Mercedes GP MGP W01

[bugref]

This is what I had found why RB6 design is outstanding so far and I compare it to mercedes designs. Its just my practical comparison and my practical understandings of airflow versus aerodynamics.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I agree with Gilgen. I certainly don't know the context but taking the words at face value I am forced to wonder about your social consideration. Be aware that many people will find that offensive.

If they care to take offence from a word, let them.
Im more liberal, and I suggest perhaps before taking offence, researching what the actual exerpt means.
And my social consideration is of no consequence to anyone, unless I directly insult them.

Watch the clip, its just humour.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g[/youtube]

[wesley123]

you claim that the nose is the part causing problems for mercedes, then explain why it wasnt changed with the B spec, if something is causing huge problems why isnt it changed and is something like the airbox changed wich dont cause problems?

Also, because the Red bull is the fastest car on the grid, that doenst mean that every part of the car is the best.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

you claim that the nose is the part causing problems for mercedes, then explain why it wasnt changed with the B spec, if something is causing huge problems why isnt it changed and is something like the airbox changed wich dont cause problems?

Also, because the Red bull is the fastest car on the grid, that doenst mean that every part of the car is the best.

Absolutely agree the RB6 isnt perfect. Nor can i prove conclusively that Mercs nose is bad/wrong/improper. Just speculating using what is readily available.
Not enough downforce +
Slow down the straights

= High drag with not enough downforce.

Why do you think that is?

[ringo]

The merc to me is simply not as clean as the redbull, and it's bigger in the body dimensions.
The top surface of the RB, without the suspension on top ensures the top is clean and has less low pressure zones.
Also the rb's rake relative to the pitch is not like the other cars.

[bugref]

I am not sure these are all theory but, I wander whats their reason of of developing a rounder drooping nose. renault has a drooping like nose but it has a flat surface. in terms of channeling the airflow seems renault is good at this compare to mercedes.
If you ask me if mercedes can win this year. I am sorry but theres no guarantee in that we can only speculate on that to happen but in terms of performance its impossible at this point in time.

As to why they didnt change the nose. somebody told me that its part of homolgated of the car you can only change somethings as long as in cannot affect its crashworth integrity. I dunno what the consequence if you change the nose of the car but reading on some of the experts seems pretty impossible to do so.

[wesley123]

The reason for mclarens lack of pace is very simple, lack of development, Brawn was last year focussing on the title, and with a huge loss of staff and a small budget it is kinda hard to make a succesfull development of it wich could match other teams developpign pace. The jump mclaren made for example couldnt be made by merc then because the resources werent there

[F1_eng]

Haha, what a load of absolute rubbish.

The people that think the nose shape is a problem: there were a huge number of different noses tested and this is the one that came out as overall best. The underside is serving to increase the loading of predominantely the central "controlled" section of the front wing. Mclaren use a bolt on feature to try and replicate this effect.

The pictures and scribbles don't mean anything, probably should be taken down, the author should be embarassed to put them up.

Why do you think Red Bull need boards under the chassis to better manage the flow in this region if it's so "clean"? What do you imagine the flow is like in this region during cross-wind, where 99% of the driving is done.

There is a very narrow window of optimal performance with the Bridgestone tyres, if you are on this peak then the car will be much quicker than all others, even though they might be very close to the window. I believe this is why you see differences between drivers of the same cars very often, one has found the load balance required whilst the other is very close. You hear drivers saying car was great this morning or during practice, then all of a sudden they are not happy, Jenson today for an example.
The window really is very narrow.

Granted though, the straight-line speed is not as good as it could/should be.
What factors can you guys come up with to explain this? I am not going to divulge any info myself.

[Jon]

Haha, what a load of absolute rubbish.

The people that think the nose shape is a problem: there were a huge number of different noses tested and this is the one that came out as overall best. The underside is serving to increase the loading of predominantely the central "controlled" section of the front wing. Mclaren use a bolt on feature to try and replicate this effect.

The pictures and scribbles don't mean anything, probably should be taken down, the author should be embarassed to put them up.

Why do you think Red Bull need boards under the chassis to better manage the flow in this region if it's so "clean"? What do you imagine the flow is like in this region during cross-wind, where 99% of the driving is done.

There is a very narrow window of optimal performance with the Bridgestone tyres, if you are on this peak then the car will be much quicker than all others, even though they might be very close to the window. I believe this is why you see differences between drivers of the same cars very often, one has found the load balance required whilst the other is very close. You hear drivers saying car was great this morning or during practice, then all of a sudden they are not happy, Jenson today for an example.
The window really is very narrow.

Granted though, the straight-line speed is not as good as it could/should be.
What factors can you guys come up with to explain this? I am not going to divulge any info myself.

