How do the Mercedes Sidepods Work? - Aerodynamic Analysis

[@KYLEENGINEERS]

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!

[@MJTbreww]

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?

[@rubenboni7702]

…making this a PICNIC issue … 🙃

[@antoniok4735]

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.

[@MSAMultimedia]

Maybe hire a designer or ilustrator

[@imjstcl]

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.

[@lukehannanmc]

This is another amazing video mate. You make complex things simple and as an F1 lover and aeronautics amateur (yet enthusiast) I’m learning lots 🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@samghost13]

FIA has to Bann that! It is Ugly and not in the spirit of the new Car Design

[@houdenlukasz]

@@samghost13 that is what horner said

[@chili1461]

@@samghost13 it’s ugly but f1 should be about innovation

[@braveheart4603]

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

[@juliankandlhofer7553]

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!

[@motojojo_]

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]

Also why that was not an issue in previous cars since underfloor downforce was quite substantial already?

[@Infiltator2]

@@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

[@AdrianTuhut]

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

[@Benisuber1]

@@AdrianTuhut "stalling" was the best way I've heard it described.

[@leoa4c]

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! :)

[@canaans1]

Id be so happy to a video of you designing aero for f1 with no rules. Just pure performance.

[@ml267]

This is exactly the video I wanted to see. A clear explanation of what the rules are and how this design meets them. Excellent work

[@HerrPoopschitz]

Amen

[@MattRaeburn93]

Can just hear Toto now: "No Kylie! NO!" Jokes aside, great video. Was really looking forward to this one!

[@ElSwissCanardo]

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

[@saftschubse9575]

A Vortex is turbulant air which "Spins". And Front weel wake is the dirty turbulent air wich is created by the spinning weel.

[@Slaeowulf]

This is an analysis of a real car, not a basic lesson in aerodynamics.

[@FrederikLenius]

He does have some really good videos explaining all this stuff as well. I think there is a playlist on his channel with more basic F1 aero videos.

[@Stefano-qv6ro]

he can't explain basics in every video he does mate....

[@Bzorlan]

I don't miss anything. These have been his best videos. There are loads of videos on KZbin explaining the basics

[@literallyhuman5990]

I totally didn't expect you'll make a video about the "no sidepods" It's a surprise and I welcome that. I loved it.

[@lukyboi_4450]

the anti sidepod car lol

[@CuttingEdgeRetro]

How likely are you to get a "friendly" phone call from Toto asking you to chill on the Merc details XD

[@ibrahimalatrash8008]

Looks like Extremely unlikely

[@pudds]

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.

[@buzzbuzzard3809]

"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?

[@lovevwltd7114]

It’s fantastic to get a real expert view of these changes. I’m so happy to have found your channel.

[@RiotBike]

I’m just leaving a comment to hope that you get more revenue from KZbin cos the information your sharing is nothing that we could have figured out ourselves. Great job!

[@mmeddings5980]

Yay! Been waiting for this

[@brendanrogers1990]

Literally checked your channel 4 or 5 times over the last 24hrs waiting for this 🤣

[@on_wheels_80]

@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.

[@NoTraceFound]

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

[@skiscHans]

@@NoTraceFound Probably also a limit in that direction. But apparently no where stated that a mirror mount should connect to the mirror...

[@jeltesteur8286]

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.

[@charliedesperado8262]

@@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.

[@Barcodez5555]

@@charliedesperado8262 you mean the guy who worked at merc before he worked for F1? lol

[@donbert]

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.

[@pf6797]

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 🙏

[@Myzon777]

Friends at this difficult time need your little help to the Ukrainian army. Putin will be destroyed BTC: bc1qw2qslwvmtzs7yk2x2lzfxfnsxwz5ne70xkkf9t ETH: 0x9d6917b707e268EFBCF29E37728394F20Cc34CF8 -=-=

[@cmfrtblynmb02]

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.

[@JakobusVdL]

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.

[@pizzaboi34]

When kyle starts drawing on the image, it feels like i'm back in the 90s drawing in mspaint.

[@8power0]

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 !!!!!!!!!

[@CrimsonRegalia]

That is probably the strongest mirror stay in F1 history… 😂… It is literally held up by the side crash structure.

[@ignls8809]

The problem is not safety, but the rules state that you can not have aerodynamic appendix other than front and rear wing

[@HMHacki]

@@ignls8809 so what is the entire rest of any modern f1 car?

[@CrimsonRegalia]

@@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

[@elianselmi4099]

@@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 :-)

[@zakmuriu2068]

@@CrimsonRegalia doubt merc will have much problems with being protested since they have many customer teams

[@uncb9628]

OMG, those Mercedes engineers must be so very very very well compensated. The sanity that must be sacrificed to think that far out of the box?

[@sntslilhlpr6601]

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.

