Mercedes AMG F1 W04

[aral]

- has nothing to do with Fric and has everything to do with the fact that the feedback isn't the same he's used to more running in the car and he'll either get more comfortable or they'll alter it

Maybe as the suspension feel has changed, it really does have something to do with FRIC? I would reckon that the feel of brakes on a car with FRIC, would differ to the feel of a car without it.

[mantikos]

- has nothing to do with Fric and has everything to do with the fact that the feedback isn't the same he's used to more running in the car and he'll either get more comfortable or they'll alter it

Maybe as the suspension feel has changed, it really does have something to do with FRIC? I would reckon that the feel of brakes on a car with FRIC, would differ to the feel of a car without it.

HAM, Ross and the others who keep claiming its the calipers, master cylinders etc.


It seems like ppl on this board are convinced that everything Mecr does this year has something to do with FRIC...they win, must be FRIC, they don't win must be FRIC, its either that or the Pirelli test...come on ppl...we needn't assume that Hamilton and the engineers don't know what it is and we do...why would he practice coasting and braking if the problem was really the suspension and NOT the calipers and master cylinders?

[Cocles]

@Mantikos I agree with you 100%. Thank you for posting that.

[mantikos]

@Mantikos I agree with you 100%. Thank you for posting that.

Thank you - appreciate the support.

[Paul]

Everyone should remember that quotes that appear in press are often fed through quite a few filters, including PR people from the team and editors of said press. So while using those quotes in arguments as proof is totally reasonable, dismissing any other theories based only on contradiction with said quotes might also not be most helpful to finding the truth.

I, for one, find great pleasure in reading all kinds of theories and deciding for myself which one is most plausible, which is often a combination of many. So as long as discussions aren't just "I'm right, and you're wrong!" and "No, I'm obviously right because X said so on Y website!" they very much belong to most technical of threads.

All my opinion of course, thanks for reading.

[mantikos]

Everyone should remember that quotes that appear in press are often fed through quite a few filters, including PR people from the team and editors of said press. So while using those quotes in arguments as proof is totally reasonable, dismissing any other theories based only on contradiction with said quotes might also not be most helpful to finding the truth.

I, for one, find great pleasure in reading all kinds of theories and deciding for myself which one is most plausible, which is often a combination of many. So as long as discussions aren't just "I'm right, and you're wrong!" and "No, I'm obviously right because X said so on Y website!" they very much belong to most technical of threads.

All my opinion of course, thanks for reading.

I don't disagree with you on most counts, but theories need to be based on scientific fact and not 'I feel like FRIC caused the tsunami in Sri Lanka' just cause. I also agree comments are filtered through PR, and HAM's self-authored article on BBC is probably not exempt from that but James Allen, Adam Cooper, Anderson and many many other valuable and credible sources have backed the statements made by HAM in his article regarding master cylinders and calipers etc (also in the article, as a sign of PR scrub, he said caliper and those kind of things keeping it very vague). In fact the other credible sources have added significant technical detail to what HAM had briefly mentioned.

All I am suggesting is that we base our theories on science, not feeling, keep the forum technical and not turn it into debate club practice sessions, and most importantly, read before posting, running around in circles every 3rd page or so because people don't read before regurgitating a theory previously discussed is not constructive.

Just my humble opinion and one that is shared by at least a handful of others here.

[Richard]

Lets suspend our disbelief for a moment and imagine that it might perhaps just be possible for both views to co-exist?

In my humble ignorance, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significantly different suspension system would change the behaviour of the car under braking. Equally, my ignorant mind can imagine that a driver who has spent their entire career with one team (and possibly one brake supplier) from a little schoolboy to a fully fledged WDC would be used to a certain brake configuration.

Now I hope I'm not stretching your credulity too much to suggest that the highly talented (and very very expensive) left foot of that driver would notice the difference of both factors. Certainly the people signing the very big bank transfers would be mightily displeased if that wasn't so.

I must admit that I'd imagine (my ignorance is overwhelming) that on a scale of influence ranging from nothing to nothing-else-matters, the suspension might be towards "noticeable but not impossible" while coming to terms with a different brake supplier might be "woah I'm not used to that".

Of course the obvious solution is to send the driver on an extended mid-season test, but that's just my ignorance showing again. It's also a different thread

[dans79]

so tell me how on earth are they so bloody fast in qualy? still lack of downforce? and then extremly losing positions in race? definitely not corelated with fuel right. yeah excellent job

You don't need to have the most downforce to be the fastest in qualifying, as good mechanical grip can compensate for a lack of downforce. good mechanical grips lets you maintain the best contact patch possible, and thus break later, accelerate sooner, and take slow speed turns faster. However it also works the tires harder, more deflection, and greater wear.


Take Canada for example Lewis was very close to Vettel for pole. But it's very possible that while Vettel might use 4% of the tire life for a hot lap Lewis used 4.5 or 5%. it's all a trade off.

[SectorOne]

You don't need to have the most downforce to be the fastest in qualifying, as good mechanical grip can compensate for a lack of downforce.

Up to a certain speed. After that, downforce is king.
If you got enough you can even disregard mechanical grip completely and still come out on top at the end of the year.

[diego.liv]

I'm sorry i couldn't draw it but im not able, i just can't.
Is it allowed to have turn vanes a bit more under the nose? Curving a bit more their shape, they'll continue to work as air flow diverters: my point is having more surface at the front of the car increasing front downforce.
Besides, there would be less pressure under the nose; if i'm right, that's why RBR (Sauber?) and Ferrari used the so-called shark mouth, less airflow under the nose at high speed.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Mercedes Engine cover update from Gary Anderson.


via AutoSport

[dren]

Maybe the braking issues are partially due to how and if Mercedes uses engine braking and KERS charging. Their system is different than Mclaren's. It may not be just the brakes...

[SiLo]

That's a very good point you make about the KERS harvesting as well as engine braking. I find it a little silly that people are saying they are disappointed with Hamilton's performances even though he's only been with the team for a short amount of time and had very little input into what he wants from the car during the design process.

Personally I don't think it's the suspension, as it's designed to be very stiff when braking isn't it?

[cherok1212]

As a HAM fan I am starting to wonder if LH's brake problems have less to do with brake components and mechanisms and more to do with Nico Rosberg being crazy quick in an F1 car. I do hope that Merc AMG do not waste time and resources on an issue that can be remedied by the driver himself and instead focus on fuel mileage and not setting the rear tires on fire. [-o<

[raymondu999]

The Merc has been very soft and the McLarens have generally been stiff with a crisp turn-in. I wonder if the soft roll is more suitable for carrying speed through the apex, whilst Hamilton used to get the nose in and just traction out, in a later apex fashion.