2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[TFSA]

.

Teams are already allowed a variance of 1 mm off the target at 10 mm (meaning they can go between 9 or 11).

I suggest you read the regulation, because that's not even close to correct.

Actually for the purposes of this discussion, it was. I was slightly misinformed on the initial size, where the regulations allow ±0.2 mm (so 9.8 - 10.2 mm), but the regulation state of that the teams do have an additional 1 mm leeway in regards to wear. So they can go all the way down to 8.8 mm before getting disqualified - which is not far of the 9 mm i mentioned (but the 11 obviously being incorrect).

Which means that if Leclerc had 0.2 mm too much wear, then he's worn the skids by about 1.4 mm (assuming a correct initial size of 10 mm).

[dans79]

.

Teams are already allowed a variance of 1 mm off the target at 10 mm (meaning they can go between 9 or 11).

I suggest you read the regulation, because that's not even close to correct.

Actually for the purposes of this discussion, it was. I was slightly misinformed on the initial size, where the regulations allow ±0.2 mm (so 9.8 - 10.2 mm), but the regulation state of that the teams do have an additional 1 mm leeway in regards to wear. So they can go all the way down to 8.8 mm before getting disqualified - which is not far of the 9 mm i mentioned (but the 11 obviously being incorrect).

Which means that if Leclerc had 0.2 mm too much wear, then he's worn the skids by about 1.4 mm (assuming a correct initial size of 10 mm).

The starting thickness can be between 9.8 and 10.2 (manufacturing tolerances), the 9mm minimum after the race is an absolute!

[TFSA]

The starting thickness can be between 9.8 and 10.2 (manufacturing tolerances), the 9mm minimum after the race is an absolute!

You're right. I read that wrong in the regulations. Thanks for the correction.

Overall point remains the same

[Farnborough]

It was just said by the commentary team during FP1 that Leclerc and Hamilton were originally checked based on some data that the FIA had. What data that was wasn't specified.

It was then stated that Norris and Verstappen were checked after but it wasn't stated if they were checked based on data or based on them being the next best performing car/driver.

Reported it was vertical oscillation metric from LH an CL cars initially, so observation on bouncing which Lewis also added his casual observation too in comments on MV having such a smooth ride.

[AR3-GP]

It was just said by the commentary team during FP1 that Leclerc and Hamilton were originally checked based on some data that the FIA had. What data that was wasn't specified.

It was then stated that Norris and Verstappen were checked after but it wasn't stated if they were checked based on data or based on them being the next best performing car/driver.

Reported it was vertical oscillation metric from LH an CL cars initially, so observation on bouncing which Lewis also added his casual observation too in comments on MV having such a smooth ride.

The reason RB had a smoother ride is because they lifted the car in order to run a softer suspension setup. This is what Mercedes and Ferrari should have done.

For all of the comments about the ride of the RB, RB themselves have suffered on bumpy tracks exclusively. Rb's ride is not coming without consequences.

[Farnborough]

Yes, it's always easier to arrest vertical cadence with damping if given an enlarged operational range.

My point was that LH unintentionally ? corroborated evidence against himself by making the same observation, visually, that the FIA had come to by analysis of vertical acceleration data.

Notably, I think, GR car seems to be subject to floor checks at Monza when onboard laps appeared to me a record of it hitting the track at very high proportion of distance travelled. This seems to perhaps be from the same FIA observation perhaps.

[214270]

I don’t think it’s believable that RUSs oscillations wouldn’t be similar to HAMs; the question remains therefore why one and not the other?

[TFSA]

I don’t think it’s believable that RUSs oscillations wouldn’t be similar to HAMs; the question remains therefore why one and not the other?

Why not? Different driving styles will attack the kerbs differently, and the setup could be dissimilar (particularly suspension stiffness - that's a very individual preference).

[214270]

I don’t think it’s believable that RUSs oscillations wouldn’t be similar to HAMs; the question remains therefore why one and not the other?

Why not? Different driving styles will attack the kerbs differently, and the setup could be dissimilar (particularly suspension stiffness - that's a very individual preference).

Well as I understand it they monitor on the straights where porpoising occurs, purposely limiting the data and allowing real-time react & warn. And I think RUS converged on HAMs setup after practice so there wasn’t much in it.

