Team: Toto Wolff (Executive Director - Business), Paddy Lowe (Executive Director - Technical), Andy Cowell (Executive Director of Mercedes AMG Powertrains), Niki Lauda (Chairman), Bob Bell (TD), Aldo Costa (ED), Geoffrey Willis (Technology Director), Ron Meadows (SD), Andrew Shovlin (CRE), Simon Cole (CTE), Matthew Dane (CM)
Drivers: Lewis Hamilton (44), Nico Rosberg (6)
Team name: Mercedes AMG F1 Petronas
Amazing. You might be on to something with this.Chuckjr wrote:Simple phone video rendering the superb control of the Merc's front pushrod. It freely moves while cornering, but under braking it is an absolute stone.
Yeah. Reportedly Rosberg tested a Monza spec. The first I am seeing it though.
Isn't the fric system, except it is no longer allowed to link the front and rear. Supposedly the complete lack of dive is why ham struggled with qualy last year.holeindalip wrote:I'm not fully aware of the technical regs, but is it somehow tied to the hydraulic brake pressure??
This isn't a sure way of checking whether Nico has a lower downforce setup or not. As far as I'm concerned they are running the same configuration, they are close in the speed traps and in the sectors and in the Sky analysis it was interesting to see Nico who was slightly behind entering Eau Rouge end up ahead of Lewis by the end of s1. But what was mentioned was that Nico gained a very small amount of time through Eau Rouge giving him a small amount of extra momentum further up the straight rather than downforce settings. Also the lights on the dash doesn't really prove anything as when Lewis is in top gear at around 11,800 rpm or so no lights are showing even though he is very close to the usual shift point (around 12,000rpm) yet in the lower gears the lights come on as early as 9,000 rpms.SectorOne wrote:As for the two different rear wings, check the rpm´s of both cars.
http://i.imgur.com/zAmEjx2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N6ZzLmj.jpg
Would this configuration also make the DRS more effective? I guess the DRS flap is regulated by a projected area, which allows to have a higher retractable section at the center of the wing where the pressure is the highest.bhall II wrote:It reduces frontal area, and the shallower AoA at the wing tips reduce the strength of wingtip vortices.
http://i.imgur.com/wbfAdfe.jpg
It's also a pretty good sign that the aero dep't in Brackley is bored.
It a lot more then "As far as I'm concerned they are running the same configuration"Ninners wrote:This isn't a sure way of checking whether Nico has a lower downforce setup or not.
To my reading of the regulations, which isn't always great, because Regulationese isn't my native tongue, the size of the flap and its range of motion is limited by the last part of 3.10.1...Edax wrote:Would this configuration also make the DRS more effective? I guess the DRS flap is regulated by a projected area, which allows to have a higher retractable section at the center of the wing where the pressure is the highest.
In practice, the flap is typically sized so that it's virtually flat when DRS is engaged in order to maximize the reduction in frontal area. I can't see how that would be the case for Mercedes' wing, though, because its dimensions have to stay within the "rear wing box" (3.18.1 d), and it has to be arranged to fail safe (3.18.1 g).The chord of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must always be smaller than the chord of the lowermost section at the same lateral station.
Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal vertical plane must lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18, when this distance must lie between 10mm and 65mm.
