Mercedes GP W02

[Raptor22]

considering they were still packing the trucks yesterday, I'm not surprised.

Did you mention there were new moulds being loaded?

Not new moulds, new mouldings. New bits fresh out of the moulds and paint shop.
Still have no idea how much of a visual change these parts will bring.

[segedunum]

I'm always a little perturbed when I see people throwing out estimates as to how much time they're going to gain from a single, hypothetical, modification. It's strange that those kind of estimates are not something you see teams like Red Bull or Ferrari throwing out on a regular basis.

One can only hope they have done as much testing as they can before producing those shiny new parts that's several orders of magnitude better than what they've done in the test sessions so far. I'm not suprised those have just come hot from the ovens because they basically need a new car.

I see the wheelbase has reared its head again. Wheelbase is a function of trying to balance an oversteering tendency in high speed corners versus getting the car to turn in the way that you feel that you need in others. Even if a shorter wheelbase is what you prefer you need to balance that up against how hard the tyres will wear, and with all the teams that will have been a case of thinking ahead with some raw numbers. On top of that, wheelbase has more to do with aerodynamics these days than anything else really as the greater effect.

I still cannot see a single credible reason why Mercedes has gone for a substantially shorter wheelbase than on anyone elses' car. Subjectively, their tyre wear at tests so far doesn't appear to have been on a par with others.

[bot6]

As mentioned in the wheelbase thread, a shorter wheelbase leads to a lighter car. That advantage is limited by the minimum weight of an F1 car, but all the weight saved in the chassis by the shortened wheelbase can be turned into ballast positioned low in the car, which will improve the car's stability.

Because of that gain in ballast/overall weight ratio, it also gives you more freedom with weight distribution, although that too is hampered by the new rules.

A shorter car will also have less drag compared to a longer one (with identical width of course).

So there are a few advantages... The thing is, we don't even know by how much the wheelbase of the W02 is shorter than that of its rivals. The resized pictures in the comparative thread on this forum are far from accurate.

The weight saving might also allow them to have bigger batteries for the KERS, giving it more capacity... But this last point is purely speculation.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Bot

More capacity?

What advantage would this bring when the KERS is power and time capped(limited)?
(mods slightly OT...but relevant in context to bot6's ppost as its specific to the W02)

[bot6]

Batteries have a max voltage, and this voltage diminishes with their use. Along with that, so does their output power.

The power cap on the KERS only limits max output. After the second or third acceleration or at the end of a long straight, the batteries might be too depleted to give out the max power output allowed. A bigger battery would give out the max power for more accelerations in a row, using the "KERS time allowance" more efficiently.

[volarchico]

Batteries have a max voltage, and this voltage diminishes with their use. Along with that, so does their output power.

The power cap on the KERS only limits max output. After the second or third acceleration or at the end of a long straight, the batteries might be too depleted to give out the max power output allowed. A bigger battery would give out the max power for more accelerations in a row, using the "KERS time allowance" more efficiently.

But well designed batteries can have a plateau voltage which they hold fairly constant over a long time period of power draw. AFAIK, the teams had no problems with not having enough capacity with their 2009 setup.

[Dragonfly]

IIRC in 2009 KERS cars had batteries with enough capacity, I mean more than the regulated power output. And KERS usage is not based on full charge/discharge cycle of the battery. It's the control electronics which allows a certain amount of energy to be used for a given time and at a certain rate during one lap. Actually the battery is almost always charged during a race. As it needs only several corners to recharge. So if a driver has used KERS for 3 sec accelerating out of a corner, after 3-4 corners he can use the KERS again with battery fully charged.
Cooling the battery is another issue and with a shorter car and tight packing combined with a larger fuel tank it can be a challenge for the engineers at MGP. The only teams now who have enough data and experience with KERS are McLaren and Ferrari. And to an extent - Mercedes as developers of the Mac one.

[747heavy]

The power cap on the KERS only limits max output

5.2.2 With the exception of one fully charged KERS, the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car
must not exceed 300kJ. Any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.
5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.
Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap.
Measurements will be taken at the connection to the rear wheel drivetrain.

[Raptor22]

Batteries have a max voltage, and this voltage diminishes with their use. Along with that, so does their output power.

The power cap on the KERS only limits max output. After the second or third acceleration or at the end of a long straight, the batteries might be too depleted to give out the max power output allowed. A bigger battery would give out the max power for more accelerations in a row, using the "KERS time allowance" more efficiently.

Although technically correct, the A123 batteries used in these KERS does not show significant power drop off from fully charged through 85% of its capacity.
Its not too hard to size the battery in accordance with the regulated output power so I think the gain is minimal

[FrukostScones]

will the sidepods look different? ....

[The FOZ]

Batteries have a max voltage, and this voltage diminishes with their use. Along with that, so does their output power.

A bigger battery would give out the max power for more accelerations in a row, using the "KERS time allowance" more efficiently.

In addition,

Drawing a smaller battery (fewer cells) harder (given amount of energy over a given amount of time) will produce more heat than drawing the same amount of energy over the same amount of time from a battery comprised of more cells.

Charging those same two batteries in equal timeframe gives the same result - smaller batteries generate more heat.

[Ferraripilot]

will the sidepods look different? ....

The conjecture and public statements from MB says yes. To what extent is where the brunt of the conjecture comes in. I suspect they will either have a double floor arrangement similar to Toro Rosso or they will employ more of a radius where the sidepod meets the floor under the words 'Malaysia'. The very visible crash structure bars at the radiator intakes of the current sidepods are what started all this talk

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Not long to wait before the real deal is unveiled.

[bot6]

The power cap on the KERS only limits max output

5.2.2 With the exception of one fully charged KERS, the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car
must not exceed 300kJ. Any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.
5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.
Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap.
Measurements will be taken at the connection to the rear wheel drivetrain.

I stand corrected. Thanks mate!

[747heavy]

I stand corrected. Thanks mate!

No worries mate, you are welcome.
We are (should be) all here to learn together, and broaden our collective knowledge.