Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[marcush.]

There is a 18 month developement period for each car.
A delay of 2 weeks does not necessary mean that there is a fundamental change on the car. The manufacturing might be just slow or something with the crash test went wrong. If they even have done them already.

right and wrong

If Mr.willis came up with soemething that can be implemented but needs changes to parts that need to be homologated ,this would explain it all and if the changes are not rendering all the work done obsolete it may well be a worthwhile effort.

Still a delayed car is not really an asset you will have to weigh up gains in performance vs lost time in ironing out bugs and setup baseline establishing.

usually a late arrival of a car is not a problem when the base of your start is a deceent one (RedBull and Mclaren had good equipment already).
BGP001 was really something different with very long lead time ,the car was delayed because of an engine adaption not due to a change of design concept

[mep]

The issue is just that they had a dog of car during 2011 season, never came up with any significant updates and therefore they could have switched their staff to focus on 2012 car to be the first team on test track with a new car.
But they just failed again.

[xpensive]

If we for a minute imagine that my specultion was/is correct, that if Willis acutually brught something serious to the table in mid-October, then as the overall accountable for the performance of the W03 I would here him out.

Then, after careful consideration, I would be no stranger to tell my boss that our new hiring has brought things to my attention which I had overseen, mea culpa, but that the implementation of such would mean a two-week delay.

But that's just my idea of technical management.

[marcush.]

The issue is just that they had a dog of car during 2011 season, never came up with any significant updates and therefore they could have switched their staff to focus on 2012 car to be the first team on test track with a new car.
But they just failed again.

that is my fear.
it was clear from the outset the car was not competitive,but it took them an awful long time to admit to themselves the gap was not going to come down.
So they all fooled themselves deep inside they had no faith in the design and still they tinkered around with tweaks ...and making no real progress.They did not run a full blown test season either ,this is what I would have done.Stop all effort to optimise stuff that is banned next year and run all you have towards a dominant 2012 campaign.Only by doing this they would have had a real head start on RB,MCL and Ferrari ,considering those have at least equal minds in their armoury it is the oppportunity to make up lost terrain -under race conditions.

[mep]

Well xpensive you come from a different field of engineering which might not fully translate to race cars. You have a quite difficult overall system which consists of very simple components but each component has influences on the following process.

Whereas a car is a rather simple system consisting of a few components which to a certain extent can even be separated. But those components are already absolutely optimised close to its maximum capability which makes each of them very complex.

The difference is that usually a new guy is not just walking in the office and puts the golden trick on the table. Especially not in 3 months. Simply because there might not be a single trick. It is the sum of hundreds of small advantages which makes 1 car just 0,5-1% faster than the others. We can assume they all know more or less the same.

[xpensive]

So very true, I would never for the love of my life compare my humble xperience of enereeing management to the fast lane, such as one such as a Fomula One environment, but still I imagine that I would consider new inputs any day of the week.

For the record now, I think Willis brought something to the table back in October, of that I'm certain.

[dren]

The issue is just that they had a dog of car during 2011 season, never came up with any significant updates and therefore they could have switched their staff to focus on 2012 car to be the first team on test track with a new car.
But they just failed again.

that is my fear.
it was clear from the outset the car was not competitive,but it took them an awful long time to admit to themselves the gap was not going to come down.
So they all fooled themselves deep inside they had no faith in the design and still they tinkered around with tweaks ...and making no real progress.They did not run a full blown test season either ,this is what I would have done.Stop all effort to optimise stuff that is banned next year and run all you have towards a dominant 2012 campaign.Only by doing this they would have had a real head start on RB,MCL and Ferrari ,considering those have at least equal minds in their armoury it is the oppportunity to make up lost terrain -under race conditions.

Brawn stated it was still worth while to develop the W02 because a lot of the systems would cary over. Perhaps this will show up in the rumored trick radiator arrangement? Maybe they are keeping the linked hydraulic suspension system?

[dren]

For the record now, I think Willis brought something to the table back in October, of that I'm certain.

It sounds reasonable to me. Do you have the inside track, or just a guess at the moment?

[xpensive]

Not at all, just speaking from engineering mananagement xperiece in general, that's the way I would I have handled it, having been thrown an unknown quantity in my lap all of a sudden.

Then Aldo Costa at that, I'd be listening carefully, if nothing else, just not to make an arse of myself.

[axle]

So, test 1, they test the 2012 Pirelli's on the old car (sans blown diffuser). Learn data on the tyres on a known platform. Test 2012 systems that are transferable.

Test 2, they roll out the W03, systems check it and test the tyres again, check reliability.

Test 3, definitive Oz aero package tested back to back with base line...more reliability testing.

