Team: John Owen (CD), Loic Bigois (HA), Craig Wilson (Head of Vehicle Eng. & Dynamics), Russell Cooley (CE), Ross Brawn (TP), Nick Fry (CEO), Norbert Haug (VP), Thomas Fuhr (MD), Rob Thomas (COO) Drivers: Michael Schumacher (7), Nico Rosberg (8)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Now it is very clear that Mercedes -Ross Brawn -is just babbling around:
"We found that our performance is especially good on full tanks" wait a moment ..last week the talk was :we got a short wheelbase and that is causing a high fuel tank which is a bad thing especially with big fuelloads .This drawback cannot be overcome without a new car...
All bollocks, they have NO clue WHY they are slower.T his is worrying for 2012 already as obviously their analysis has given them answers that are not matched by
reality.
I would strongly recommend to build a W02B (crafting the rear of w03 to the current machine)and see where they stand.It´s a lot of work yes .
But obviously all top teams will have to adopt the batterypack between engine and rear axle approach anyways and this will give them a head start on the new outlays
challenges.If one would go as far and fit a new tank as well is on a different page ..if you are not going to race it ..save the money.But for friday testing this would be a nice thing
He obviously meant it was good compared to what they had expected because of the fact that there are long straights at Monza and a high CoG due to short wheelbase and high fuel tanks have absolutely NO, NULL, ZIP, ZERO effect on the straights, the high CoG only comes into play when you are turning and there is a moment around the CoG...try to UNDERSTAND and ANALYZE before you take everything at face value and some how contort it to fit your opinion because opinions are biased per definition
xpensive wrote:For all those who doubted that some Mercedes engines are more equal than others, watching MSC pulling away from the helpless Hamilton on the straights today must have been ample evidence that at least MGP's motors most certainly are?
Indeed, and McLaren will be asking some serious questions if they aren't already. It's getting more and more impossible to explain away the more races we see it at.
That wasn't down to gear rations or drag. At every single race we've seen the Mercedes cars have at least a good 5 kph advantage over other cars, including Mercedes powered ones. Given how much Mercedes are lacking in terms of downforce then you would think they would be the ones who would have more drag, but their top end speeds say otherwise. They are, more often than not, able to stay ahead of other cars behind even when they have their wings open.
Please get the concepts right, more downforce equal more drag, cause more downforce equal more wing or obstructions to airflow to generate the downforce which in turn causes drag...
marcush. wrote:What Mercedes has to say about their Monza He obviously meant it was good compared to what they had expected because of the fact that there are long straights at Monza and a high CoG due to short wheelbase and high fuel tanks have absolutely NO, NULL, ZIP, ZERO effect on the straights, the high CoG only comes into play when you are turning and there is a moment around the CoG...try to UNDERSTAND and ANALYZE before you take everything at face value and some how contort it to fit your opinion because opinions are biased per definition
The advantage of a low Cof G height is ?
less weight transfer nothing else .
So when does this come into play?
cornering -change of direction and longitudinal acceleration .
You got three chicanes where the last thing you want is the cars momentum will hinder the quick double change of direction and you got curva grande ,two lesmos and parabolica all high g-force corners where every mm of CofG height is very valuable.
Mind you the car with the sloweast top speed won the race ....so it cannot be true that cornering is not important on that track...
Surely Hamilton made a mess of his gearing ? But that top end grunt of Schumachers car was mighty impressive.
Now it is very clear that Mercedes -Ross Brawn -is just babbling around:
"We found that our performance is especially good on full tanks" wait a moment ..last week the talk was :we got a short wheelbase and that is causing a high fuel tank which is a bad thing especially with big fuelloads .This drawback cannot be overcome without a new car...
All bollocks, they have NO clue WHY they are slower.T his is worrying for 2012 already as obviously their analysis has given them answers that are not matched by
reality.
I would strongly recommend to build a W02B (crafting the rear of w03 to the current machine)and see where they stand.It´s a lot of work yes .
But obviously all top teams will have to adopt the batterypack between engine and rear axle approach anyways and this will give them a head start on the new outlays
challenges.If one would go as far and fit a new tank as well is on a different page ..if you are not going to race it ..save the money.But for friday testing this would be a nice thing
He obviously meant it was good compared to what they had expected because of the fact that there are long straights at Monza and a high CoG due to short wheelbase and high fuel tanks have absolutely NO, NULL, ZIP, ZERO effect on the straights, the high CoG only comes into play when you are turning and there is a moment around the CoG...try to UNDERSTAND and ANALYZE before you take everything at face value and some how contort it to fit your opinion because opinions are biased per definition
mantikos, don't be so passionate.