[@fusune7465]

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

[@Dont14-r4k]

@@fusune7465 *vertical sidepods

[@notastone4832]

@@sntslilhlpr6601 MIC is really good at spreading the $$$ around so nobody wants to end the gravy train lol.

[@johnsmith1474]

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.

[@nawles1]

You're channel is what the world needs! I agree, they're not zero pods!

[@KalsonJang]

I was waiting for this video! So fun to hear your thoughts on how it's legal and why it works!

[@MIK33EY]

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. 🤯🤯

[@raytrevor1]

Yes, I'm also surprised by the shape of the crash structure. It appears to offer very limited protection.

[@jackmace07]

Wanting to be an F1 engineer myself in the future this video really goes in depth to a lot of things I'd have never even noticed, top quality!

[@Niels4354]

Excellent commentary grounded in knowledge instead of most ignorant opinions by so-called ' experts'...

[@russn4933]

I just want to take a second and say that you have the best editing, format, and sound of almost any KZbinr. 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.

[@Multiversal_Rift]

9:00 you said "generally" so that means there are exceptions, the only exception I can think of are gurney flaps, are there any others?

[@Icewolf2oo3]

Didn't Ferrari have their halo mirror winglets outlawed after one race, don't see why the winglets being used in this way would be legal.

[@RRR30389]

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

[@realMaverickBuckley]

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.

[@LyamEnea]

Anything that isn't merc is illegal...

[@Myzon777]

Friends at this difficult time need your little help to the Ukrainian army. Putin will be destroyed BTC: bc1qw2qslwvmtzs7yk2x2lzfxfnsxwz5ne70xkkf9t ETH: 0x9d6917b707e268EFBCF29E37728394F20Cc34CF8 -=-=

[@kifli2345]

Ferrari attached the mirrors to the halo.

[@olivialambert4124]

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.

[@timredlich8876]

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.

[@benfulford3943]

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

[@Tr33fiddy]

The W13 looks like what you'd get if you input the rules into an adversarial ML system to optimise.

[@samghost13]

Ugly thing! FIA has to stopp such monstrosities

[@samiraperi467]

@@samghost13 How do you suggest they'd do that? Beauty is subjective.

[@HekateMGO]

@@samghost13 it’s a race car bud, the only thing that matters is that it’s (a) legal and (b) fast.

[@jeaholland]

@@samghost13 Lol, if teams designed cars for beauty they'd be slow as fuck.

[@t.d6379]

@@samghost13 it looks mean as fuck, it's a RACECAR

[@Shasha_Mynx]

Thanks for taking the time to make those models and explain the regs visually.

[@Gman333Xferrari]

Finally some actual analysis instead of the usual one word analysis from Twitter experts... "Jelly mould pods" 🙄

[@ludwig980]

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!

[@magic3817]

That was very informative and the most detailed of all the analysis that I have seen. Very useful images. Thanks, a tech fan.

[@realyield]

Kyle: *drops the hottest aero education on youtube* Toto: KLYLE, NO KLYLE NO, THIS ISN'T RIGHT YOU CAN'T GIVE AWAY SECRETS LIKE THIS

[@kapilbusawah7169]

Would love your speculation as to why teams are struggling with negating porpoising

[@EnoobongUkpong]

Amazing video. Really impressed with how straight to the point and informative your videos are. Thanks for uploading mate.

[@flamixin]

Love the look of the sidepot design. Reminds me some of fighter jets.

[@Exige000]

Isn't that the point?

[@TheAmazingCowpig]

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.

[@NyxHelith]

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.

[@marcnobel3938]

I was waiting for that video! THX for making it.

[@clarencebenjaminlim]

Been waiting for this video man. Good work.

[@MrSnowmonkey7]

First time I have stumbled across your vids - earned a subscriber here. Top work - thanks!

[@FRPlayerOne]

Question : Shouldn't the "mirror stays" be connected to the actual mirror ? That's the only thing I don't understand how it can be legal.

[@waynec3563]

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?

[@foudalism21]

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

[@ignls8809]

@@foudalism21 ferrari’s mirror in 2018 were banned for this reason, if the Fia doesn’t ban these then they’re truly doing mafia

[@tomsmith5216]

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...

[@syntheovaldy5173]

@@ignls8809 well it's a different set of regulations and ferrari's mirror was connected to the halo

[@LimYQS]

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..

[@wateronfirefk]

The cad explanation is amazing.

[@tiagosilva2471]

This man doesn't miss. Amazing video! You should be giving classes!

[@reaganharder1480]

If i'm not mistaken, he is actively working on an online course.

[@Dranka5]

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.

[@Em-7Add11]

Fantastic explaination and you explained it very easily. Didn't understand a word of it but great video.

[@Drew_001]

These just keep getting better🔥

[@Paulinek2707]

The main thing I'm worried about - won't it affect the dirty air? Won't the fia complain as they wanted to reduce it?

[@kevinqi7992]

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

[@user11539]

The FIA's already said that it's marginal and that they don't have any issues with this design

[@captaintoyota3171]

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.

