Mercedes AMG F1 W03

[Ferraripilot]

They may not have downforce issues.
But a narrow operating window for the tyres is a fundamental problem.
Last year Ferrari had trouble being consistently below the operating window for, in particular, the hard tyre. It took them 7 races before they had effected a solution. Before that, they were battling with the Mercs, afterwards the Mercs really couldn't touch them. These tyre issues seem to be absolutely crucial.

Remember this?

I agree they don't have downforce issues at all. Overheating the tires in Melbourne seems odd considering the type of wear it seems they have, but ok what Brawn says goes right? And we can possibly suspect they overcorrected the problem in Malaysia partially due to the rain? Difficult to say.

To reduce tire temps would they need to make changes to the camber? Or suspension geometry itself? I don't recall Ferrari having to make but 1 actual rear suspension geometry change to F150.

[elf341]

Overheating the tires in Melbourne seems odd considering the type of wear it seems they have, but ok what Brawn says goes right? And we can possibly suspect they overcorrected the problem in Malaysia partially due to the rain?

Didn't Brawn say exactly that? He claimed that they spent the entire Malaysia practice sessions finding ways of altering the set-up of the car so to reduce the generated heat in the tyres. But he said in the cooler conditions on the Sunday there were between 15 and 20 degrees below the optimal temperature. If they're like the Bridgestones which operated between 90 and 110, then they were running almost 70 degrees - that's a lot of error!

He talked about "peaky" distributions -- in my experience, having nice plateau-like optimality conditions as function of the exogeneous variable (e.g. the Ambient Temperature) is usually something you "luck" into. But I hazard a guess that they can broaden the "peak" but probably by seriously bastardising other very carefully calibrated parameters. Brawn is right though, there is absolutely no way they can continue to develop performance on the car without sorting out this issue.

[raymondu999]

Say they managed to get a setup which kept the tyre in the temp window had the race been dry. Other teams also had that; also had to contend with the cooler temps; also had to wear the inters/wets - but could turn it on. Maybe the car is TOO peaky in terms of temps. Not only does it have a small window - but it might only be able to reach the right temps for one type of tyre?

[elf341]

Say they managed to get a setup which kept the tyre in the temp window had the race been dry. Other teams also had that; also had to contend with the cooler temps; also had to wear the inters/wets - but could turn it on. Maybe the car is TOO peaky in terms of temps. Not only does it have a small window - but it might only be able to reach the right temps for one type of tyre?

Right, exactly. There's two "windows" here. First, the temperature operating window of the tyre, which may be roughly a 20 deg C range. Second, is the W03's tyre temperature window for various outside variables, e.g. ambient temperature, or humidity. This is the window that Brawn is referring to as "narrow". You really want stability in this window, so that large changes in ambient temp or humidity do not budge the tyre temperature. The fact that a 10 deg drop in ambient temp and a rise in humidity can cause a 30 deg drop in tyre temperature shows far too much sensitivity on these outside variables.

[Ferraripilot]

I don't think I can see this issue is being tire compound specific as the car has proved to be very quick on both compounds. I believe the issue is more of a heating or cooling generality that they're missing the mark on.

[WhiteBlue]

Brawn: “It’s just a couple of carbon pipes running down the car,”

So there you have it

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/04/b ... -benefits/

Yep, I read that one and wondered if it was for real or a red herring.

He is obviously suggesting that the front wing F-duct is also controlled by DRS activation. It would indeed be difficult to copy this feature if Mercedes have designed ducts through the cockpit. In the W03 they are supposedly integrated in the floor or side wall of the tub. If you do not have such a feature you must add the ducts externally which would hurt the aerodynamics. Re designing the chassis isn't an option either as they can only have one design per season under the RRA.

[bhall]

Re designing the chassis isn't an option either as they can only have one design per season under the RRA.

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

Team principals comment on the desire for future FIA enforcement of RRA.

