are using it, and tell us what info you’d derive from it.
I don't really understand how the "mirror stays" sticking up but not connecting to the mirrors at all are still defined as mirror stays. They exist purely to generate vortices and outwash right?
Hi Kyle, great series you did on the car launches. Really interesting in depth analysis into all of the cars. Can you do a video on the issues that merc are currently having? What they are doing to try and fix them? What the updates they have brought were attempting to solve and then why they don't seem to be able to get on top of the issues? Cheers
I'm actually surprised that Merc manage to put some vertical vanes branded as "mirror mounts" and body canards in front of the sidepod inlet. I'm pretty sure FIA will try to clean these devices since the regulation is supposed to get rid of these small vortex generators
"Downwashing winglet".. which means that if not strictly illegal per tech regs, it is illegal when it comes to the spirit of the regs. The crash structure member has to be neutral, as does the mirror. Those rules are stronger than tech regs, which FIA has said they WILL change tech regs if teams find solutions that break the spirit or the regs. edit: and the crossection requirements.. that is clever but again, not what the rules intended. I am very surprised FIA let this pass, it is clearly in violation of several regs, not in their tech section but... spirit of them. To merc: it was fun while it lasted.. or was it? Would not be the first time FIA gives Merc a free pass. I would hate it happen again, this is CLEARLY not a neutral aero part but.. a downwashing winglet.
F1 engineers don't care about spirit, just if it's legal in the rules. If it's legal, they'll run it until it gets banned cause the FIA hates innovation
@@nbain66 it is, indeed, stupid if he does that. F1 has always been about innovation and finding loopholes in the rules and using them to team's advantage. They've already restricted a large portion of F1. If they keep doing it, this sport will soon become boring or we will have a spec car sport.
Did no one at Merc tell you that you pronounce chassis wrong? Its not a chazzis my guy. Nah but in all seriousness love your vids! When ever I see a new design to the cars you are the first person I think of and I cannot wait to see your interpretation of the designs!
Been eagerly awaiting this video! Probably better than any breakdowns done by other channels. Didn't even miss F1's Tech Talk during all this time since this more than filled that gap. Thanks for explaining how the new Merc design is rather questionable in legality, I don't think anyone's really clarified that yet to the rest of us. It's really innovative stuff, now to see if they'll tighten up the rules around it in the future, or if it's even worth it to begin with.
Yep the down washing wing is the side pod and the mirror stay doesn't have to theoretically connect the mirror to the chassis but follow a radius of the defined chassis mirror stay.
I really hope the FIA starts lobbing off these little winglets. The 2022 concept looked so sleek and elegant, but now it looks like this era will start with winglet porcupine cars.
Question about the floors.. they've added vanes, flaps, etc, to generate vortexs.... but is slats to act like dynamic openings with flexi carbon to control the ground effect so it dynamically changes the effectiveness of the speed based on the low pressure under the floor..
The problem I see for a smaller air intake is when its behind a car that it can't pass its temp will then rise, same with if you have a safety car for three or more laps at low speed when the air intake will be drastically reduced.
Then again, there is a reason why they went for this knowing that they might not be the fastest car, and like Kyle said, it still has roughly the same area of intake
I just want to say how incredible your videos are. It's really interesting to understand a bit more about the teams intent with their designs and in particular how they've had to work within the rules
Everyone and their mother is throwing out a porpoising video and I'm just waiting for Kyle to drop his 2h deep dive on longitudinal stability that explains porpoising, its fixes, its benefits, and how much breakfast it had for dinner
So much better than the other explanations I've found. Only now noticed though (despite watching a lot of vids here) that Kyle pronounces chassis as shazzy. Tickled me every time, once I'd noticed :D
@@cmw5911 I say shasee. I know a tech YT'er who pronounces is shasis (like cis gendered). It's all pronunciation potaytoe/potahtoe? Just as words are made up.