[@johnnyboy7538]

@@captaintoyota3171 "there is no such thing as the spirit of the regulations regulation" - Adrian Newey

[@cmfrtblynmb02]

@@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.

[@JanneWolterbeek]

First time here, immediately subbed, this is fantastic!

[@DBuksha]

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Mercs issues with all this jumping. Whats causing it ?

[@cathalfolan8441]

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.

[@Sparrowash97]

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!

[@loago8068]

Great video! Really great in-depth analysis and breakdown of the rules.

[@rosserobertolli]

Are you still planning on an Alpine video to complete the series? Love the content :)

[@ChrispyNut]

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]

Isn't that how it's said? How do you say it? Is this like potaytoe/potaytoe?

[@ChrispyNut]

@@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.

[@codybutler1012]

Yes! I been waiting on this one since i seen the merc yesterday. Thank u!

[@tskmohan]

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

[@florianN132]

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.

[@tskmohan]

@@florianN132 Thank you so much for the clarification👍👍. Have a nice day...

[@TheLastTater]

Thanks Kyle! You and b-sport are killing it!

[@SahilM18]

Great stuff as always Kyle. Hope you'll also do more non-F1 analysis videos when you get time

[@juliusstummler3191]

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 :)

[@TheSpacecraftX]

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?

[@AllSortsOfVideos123]

Could you now do a video on 'Why the Mercedes Sidepods DON'T work?'

[@dominicsheldon]

Sensational video, subscribed!

[@mark123655]

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.

[@AlexanderScholten]

I also see a safety concern here, how is this going to behave with a sideways impact?

[@reaganharder1480]

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.

[@savlarsvk8186]

Take a look at the side impact structure on gen 1 Formula E car.

[@TheWebclaw]

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?

[@alexmurphy3538]

Is a detailed video on the Haas in the pipeline at all? love all the videos!

[@Kwik63]

Thanks Kyle always intriguing. It would be awesome to see a video discussion the name and purposes of each of the aero devices and winglets F1 cars

[@thatcandont]

Thanks, was hoping this would come out

[@GDubGregory]

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.

[@seanconrad5467]

Great video, love this. Subscribed! I would love to see a video about the bouncing problem, how Merc's sidepod and floor design may be making that more difficult for them to get on top of, and how the teams may be able to solve that problem. Especially Mercedes as it seems that the porpoising issue is a major issue for them right now.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

A few years ago, tuned mass dampers were used to reduce the nose nodding effect. I believe they were banned.

[@LambdaHDvideo]

Are you gonna do anything on the alpine?

[@jeffcole75]

Been waiting for this one!

[@claber05]

Very interesting video and awesome way to explain the content! I loved it! I have a question, according to your explanation, these new sidepods with this "vertivally stretched section" require clean flow to guarantee a good air flow for cooling. Do you believe it is already possible to guess what would be the effect of following another car on the "cleanness" of the airflow towards the sidepods?

[@eleycki]

Superb description, thank you.

[@scotthiland5521]

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.

[@michaeltrumph121]

Completely agree with you, those pieces holding the mirror are illegal

[@louisbeerreviews8964]

@@michaeltrumph121 no is not

[@AndreSomers]

I am totally confused how those little vertical wings you discuss around 13:00 can be "mirror stays" if they arn´t even connected to the mirror...

[@arshvindersingh9218]

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

[@peterdiamond9583]

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

[@ziting5756]

Jesus it's quite amazing we get to hear from someone who has actually worked in Mercedes for free.

[@TheGinger1]

Mega. I was really looking forward to this video dropping.

[@xdoctorblindx]

I was looking forward to this!

[@edo_strength]

Cheers for the insights! Very much appreciated and following now…

[@Mrcloudpotato]

Watching this hopefully ahead of your W14 update video 😁.

[@GonzoDonzo]

F1 needs to get you for some segments. Your videos are fantastic

[@Jay-nk6dm]

15:40 do you think that small square is a potential exit for air, maybe for the vortices created by the canards?

[@Paulinek2707]

Can't wait to watch it!

[@kevintownsend3840]

Wow totally amazing video,I love F1 and now I understand the cars and the rules applied to the cars thanks to your video. Just subscribed 5 July 22

[@DJKav]

That mirror is supported by 2 structural vertical stays. I see another 4 vertical stays next to it, but not part of the mirror supporting structure. Is that legal?

[@michaeltrumph121]

No, they are cheating

[@WynnofThule]

15:17 to me, it looks like the sidepod bottom exit might be there to bring that vortex and take it away from the radiators, what say you?

[@andrelaveau8510]

Excellent channel enjoyed every I am Science trained but not to your technical know how. Keep the flow 💯 London UK

[@thomaswarren9065]

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?

[@captaintoyota3171]

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

[@ginsbu]

Yes, the canards were what I was wondering most about regarding legality. Would love to get an explanation.