Mercedes AMG F1 W05

[CBeck113]

They are also removing weight from the car - this can certainly be an advantage for a hot lap too.

[kooleracer]

After the spin of Lewis, Mercedes stripped the whole car it took 5-6 hours Mercedes said it was an engine change but I think they would have removed the FRIC system and run the car without to see how it behaves.

To run the car without fric only requires the hydraulic link to be isolated. A job that might take 30 mins at the most. Others who disabled their fric, were able to continue running, so why not Merc?

Could be very integrated into the car. Not sure where you get your time estimates from though. How did you come up with 30 minutes?
I think the car can be faster without it. This assumes Hamilton is probably feeling more confident without the FRIC, but as said before there may be drawbacks with respect to race pace and also tyre degradation. Remember how bad mercedes used to be with tyre wear?

I don't think Mercedes is really worried about racing without the FRIC system. Otherwise we would have heard much more fuss from the team. About tire wear, FRIC is more about creating a stable platform under braking and highspeed changes. I don't think tyre wear is linked to FRIC. Because last year we had Mercedes had a FRIC system and the tyre wear was still bad. I think suspension geometry, weight balance, gearbox ( torque control out of slow conrners) have far more impact on tyre wear. FRIC is like TC, its help the drivers and gives them confidence. But last year Lewis stated that the FRIC system hampered his feel under braking. So maybe his braking could even improve without the FRIC system.

[theloniousmonk]

Could the increase in pitching as a result of the FRIC ban have an effect on the structure of Mercedes front suspension? Or could they get away without having to remove the narrow lower wishbone.

[aral]

Not sure where you get your time estimates from though. How did you come up with 30 minutes?

How much time do YOU reckon it would take to open a connection joint and to put a blanking cap on it?

[NewtonMeter]

Amus wrote that Merc will not run FRIC at Hockenheim! (Source: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 53531.html)

So i would guess that they ran without FRIC during testing ..

Apparently the car is faster without FRIC.. dunno how, but don't care!

Was that in the article? My german is so bad, I understand more with google translate (which itself is pretty bad).

It may also mean faster over one lap, but slower over a race distance. Or vice versa. Just playing devils advocate here.

I hate to shamelessly bump this post of mine, but I really want to know.

[pmneo]

I am German and there is no hint in the Article, that the car will be faster withou fric!

They write that experts are expecting a higher handicap on slow tracks than on high speed tracks for all fric powered cars.

They also say that all teams, except the small ones, are running fric ... Just not at the level like merc or rb

[NewtonMeter]

I am German and there is no hint in the Article, that the car will be faster withou fric!

They write that experts are expecting a higher handicap on slow tracks than on high speed tracks for all fric powered cars.

They also say that all teams, except the small ones, are running fric ... Just not at the level like merc or rb

Thanks for that.

Would Mr. MercAMGF1Fans share with us whence he obtained this information? I more curious than doubtful, let it be known.

[MercAMGF1Fans]

I am German and there is no hint in the Article, that the car will be faster withou fric!

They write that experts are expecting a higher handicap on slow tracks than on high speed tracks for all fric powered cars.

They also say that all teams, except the small ones, are running fric ... Just not at the level like merc or rb

Thanks for that.

Would Mr. MercAMGF1Fans share with us whence he obtained this information? I more curious than doubtful, let it be known.

Sorry wasn't replying to the article, just replying in general..
my source..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater check the comments on the side..

[NewtonMeter]

Sorry wasn't replying to the article, just replying in general..
my source..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater check the comments on the side..

Ah, thanks. Are you referring to Paul Bennett? I see he works at the team, which is pretty cool. So he would probably know.

There's still a white elephant in the room for me, which is why they had it on in the first place if the car is faster without it? These guys are pros, I mean look what they've built this year! So I'm sure they had a reason, and a good one too. I'm just curios what it is.

[SiLo]

If its on the car you can be sure it's there to either meet a regulation, or make it go faster. And seeing as this seems to break a regulation, or at least cover a grey area, you can be damned well sure its there to make it faster (in some sense).

[NewtonMeter]

If its on the car you can be sure it's there to either meet a regulation, or make it go faster. And seeing as this seems to break a regulation, or at least cover a grey area, you can be damned well sure its there to make it faster (in some sense).

Yeah, those are the only two reasons for having it on the car. So taking it off must disadvantage them in some way - otherwise it would never have been on in the first place. That is a fact.

What we don't know exactly is: how much of a disadvantage and what type of disadvantage. We can speculate though, as it's intended purpose (as far as we know), was to create a stable platform for the aerodynamics. A drawback is weight.

[elf341]

There is a third reason, apart from performance and compliance: wider peak-operating windows. This relates to the task through free practice of adjusting car settings from the the simulator-optimal values to true-optimal observed at track.
Components which both produce better correlation of sim-optimal to true-optimal, and also components which have lower performance sensitivity to parameter changes may be more desirable than those which don't have that quality, but have higher peak performance.

Ross Brawn in the past complained on the W03 that they had very peaky performance characteristics (e.g. china 2012 where they hit the sweet spot) - it's obviously a nightmare to develop in these kind of conditions.

[basti313]

They are also removing weight from the car - this can certainly be an advantage for a hot lap too.

The car should be well below the weight limit with and without FRIC. I do not think they can profit from more balancing as the car is already balanced very well and as the system is installed very low in the chassis, there is no profit from deeper COG.

And: The hydraulic lines are a part of the homologated chassis and the crash structure. At least partially they can not even remove them.
They will just change the dampers to non-FRIC dampers and drain the fluid. I do not even think they will remove the valves as this may change the aero inside the car.

[NewtonMeter]

There is a third reason, apart from performance and compliance: wider peak-operating windows. This relates to the task through free practice of adjusting car settings from the the simulator-optimal values to true-optimal observed at track.
Components which both produce better correlation of sim-optimal to true-optimal, and also components which have lower performance sensitivity to parameter changes may be more desirable than those which don't have that quality, but have higher peak performance.

Ross Brawn in the past complained on the W03 that they had very peaky performance characteristics (e.g. china 2012 where they hit the sweet spot) - it's obviously a nightmare to develop in these kind of conditions.

Hmmm...you make a very interesting point. I wonder if this might be it. It would make sense at first glance, because all else being equal, lower weight will give you more performance as you can put more ballast where you want.

But a steadier aerodynamic base might make setting up dynamic handling easier (heavy vs light braking, quick vs slow corners), as the car should behave more consistently throughout these.... At the cost of extra weight.

They obviously thought the trade-off is worth it, as they kept the system on the car.

[pmneo]

Bei den Wintertestfahrten wurde meistens ohne die Technik gefahren.

I don't think that running with or without FRIC is a huge difference for the Car itself ... Amus wrote in the Article, that the Mercs where running most of Winter Tests without FRIC on board ...

They key question is, why should they race with FRIC, if the car could be quicker without FRIC ...