"marcush." is well known troll.
xpensive wrote:For all those who doubted that some Mercedes engines are more equal than others, watching MSC pulling away from the
helpless Hamilton on the straights today must have been ample evidence that at least MGP's motors most certainly are?
I think it's obvious for all those not capable to notice difference between tiny rear wing of merc and huge one of maclaren.
You only go for less wing when you feel you will get a significant straight line performance advantage - not necessarily a top end speed advantage, note. It was interesting to note the divergent direction that McLaren and Mercedes went in considering that it was Mercedes who were really struggling for downforce.
Also interesting was the overall straight line performance advantage of the Mercedes - and again, I'm talking about more than speed trap figures there. They accelerated well to their top speed in comparison so gearing obviously wasn't a major difference, and had a higher top speed than anyone else, maintaining it for longer. You could see that clearly as Hamilton closed behind Schumacher in the slipstream, pulled out and then fell behind.
This has been happening for pretty much all of the races this season, and over that period of time it can't be explained away by gearing or a different rear wing. Also interesting to note was the relative decline of the Force Indias in straight line performance as well compared to where they've been.
When you look at performance over time at different circuits and compare like-with-like with teams powered by the same engine there's only one conclusion you can really draw.
munudeges wrote:You only go for less wing when you feel you will get a significant straight line performance advantage - not necessarily a top end speed advantage, note. It was interesting to note the divergent direction that McLaren and Mercedes went in considering that it was Mercedes who were really struggling for downforce.
Also interesting was the overall straight line performance advantage of the Mercedes - and again, I'm talking about more than speed trap figures there. They accelerated well to their top speed in comparison so gearing obviously wasn't a major difference, and had a higher top speed than anyone else, maintaining it for longer. You could see that clearly as Hamilton closed behind Schumacher in the slipstream, pulled out and then fell behind.
This has been happening for pretty much all of the races this season, and over that period of time it can't be explained away by gearing or a different rear wing. Also interesting to note was the relative decline of the Force Indias in straight line performance as well compared to where they've been.
When you look at performance over time at different circuits and compare like-with-like with teams powered by the same engine there's only one conclusion you can really draw.
WHICH IS YOU ARE A COMPLETE TROLL. I reckon Lewis was lucky with a better engine so he could hung around Michael. Mercedes carried the shortest wing with the highest straightline speed,Mclaren the biggest. Merc have the best DRS. Mclaren with that size of their rear-wing were lucky to even get into a few tenths near W02 in straights.Mclaren's top-speed was lesser than VETTEL,the only reason they got more speed put of the speed trap because they gained more out of DRS in qualy because they had more drag to loose. Add to it the DRS zone individually were not very big & teams would probably gain the lowest out of DRS in here.
Mercedes has poor downforce. Thats what we say. In reality, it would be more like they have low aero efficiency. To get downforce equal to, say, red bull, they must run much greater wing angles, which causes substantially more drag than the RB. Consequently, the engineers working on setup have to make the most of a mediocre situation. In all likelihood, their calculations show that by reducing wing angle (and with it, drag AND df), the time they gain on the straights (aided by a powerful engine) is worth more that the time that they lose on the corners by running such low DF. They decided to play to their strengths by focusing on top end speed rather than try to compete on DF (where they would just lose out). The speed is advantageous in overtaking, and so I guess they decided this would be the way to go.
Of course the car is hampered by other issues, mainly tyre wear, but thats an acceptable reason to run the car like they are, aero wise.
And the talk of customer engines being weaker is nonsense. This may have been true not that long ago, but I don't believe it is the case today. Straight line speed is a combination of aero, gearing, and engine power. Without information on the other 2 factors, you cannot say anything about the power difference between the merc powered cars. They all have different straight line speeds; how do you know that isn't because Mclaren geared their car shorter? or FI are running more wing? and even if all else is equal, the power output changes between the teams due to exhaust design, engine mapping, etc.
You simply cannot say, based solely on speedtrap data, that merc GP is getting better engines than Mclaren or FI. To argue that it is the case is as good as troll physics.