Test 4, Setup and optimisising work before Oz, testing fixes to things noted in test3.

From that, where is the panic/disaster/OMGWTF?? Why wouldn't that be a valid way to approach testing? The decision seems to be be if they want to test on the 2011 platform first or just go straight to 2012 and see where they are.

Any delay is an opportunity too...as one manufacturing delay may allow them to tweak many other things with the cars in the factory.

No need to panic.

[Byronrhys]

So, test 1, they test the 2012 Pirelli's on the old car (sans blown diffuser). Learn data on the tyres on a known platform. Test 2012 systems that are transferable.

Test 2, they roll out the W03, systems check it and test the tyres again, check reliability.

Test 3, definitive Oz aero package tested back to back with base line...more reliability testing.

Test 4, Setup and optimisising work before Oz, testing fixes to things noted in test3.

From that, where is the panic/disaster/OMGWTF?? Why wouldn't that be a valid way to approach testing? The decision seems to be be if they want to test on the 2011 platform first or just go straight to 2012 and see where they are.

Any delay is an opportunity too...as one manufacturing delay may allow them to tweak many other things with the cars in the factory.

No need to panic.

No fourth test, so I guess thats why its more of a hassle.

[Mr.S]

So, test 1, they test the 2012 Pirelli's on the old car (sans blown diffuser). Learn data on the tyres on a known platform. Test 2012 systems that are transferable.

Test 2, they roll out the W03, systems check it and test the tyres again, check reliability.

Test 3, definitive Oz aero package tested back to back with base line...more reliability testing.

Test 4, Setup and optimisising work before Oz, testing fixes to things noted in test3.

From that, where is the panic/disaster/OMGWTF?? Why wouldn't that be a valid way to approach testing? The decision seems to be be if they want to test on the 2011 platform first or just go straight to 2012 and see where they are.

Any delay is an opportunity too...as one manufacturing delay may allow them to tweak many other things with the cars in the factory.

No need to panic.

The 4th test has become the in-season test. They are debuting their car on the 2nd test.

In your scenario -

Test 1 - NO test(In-seaon testing) ( Shifted to Mugello)

Test 2 - Mercedes running with old car

Test 3 - Debutying New Car W03

Test 4 - Final test.

In between there has to an upgrade package(aerodynamical) or maybe mechanical as well. System checks,straight line speed testing,testing the aerodynamical effect of each individual parts & reliability issues.

Then there you have to find a baseline set-up for high & low fuel on new & used tyres.

Then there 4 different sets of tyres -> Soft,Super Soft, Medium & Hards & each is different. Different grips,different degradation. It will degrade differently with different fuel loads & set-up,there is heat cycle with the tyres which must be understood.

Everything in 2 tests. Now add that last year in Barcelona there was rain,torrential rain wasting full days. This can happen again.

It will take Mercedes 3-4 races to get a decent performance out of W02,teams which get more mileage will understand their car much better. This is an ABSOLUTE DISASTER.

Also add the fact that the 7-8 days will divided among the 2 guys as only 1 car will be tested. So that is 3.5-4 days each for Nico & Michael. That is the combined mileage. Each has his own driving style & it is not about understeer or oversteer alone the minute details vary from driver to driver. Each drivers individually must find peak performace & lower degradation level with VERY ORIGINAL & possibly DIFFERENT set-ups.

4 days for Michael to only test before Australia. This is an absolute joke.

[scarbs]

I have yet to find hard facts of Mclaren modifying the Mercedes supplied KERS ,in fact Me3rcedes has officially announced they are supplying Engine and KERS to MCL...

When I was at Mercedes AMG Powertrain (MBHPE) last week Andy Cowell confirmed all three teams get the same engines and KERS.

McLaren were the only team to run KERS in 2009 and this was provided by MBHPE with the reqiurement its didnt need structural changes to the car if they wanted to run without KERS. This what drove the pair to the sidepod mounted batteries. As opposed to the under fuel tank set up used by other teams in 2009 and MBHPE in 2011-2012.

So McLaren do not modify the KERS.

[ringo]

insightful.

[aleks_ader]

McLaren were the only team to run KERS in 2009 and this was provided by MBHPE with the reqiurement its didnt need structural changes to the car if they wanted to run without KERS. This what drove the pair to the sidepod mounted batteries. As opposed to the under fuel tank set up used by other teams in 2009 and MBHPE in 2011-2012.

So McLaren do not modify the KERS.

Hmm maybe Mercedes also there have a problem im compoments distribution around the car bodywork?? Maybe there have with that design (KERS batery under gas tank)slighty higher CofG or just made more comlicated calculatios to meet with balanse regs (i think that is next year rear 60% : front 40%)?