- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
yea i agree, its not looking good for them for the rest of the year and the next. they were looking good going into the summer break but now its back to the "well, sometimes the car works, we just have to nail it" spielAR3-GP wrote: ↑23 Oct 2024, 22:20
"It wasn't the upgrades, it's the way the upgrades need to be setup that made us fail". There's a sucker born every day.
If the updates only work when the car is low and stiff (as your simulation tools suggested would be best for the update), then the updates are actually the problem...
They throw the towel since the summer break after they realize they are too far back and treat the second part of the championship as an extended test session, bearing in mind that upgrades need to be engineered, tested, and manufactured at least 4 months before putting them on the car ...
It's been 3 years of these rules and their actual gap to the front is basically the same as Bahrain 2022. Other than a few outliers, it's been around 70 races of balance issues, bouncing, sudden rear snaps, problems getting tyres into the window and general lack of pace. They've had more ATR than Red Bull and Ferrari, all the same test sessions available to them and we know they have all the equipment they could possibly need. There are no excuses on equipment and toolsatanatizante wrote: ↑24 Oct 2024, 18:26This floor upgrade vs. suspension loads on the track is something that they finally acknowledge apparently when Toto was saying after Austin " It looks like the aerodynamics and the mechanics are not yet harmonizing properly ..." (https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-strafe//) and Allison in the race debrief saying he doesn't think it was the upgrades that caused the spins in Austin but that they had the car too low, too stiff ...
I bet Hamilton is hoping he crumples it to bits...
This is nonsense. You have no special insight into the simulation methodology at Mercedes.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2024, 21:01After 3 years it's about time a grown up shows up and says - forget performance, let's make a stable and predictable car that can be pushed at all times and we'll build up performance from there. They don't even simulate all wing and ride height combinations to get a real aero map, they wing it on the go and wonder why they can't get the balance right!
Hamilton said recently (something like) it's very hard for their engineers to make a good estimate of performance with so many RW, BW and floor ride height combinations, it's all so dependant on ride height, kerbs etc... That can only happen if you decide not to spend ATR on full aero mapping. If you decide you want to shoot in the dark, you'll end up hitting wrong targets
Indeed. Ferrari too, though in their case Elkann understood a sweeping leadership change must happen first for new people to move away from poor practices of the past. Unlike them, Red Bull had a great team since 2010 and the only thing missing for devastating long-term domination was a competitive PU since 2014
It's always wise to wait for some explanation to come from the team, rather than speculating with limited knowledge. Here is some info.venkyhere wrote: ↑21 Oct 2024, 09:57The exact same thing as Russel's Q3 happened with Hamilton in the race, with a full tank of fuel.Dunlay wrote: ↑20 Oct 2024, 17:08For all of your explanation, trying to simplify the problem, the track temperature was 36C throughout Q3. Watch live timing replay on F1 app. George did two attempts in Q3, one where there was no such problem and he sets a time and the other when he crashed, despite track temps being the same. Guess what, the track temp was 35C in Sprint qualifying when that car was flying. Some basic research would help. It's better not to try and justify the oversimplification by using vague explanations. What happened in that particular incident is very peculiar and there must be far more intricate reason for it. That car is quite unpredictable and little changes are causing major behavioral issues. So I wouldn't try to sound like I know exactly why it happened, because I don't and I don't think most people know either.venkyhere wrote: ↑20 Oct 2024, 16:42
If you intend to patronize my post, ask yourselves the question - "why are members (including me) here, in an internet forum called F1-technical" ? You will have your answer.
We are not here because we are experts, it's because we are trying to bounce our layman-enthusiast ideas with each other, to satiate our hunger to learn and discuss more about the 'machine' aspect of the sport.
As to your question :
Of course Mercedes know this, the drivers know this... their fundamental problem is they are too sensitive w.r.t tyre temperature as regards the car's grip balance. Whatever 'setup' they had optimized for 35C track temp, is not just becoming 'sub-optimal' (like it does for other teams) if the track temp rises to 40C, it's becoming undrivable. Their car's aero grip isn't working harmoniously with mechanical grip. Everyone knows this. Probably you don't. And the reason the issue strikes in 'of all the high speed corners, that's the one place such a simle issue strikes' is because T19 is the place where both steering angle and cornering speed are both together super-high.
Guess what the reason is ?
'oversteery balance' for a high speed corner.
Mercedes knows this, F1 viewers know this. It's got to do with tyre temps. Mercedes struggles when tyre temps go high on a hot track, their car is superb on cold tracks. That was the point I was making, I wasn't referring to the 35C or 40C as exact values in my previous post, I didn't intend to (forgot to phrase it as "say, the car is optimized for 35C...").
But why exactly is that happening ? thats the million $ question - the dark art of tyre 'optimal window'.
Luscion wrote: ↑25 Oct 2024, 12:44Lewis saying theyve looked at the data and the car 3 wheeling, the ride height oscillating between 12 to 15mm causing the car to lose rear load and a 40kph tailwind is what cause his spin during the race
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... /10666511/