These are links
that refer to the RRA
as a gentleman's agreement.

The RRA is toothless, and the only penalty it carries is public scorn. So, respectfully, please stop repeating this unfounded interpretation of reality.

Please.

Regarding the front-wing F-duct, I don't necessarily think it would be that hard to copy. I think it's fed from the scoop on top of the chassis and that the pipes from the rear wing only serve to activate the system.

[N12ck]

Re designing the chassis isn't an option either as they can only have one design per season under the RRA.

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

Team principals comment on the desire for future FIA enforcement of RRA.

These are links
that refer to the RRA
as a gentleman's agreement.

The RRA is toothless, and the only penalty it carries is public scorn. So, respectfully, please stop repeating this unfounded interpretation of reality.

Please.

Regarding the front-wing F-duct, I don't necessarily think it would be that hard to copy. I think it's fed from the scoop on top of the chassis and that the pipes from the rear wing only serve to activate the system.

the homologation rules have changed now, so more than 1 tub is allowed

[WhiteBlue]

the homologation rules have changed now, so more than 1 tub is allowed

can you give us a quote of what has changed when?


The RRA is a secret but legally binding agreement between the teams. We have a dedicated thread dealing with all the speculation and with quotes.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7695&hilit=about+th ... estriction

There are published quotes by Adam Parr about the nature of the agreement that you can read there. For instance compare:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... mentw.html

for a quote before signing and

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/teams ... -document/

after signing has occurred.

Calling it a gentleman's agreement is inaccurate because it is not of a hand shake nature. Your sources simply are in error there. This is only natural for most internet based publications. They copy stuff they have read elsewhere. I suggest we restrict the debate to quotes by reliable figures like team principals.

Being secret doesn't obviously help when clauses of the agreement are under discussion. The above article also confirms that the tub is restricted although it is a bit unclear what the restrictions are due to grammatical inaccuracies. I have always thought that re designing the tub is prohibited because I do not know a single case of a B-car being introduced since the RRA came into effect. Prior to 2010 it was the general practise of top teams to have a new tub design in summer. Now they simply don't do it any more. If this isn't directly prohibited by the RRA - which we cannot know due to the secrecy - then it is obviously prohibitively expensive in terms of resources and money.

For the purpose of this thread it is not relevant why a new tub is not feasible. Mercedes have an advantage that other teams can only recover with much difficulty. It is better than an exhaust solution which can be relatively easily copied (like the benchmark McLaren design).

Regarding the front-wing F-duct, I don't necessarily think it would be that hard to copy. I think it's fed from the scoop on top of the chassis and that the pipes from the rear wing only serve to activate the system.

I fail to see the logic in your point. If the main air stream comes from the roll hoop - as you say - it still has to be piped through the cockpit to the front wing. And that necessitates a design feature like a hollow floor or wall.

[bhall]

I don't see how you can dismiss Internet sources and then use one yourself as the sole piece of evidence to support your claim, one that contradicts exactly the type of source you say is superior.

My sources are current, and they are abundant. The RRA doesn't really mean anything, which is precisely the reason why it's a talking point amongst the teams now.

Oh, and I guess I didn't really explain my line of thought on the Mercedes DRS. If the pipes from the rear wing to the front of the chassis are used for the activation of the system rather than as "operational components," for lack of a better term, it should give teams attempting to copy the device more flexibility while doing so.

Of course, the diameter and rigidity of the pipes in the W03 do nothing at all to support my theory. However, in my view, those facets are more a reflection of being an intended component from Day 1 of the chassis design than anything else. I can't see a reason why a smaller and more flexible solution, like a simple hose, would be any less effective, maybe just not as robust.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't see how you can dismiss Internet sources and then use one yourself as the sole piece of evidence to support your claim, one that contradicts exactly the type of source you say is superior.

My sources are current, and they are abundant. The RRA doesn't really mean anything, which is precisely the reason why it's a talking point amongst the teams now.