Lycoming wrote:Mercedes has poor downforce. Thats what we say. In reality, it would be more like they have low aero efficiency. To get downforce equal to, say, red bull, they must run much greater wing angles, which causes substantially more drag than the RB. Consequently, the engineers working on setup have to make the most of a mediocre situation. In all likelihood, their calculations show that by reducing wing angle (and with it, drag AND df), the time they gain on the straights (aided by a powerful engine) is worth more that the time that they lose on the corners by running such low DF. They decided to play to their strengths by focusing on top end speed rather than try to compete on DF (where they would just lose out). The speed is advantageous in overtaking, and so I guess they decided this would be the way to go.
Of course the car is hampered by other issues, mainly tyre wear, but thats an acceptable reason to run the car like they are, aero wise.
And the talk of customer engines being weaker is nonsense. This may have been true not that long ago, but I don't believe it is the case today. Straight line speed is a combination of aero, gearing, and engine power. Without information on the other 2 factors, you cannot say anything about the power difference between the merc powered cars. They all have different straight line speeds; how do you know that isn't because Mclaren geared their car shorter? or FI are running more wing? and even if all else is equal, the power output changes between the teams due to exhaust design, engine mapping, etc.
You simply cannot say, based solely on speedtrap data, that merc GP is getting better engines than Mclaren or FI. To argue that it is the case is as good as troll physics.
You sir explained it to the troll better than I ever could have. *RAISES HAT*.That should keep the conspiracy theory guys quiet for a little time.
If it was one race where this has occurred then I would put that down to set up differences and anomalies, but given that we have seen exactly the same thing at every single type of circuit this season then the weight of evidence starts to stack up.
It's not gearing ratios or wing levels either because Mercedes's overall straight line performance has been consistently better everywhere at every track - accelerating up to top speed, maintaining top speed for long enough and having greater top speed than anyone else. You saw that clearly when on board with Hamilton. The fact that they haven't had to compromise on any of those variables leads you to believe that the engine is letting them do that.
Contrast that with Renault - topped the speed traps for most of the weekend but they had terrible trouble accelerating to their top speed quickly enough. If it was down to wing levels and gear ratios then you would see compromises, but you see none with Mercedes when it comes to straight line performance.
I don't see why Mercedes wouldn't give first preference in engines to their own race team. We all know Torro Rosso and Sauber don't get the engines that Ferrari do. Mercedes are not employing close to 500 people at MHPE for the goodness of their health. Heck, a number of MHPE employees work for the Mercedes GP team. Conspiracy? Hardly............
Do you understand anything about F1??? Mclaren's whole car is based on the philosophy of creating downforce with their kicthen sink rear wing while Merc's rear wing is based on opposite philosophy. Add to it Merc have the best DRS. Jenson has been shouting Mclaren were gaining 7-8km while Mercedes were gaining were gaining 20 km speed advantage from DRS.
As explained, this has obviously nothing to do with wing levels or gear ratios because the pattern has been consistent everywhere. If it was they would be compromising variables like acceleration to top speed, time spent at top speed or the top speed itself. They're not compromising on anything as Hamilton's onboard shots and the comparison with his Mercedes engined car showed us.
As an aside you compare that to Renault and Red Bull and yes, Renault has a much greater top speed with the same engine. However, Red Bull accelerate to their top speed much quicker which is why Vettel passed Alonso, so there are clearly compromises going on. The suspicious thing about Mercedes is that those compromises do not appear to be happening.
xpensive wrote:What was obvious today, at least to me, was that MSC had no problems even with Hamilton sitting in the former's wake,
while as soon as the latter tried to pull out of the slipstream, MSC just eased away.
that´s the point here.
Hamilton was on the limiter as in the slipstream there is no reason why it should be impossible to get closer.
It is rather obvious that some people out there ran vastly different gearing .Final speed will be a matter of drag /horsepower at the wheels and of course reaching the rpm limitin your highest gear.But of course you could sacrifice a bit of acceleration for a higher top speed potentiual in a low drag(slipstream)situation.
xpensive wrote:For all those who doubted that some Mercedes engines are more equal than others, watching MSC pulling away from the
helpless Hamilton on the straights today must have been ample evidence that at least MGP's motors most certainly are?
They have probably 1.000hp more then Mclaren. Sometimes when you build engines there are some differences in performance so Mercedes took the best ones.