Interestingly, I think I read most of the damage would’ve happened in the 1st stint of which RUSs was slightly longer and DRS would’ve alleviated the bouncing somewhat, of which HAM had more in the 1st.

[Mansell89]

Mercedes slowly winding it up here do we think or are they a little bit off it so far?

Tidy final sector for Hamilton bodes well for longer runs I would have thought?

[AR3-GP]

What are Hamilton/Russell saying?

[CHT]

Yes I know it's TikTok but here's Charles saying they gained nothing from their ride height in COTA.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMjpQyVMH/

If Charles and Lewis are both saying the same thing I believe them more over a media outlet getting second or even third hand information. I guess we'll see this weekend

From a scientific point of view, running the car closer to the track will improve the car's downforce due to the ground effect. This is the natural law of physics and airflow, not opinion.

It is impossible for the driver to tell the difference unless they do a back-to-back comparison with different ride height setups.

Now that the dust has settled and every team is on their toes about ride height, we should be able to see if there is an impact on drivers this weekend.

[AR3-GP]

What are Hamilton/Russell saying?

Hamilton:

“Not the greatest, bit of a struggle in the car today,” he said as he reflected on the Mexican GP Friday running.

“I mean, the car’s complete night and day different compared to last week. I don’t really know what to say, you just never know what you’re going to get with this one.

“Some days she’s great and some days she’s not. I think it’s hard to extract the lap, I think there is definitely performance there, it’s just trying to extract it and it’s quite picky this weekend, maybe just with the aero map or whatever it may be.

“So we’re going to work on it overnight, but definitely it wasn’t a fun day compared to P1 in Austin.

“We were a bit off but hopefully overnight, we can find something and tomorrow, maybe the car will be nicer to drive.”

And that unpredictability means Hamilton could not offer up any expectations heading into qualifying Saturday.

“Not sure,” he admitted on the topic of qualifying expectations. “Again, you never know what to expect with this car. Maybe we’ll make the changes and we’ll pick that pace up.

“I think there was definitely some performance in there to be closer to maybe in the top three, but we’ve got to figure out how to make it easier for us to be able to extract that performance, so that’s what we’re working on tonight.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-ham ... o-practice



Imo Mexico is always going to be an outlier track because of the thin air. Brazil may be an outlier like last season, but which way it swings, I don't know. Realistically Abu Dhabi will be the next normal track.

[CHT]

What are Hamilton/Russell saying?

Hamilton:

“Not the greatest, bit of a struggle in the car today,” he said as he reflected on the Mexican GP Friday running.

“I mean, the car’s complete night and day different compared to last week. I don’t really know what to say, you just never know what you’re going to get with this one.

“Some days she’s great and some days she’s not. I think it’s hard to extract the lap, I think there is definitely performance there, it’s just trying to extract it and it’s quite picky this weekend, maybe just with the aero map or whatever it may be.

“So we’re going to work on it overnight, but definitely it wasn’t a fun day compared to P1 in Austin.

“We were a bit off but hopefully overnight, we can find something and tomorrow, maybe the car will be nicer to drive.”

And that unpredictability means Hamilton could not offer up any expectations heading into qualifying Saturday.

“Not sure,” he admitted on the topic of qualifying expectations. “Again, you never know what to expect with this car. Maybe we’ll make the changes and we’ll pick that pace up.

“I think there was definitely some performance in there to be closer to maybe in the top three, but we’ve got to figure out how to make it easier for us to be able to extract that performance, so that’s what we’re working on tonight.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-ham ... o-practice

Imo Mexico is always going to be an outlier track because of the thin air. Brazil may be an outlier like last season, but which way it swings, I don't know. Realistically Abu Dhabi will be the next normal track.

The difference between night and day could just be 1mm

Or Merc may be sandbagging?

[ringo]

No this track is not representative or can be compared to cota. It would not be the 1mm. Mercedes would just lower the car to see if that is indeed true and then change back to a safe ride height.
I think some tuning is needed for the new floor and then rubbering in of the track. The car still seem to have a narrow setup window. But i think by Q1 it could be a top 3 car.