Mercedes GP W02

[Raptor22]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 76894.html

this is the article in german

Right so with a short wheel base they are fastest. Does a longer wheelbase not aide top speed?

it depends...

what is the total drag?
how good is the traction out of the corner onto the straight?
Was the ARW used? On Schumachers run I assume not since it was a race simulation.(?)

Generally wheelbase aids stability but the level of downforce F1 cars have that is generally not a factor in determining top speed

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Fair enough, although there is definately some problem with Mercedes turn in problems of the W02. Anderson picked up on that, probably made alot of capital out of it.

There are many question marks I have over the W02, and it doesnt surprise me that Scarbs has yet to do his famed technical write up on the car just yet....it just isnt finished yet (or he may be busy....).

My main concern would be that of tyres. But it seems they have stabilised, even if the inherent characteristics remains that of a car with a stubborn nose. The front wing will help this.

Also I understand the homologation rule has been discontinued for 2011? Is this true?

And finally, I mean all things being equal ie drag etc, if the car had a slightlty longer wheelbase, it would achieve slightlty higher top speeds.

[mtec80]

@ med4224 - thanks I also was just on the way

@ JohnsonsEvilTwin: Also Auto Motor und Sport was bashing on MGP, but now they have some background as they normally have good connections to Mercedes and Norbert.

Also there are the Schu and / or Mercedes hater around with nonsense comments...

Best example is a comment from Nico Hülkenberg at one of the current test sessions, stating, that MGP has a good traction - now Martin Brundle states, that the same car has a horrible traction - so where is the truth?

[Raptor22]

Fair enough, although there is definately some problem with Mercedes turn in problems of the W02. Anderson picked up on that, probably made alot of capital out of it.

There are many question marks I have over the W02, and it doesnt surprise me that Scarbs has yet to do his famed technical write up on the car just yet....it just isnt finished yet (or he may be busy....).

My main concern would be that of tyres. But it seems they have stabilised, even if the inherent characteristics remains that of a car with a stubborn nose. The front wing will help this.

Also I understand the homologation rule has been discontinued for 2011? Is this true?

And finally, I mean all things being equal ie drag etc, if the car had a slightlty longer wheelbase, it would achieve slightlty higher top speeds.

The chassis homologation rule has been scrapped I believe.

Yes with all things equal usually a longer car is slightly faster in a straight line although it very seldom holds any truth in the real world.
also we don't really know if the car is struggling turn in. Schumacher would have been prety clear on this and to date I am not aware of any comments made by Schumacher on this matter.
Martin Brundle loves Schumacher bashing at every available opportunity.

[ForMuLaOne]

Remembering Mercedes GP`s issues last year you can really see what`s the plan so far. Last season it was quite difficult to understand the tyres and Mercedes seemed to be the worst pupil in class. When they started to fix their problems many upgrades didn`t help a lot because they were not aware how new components would change the whole car in terms of balance and tyre degradation ( for example). So building a very plain car really helps to understand every input you give, it helps to know where and how performance can be increased. It is hard to build a car that works in a very small frame, components that seem to be good in wind channel could change the whole car`s balance in a bad way. Having a platform which is that simple in terms of aerodynamic makes it easier to find out your setup where tyres are used the best way. Like Raptor mentioned before...

And afterwards they show the finetuned aero concept which is easier to handle than a sophisticated car from the very beginning on ( MC Laren for example).

[Ferraripilot]

Anyone have any predictions regarding their sidepods and exhaust arrangement?

The more I stare at W02, I am seeing a double floor and very clever RBish type exhaust in the near future. The curve at the sidepod where it meets the floor (below the word Malaysia) so visibly in the below pic almost looks as if they purposely did this for testing.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 2011-3.jpg

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Marcush mentioned earlier in the thread that there is a remarkable amount of room for an undercut arrangement in the side pods, effectively upside down to what Mclaren are trying.
If this is the case it would explain the KERS cooling being higher up in the chassis(the plates that were removed exposed some of it).

Maybe they know exactly what benefits they will but from it as it is left till last minute and tried and tested in the wind tunnel.
Further to this, it maybe that the undercut can direct flow onto the beam wing or diffuser as the exhaust is doing now.

If that is the case the downforce points recieved by directing the lower flow of air over the lower rear portion of the car could be huge!

Lower drag + more downforce through directed air.....
Someone slap me if iam getting this wrong.

[7TTT]

It looks like a second skin.
Anyone remember the open radiators from the teaser?
Perhaps they were always there.

[Ferraripilot]

effectively upside down to what Mclaren are trying.

That's precisely what I was thinking, although I don't think they will go that far. Perhaps something between what you are thinking and what Toro Rosso is doing. One thing is clear, what W02 has in terms of sidepods now just does not look 'right'.

[scarbs]

I thinks its clear that Mercedes sidepods are not the definitive solution. I was next to Sam Michael when the W02 unveiled, he immediately pointed out that the sidepod bodywork was one large panel and lacks the radiussed joint to the floor. Other engineers have pointed out similar simple solutions on the car.

I doubt that Merc have simply forgotten common practice and are happy to the car with utterly basic bodywork.

The sidepods not only feature the mid placed side impact spar, but the lower spar at floor is very slim, promptign suggestions that the inlet wont be the triangular shape it is now. Thus we could predict a conventional inlet either above or below the middle spar. The former prompting a double floor shape, the latter being a weird low fronted sidepod ramping upwards (unlikely).

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Thank you Scarbs.

similar to this?
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/835.html

[Ferraripilot]

yes, although I see MB possibly taking it a step further somehow integrating their exhaust in some way

[marcush.]

yes, although I see MB possibly taking it a step further somehow integrating their exhaust in some way

that what crossed my thought -what is that minimum bodywork radius rule?

[Ferraripilot]

That rule is somewhat confusing to me. It's a radius of curvature of 75mm and it must conform to a tangent continuous curve. Prevents winglets and the like right

[Med4224]

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type ... 2&PO=50082


James Allen's testing analysis:"Mercedes are a bit behind as well, but the engineers are saying that they’re making progress and believe that they will make a big gain with the new bodywork kit they have planned for the final test."