I suggest we discuss RRA where it belongs. Needless to say that I don't agree.

Oh, and I guess I didn't really explain my line of thought on the Mercedes DRS. If the pipes from the rear wing to the front of the chassis are used for the activation of the system rather than as "operational components," for lack of a better term, it should give teams attempting to copy the device more flexibility while doing so.

Of course, the diameter and rigidity of the pipes in the W03 do nothing at all to support my theory. However, in my view, those facets are more a reflection of being an intended component from Day 1 of the chassis design than anything else. I can't see a reason why a smaller and more flexible solution, like a simple hose, would be any less effective, maybe just not as robust.

I still cannot see your point. I thought we are on common ground that any DRS activated front wing stalling needs one or several ducts to run through the cockpit. Typically there is no such duct installed in a tub. Mercedes apparently have incorporated such a thing in their 2012 design and it is made from rigid carbon tubes. That suggests the ducts are in the tub walls. To copy that a competitor has to pipe the air into the tub, through the cockpit and out of the tub again. Or he may use hoses attached to the outside of the tub which is equally detrimental.

[Gridlock]

Regarding the front-wing F-duct, I don't necessarily think it would be that hard to copy. I think it's fed from the scoop on top of the chassis and that the pipes from the rear wing only serve to activate the system.

I fail to see the logic in your point. If the main air stream comes from the roll hoop - as you say - it still has to be piped through the cockpit to the front wing. And that necessitates a design feature like a hollow floor or wall.

I think he means the large-ish scoop on the bulkhead pictured at race weekends, not the roll hoop inlet. It's pretty much in the same place as the F-duct (original) inlet, maybe a bit further back.

I find it interesting everything about this system seems to be in a pair - two inlets, two tubes, etc. Does this suggest that each side of the car can be stalled individually, depending on the difference in pressure across the inlets? Creating in effect an aero-assisted turning aid in principle not different to McLaren's split brake pedal.

[bhall]

Needless to say that I don't agree.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

To finish up the DRS bit, I'm not even entirely sold on the idea that other teams need to copy it. The qualifying speed-trap numbers thus far don't point to it being essential for success.

[WhiteBlue]

I think he means the large-ish scoop on the bulkhead pictured at race weekends, not the roll hoop inlet. It's pretty much in the same place as the F-duct (original) inlet, maybe a bit further back.

Fine, in that case you need two ducts from the rear wing through the cockpit to the bulkhead scoop.

I find it interesting everything about this system seems to be in a pair - two inlets, two tubes, etc. Does this suggest that each side of the car can be stalled individually, depending on the difference in pressure across the inlets? Creating in effect an aero-assisted turning aid in principle not different to McLaren's split brake pedal.

I believe the explanation is much more simple. You need a good cross section to carry the pressure signal from the rear wing to the relay valve. Since you have the rear opening in a pair you exploit the added signal strength of the combined cross section. The benefit of stalling the front wing is the improved balance between rear and front downforce at high speed. This works practically only on the straights. Potentially one could exploit the effect you describe but then the cross section of a single duct must be big enough at reduced speed to carry the signal. I think the requirements are much higher if you attempt such an exploit.

[ArchAngel]

...I'm not even entirely sold on the idea that other teams need to copy it. The qualifying speed-trap numbers thus far don't point to it being essential for success.

The other teams shouldn't have to, and there's no reason for them to feel as if they're being arm-twisted into going down the w-duct route as the only avenue of development for finding additional qualy & race pace. They've already got a development plan/strategy in-line with their budget for the year, so there's no reason for them to feel that they're being coerced into dumping all that in lieu of another team's innovation.

As for the Mercs not crushing everybody else in the speed-traps by a large margin, I've always felt that their system allows more aggressive wing AOA for greater DF through turns, while neutralising some of the drag penalty in straights and still keeping them close to the top in speed-traps.