hey pretty cool series of videos about the new aero concepts. Pretty interesting even for complete beginners like me :D. I would love to see some content about different phenomena like outwash, downwash, the advantages of vortexes etc. Thanks very much :)
Super content & thanks for the video. 2 questions sir 1) on the mirror winglet. As explained around @ 8:20, the couple of millimeter slot on the winglet that acts as Side impact protector. Wont this slot make the structure weak or Merc would have to reinforce this piece to bring in Stiffness. right ? 2) how does a this stand alone Winglet structure with large overhang from body help to protect driver in case of side impact ; section height is too small & coupled with the under-side slot for regulation this makes it weak. Please comment your inferences. Thank you
The winglet itself IS NOT the side impact structure! The side impact structure is a standardised part that's the same on all of the cars. On the Merc - instead of being shrouded by the sidepod - it sits inside of that winglet. The winglet itself is just bodywork, and has nothing to do with the actual impact structure, therefore you can easily have a slot there without having to worry about crash safety.
This is the first of your videos that I have watched. Great work mate, love learning more about these changes / regulations from someone who has lived them.
Question... How can Merc honestly suggest that the wing that supports the mirror as a "side pod"? Especially when this geometry is not physically connected to the minimalist sidepod setup for cooling. The entire existence of a "sidepod" is to store radiators for cooling. That side wing does nothing of the sort and is obviously an aerodynamic piece. Winglets are technically banned and what i don't understand is why this would not be considered as one. I think that bit is out of bounds. I do find the minimalist sidepod design interesting and within bounds. Time will tell if it works as it may make the car narrower down low... But it does look like mercs engine cover is wider. Wider frontal area up higher (alpine last year). Meaning more cooling is taking place higher by the engine therefore raising the CG. Interesting route merc went.
Sir,first i want to say i admire ur work a lot and it is so use full and suggest ur channel to number student so that they can also learn such things. I want to do request to make a video on *Ground Effect* and it's calculation, analysis or any thing that give clarity abyit
I'd appreciate feedback; 1. The whole car because of this design approach is narrower particularly at the entry to the side pod area, will this potentially mean less drag compared to the boxy, wide sidepod designs of pretty much all other teams? 2. If that's the case are Merc are going particularly for high straightline speed/acceleration which could be useful in an era where the regs are designed to make 'following' easier? 3. The package of the guts of this car seem insanely compressed, must have take alot of fundamental work over a long period of time and thus if this works for merc it will be virtually impossible to copy (at least this season). 4. If merc wanted to switch to a boxy/large sidepod which was basically empty but to suit aero, they could bolt on whatever they want to the sides of the car later down the line (although this to me would suggest their design principal hasn't worked as well as they thought so I see it as unlikely). 5. Total punt, this week they understand the car better having collected data, that plus the engine turned up which I assume is a rocket means they could romp away?
To me, it is looking like another chapter of Mercedes owning the podium again, with every other team chasing them down, with the same boring outcome! I really hope I'm wrong, and only time will tell. No team is showing their complete hand, so they won't stand out in the crowd, but all the attention to the Merc tells you a lot. Here's to a Great Racing season🍻🍻
PLEASE do an NHRA Top Fuel and Funnycar. Very little has changed in TF, but not so in FC. New Supra body & obvious hood changes on John Force cars. From watching your stuff you’d have a field day with NHRA.
Is there a reason why preventing porpoising isn't as simple as physically preventing the suspension from compressing so far that the suction is broken?
I came to similar conclusions in terms of legality however, regarding the SIS being potentially open underneath, it says the SIS must be fully enclosed so my interpretation was that the trailing edge ends within RV-COKE not RV-SPOD which again seems illegal but maybe possible? The big one I don't get is the two forward canards - these cannot be SPOD so they have to be chassis?
Yeah i duno. The mirrors are suspect too as those stick ups do not connect. I really hope merc made a not so great call. Being no one else did this its either genius or just cool looking not best way