Thanks for sharing your insight! That "the nose is to blame" argument was really getting tiresome.

[ringo]

It seems you actually spilled some of the beans accidentally this time.

The people that think the nose shape is a problem: there were a huge number of different noses tested and this is the one that came out as overall best. The underside is serving to increase the loading of predominantely the central "controlled" section of the front wing. Mclaren use a bolt on feature to try and replicate this effect.

Now what you are saying here, elaborate, because i may have overlooked that visually.
I agree with the concept though.

Why do you think Red Bull need boards under the chassis to better manage the flow in this region if it's so "clean"? What do you imagine the flow is like in this region during cross-wind, where 99% of the driving is done.

This is what i was saying all along from page 18 or so. I mentioned that Merc will do that to keep the outside flow from migrating under the nose, to guard from a static pressure increase. Funny enough they did the exact same thing i predicted. So did Force india.
It seems you are talking sense now.

How do you know there were a huge number of noses tested?

[F1_eng]

I don't do anything accidentally.

Why do you say the I have "spilt the beans" one minute, then ask how I know there were a lot of noses tested?

How do you think nose shapes are evaluated, you have to test....nothing out of the ordinary.

I am not going to discuss in any more detail, but look at the central section of the wing. There is also the addition of more parts very close to this area, have a guess what they do!

Also what do you mean I am talking sense now?

[bugref]

Winner goes to kubica, mercedes should focus on their 2011 car their car seems hopeless. Shameful, bringing the shorter wheelbase to take advantage of the circuit but cant even answer the Longer Wheelbase Ferrari Alonzos Pace in a worn out Tires.
Too Shameful for the Mercedes.
Its Pretty annoying Schumacher cant even chase down Rubens Barichello.
As to F1_eng, your are the expert Why dont you enlighten as to what are the reason why did this car is very slow. seems weight distribution is no longer the issue. what will be your theory now.

[Jersey Tom]

Haha, what a load of absolute rubbish.

[...]

The pictures and scribbles don't mean anything, probably should be taken down, the author should be embarassed to put them up.

This.

[ggajic]

Winner goes to kubica, mercedes should focus on their 2011 car their car seems hopeless. Shameful, bringing the shorter wheelbase to take advantage of the circuit but cant even answer the Longer Wheelbase Ferrari Alonzos Pace in a worn out Tires.
Too Shameful for the Mercedes.
Its Pretty annoying Schumacher cant even chase down Rubens Barichello.
As to F1_eng, your are the expert Why dont you enlighten as to what are the reason why did this car is very slow. seems weight distribution is no longer the issue. what will be your theory now.

He explained it this way, which makes sense at least to me, narrow window of Bridgestone tires optimal performance. In other words it is probably superior suspension/aerodynamics combination Red Bull have this year compared to others.

[bugref]

Haha, what a load of absolute rubbish.

The people that think the nose shape is a problem: there were a huge number of different noses tested and this is the one that came out as overall best. The underside is serving to increase the loading of predominantely the central "controlled" section of the front wing. Mclaren use a bolt on feature to try and replicate this effect.

The pictures and scribbles don't mean anything, probably should be taken down, the author should be embarassed to put them up.

Why do you think Red Bull need boards under the chassis to better manage the flow in this region if it's so "clean"? What do you imagine the flow is like in this region during cross-wind, where 99% of the driving is done.

There is a very narrow window of optimal performance with the Bridgestone tyres, if you are on this peak then the car will be much quicker than all others, even though they might be very close to the window. I believe this is why you see differences between drivers of the same cars very often, one has found the load balance required whilst the other is very close. You hear drivers saying car was great this morning or during practice, then all of a sudden they are not happy, Jenson today for an example.
The window really is very narrow.

Granted though, the straight-line speed is not as good as it could/should be.
What factors can you guys come up with to explain this? I am not going to divulge any info myself.

Your theory is very amazing with lots of technicality your good at explaining things, and defended well a car and its design, but sadly Mr. F1_eng, your technicality is pointless on me if the car your defending cannot make any impression that its fast, meaning your yapping there is pointless on me, because that car is slow.

now the fan part comes, How do we make it fast?
looking at the race it cant even chase down a longer wheelbase ferrari with a worn out tire and a williams car of Rubens Barrichelo.
the fact that they are using a shortwheelbase car they should be fast and capitallize that but it never happen they were still outpace by redbull,ferrari,renault.
Unless MGP will show Promising pace with that drooping nose i might believe you, but if that wont happen then your opinion with technicalities on F1 is a dope, in short your theory is also bullish on my point of view. and I will not be impressed with your elaboration on things. lets just say I am a practical man and I based things on results not theories. I dont buy that kind of product that is only a fruit of words alone.