2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

[FoxHound]

Ben,

Gearing shorter would certainly add wheelspin, but if the gear was longer you'd more likely have clutch issues at the start.

@Jolle
For a longer ratio, the wheels are turning more times relative to a crank revolution. For a longer first gear, you'll need more torque to get going. With the V6 Turbo, it's not a problem I'd imagine. For the gearbox and clutch, probably more so.

[Jolle]

Ben,

Gearing shorter would certainly add wheelspin, but if the gear was longer you'd more likely have clutch issues at the start.

@Jolle
For a longer ratio, the wheels are turning more times relative to a crank revolution. For a longer first gear, you'll need more torque to get going. With the V6 Turbo, it's not a problem I'd imagine. For the gearbox and clutch, probably more so.

It's the slightly longer time you'll need a slipping clutch, or the bigger difference in optimal engine revs and (stationary) wheels that's the problem. The smaller the gap, the better the initial launch.

[FoxHound]

It's the slightly longer time you'll need a slipping clutch, or the bigger difference in optimal engine revs and (stationary) wheels that's the problem. The smaller the gap, the better the initial launch.

Yes, as my understanding of it goes.

[bhall II]

Well, just try it out yourself. Especially when your car is a turbo, it's much easier to have a good launch in first then in second. (Or do you drive an automatic?)

I've not made any qualitative statements here beyond saying that longer gearing makes it easier to control wheelspin. That's it.

wheelspin (ˈwiːlspɪn)
noun
the rotation of a wheel when it is not achieving any grip or traction on a surface ⇒ I accelerated very gently, trying to find optimum traction and avoid wheelspin., ⇒ The thing just zooms cleanly away: no wheelspin, no tugging on the steering wheel.

[FoxHound]

I've not made any qualitative statements here beyond saying that longer gearing makes it easier to control wheelspin. That's it.

But you do disagree with my assessments that the W07 has class leading aero and chassis, and you are pinning that on driveability, vividly illustrating the point with a 2014 Ferrari clip.

But, driveability is also going to be related to torque. My mates diesel Beemer blows my S2K into the weeds if I ain't in Vtec YO mode...
And V6 Turbo's have plenty of torque, some say maybe too much.

Then we get to the tyre. It is the contact patch that takes all this torque after all. If you have too much, you break traction....regularly.
Yet this will be counter intuitive to conventional wisdom, suggesting that the Renault PU would be higher up in the torque stakes than the Mercedes, with the implication being Merc are utilising less torque more of the time.
And then people complain that the Mercedes is 20/30hp up on them.....

However, we saw during the weekend at Hockenheim that Red Bull managed a top speed of 345kmh. Excuse this mess of a copy and paste but the link is there for referencing.
Speed traps at Hockenhiem indicate that if you wanna go quick in a straight line, you need a Renault PU. And yes, Speed does not indicate driveability, but you need plenty of Horsepower to be pulling numbers like these, or stupid low cut aero package, of which neither Renault power team ran.

1 88 Rio Haryanto 349.9
2 3 Daniel Ricciardo 345.1
3 8 ROMAIN GROSJEAN 344.3
4 94 PASCAL WEHRLEIN 343.4
5 7 KIMI Raikkonen 342.9
6 21 ESTEBAN GUTIERREZ 342.4
7 33 MAX Verstappen 342.4
8 19 FELIPE MASSA 341.1
9 11 SERGIO PEREZ 340.3
10 20 Kevin Magnussen 340.2
11 26 DANIIL Kvyat 340.1
12 55 CARLOS SAINZ JR 339.1
13 6 NICO ROSBERG 338.7
14 77 Valtteri Bottas 338.2
15 5 SEBASTIAN VETTEL 338.1
16 9 MARCUS ERICSSON 338.0
17 30 Jolyon PALMER 337.5
18 44 LEWIS HAMILTON 337.1
19 12 FELIPE NASR 337.0
20 27 NICO Hulkenberg 336.6
21 14 FERNANDO ALONSO 334.4
22 22 Jenson BUTTON 332.8

http://grandepremio.uol.com.br/f1/notic ... 2016-da-f1

With all the above swirling about, are you suggesting Mercedes V6 is more driveable than the opposition, and does this also incorporate it's clients, with whom they share PU's, but do not hold a candle to the Factory cars performance?

Driveability was an issue with V8's fo sho(lack of punch albeit better than the peaky V10's). V6's because they went all arse happy breaking traction at the beginning(2014)(too much punch). But this year, I've seen little evidence to support this theory of yours Ben.

[Jolle]

I've not made any qualitative statements here beyond saying that longer gearing makes it easier to control wheelspin. That's it.

But you do disagree with my assessments that the W07 has class leading aero and chassis, and you are pinning that on driveability, vividly illustrating the point with a 2014 Ferrari clip.

But, driveability is also going to be related to torque. My mates diesel Beemer blows my S2K into the weeds if I ain't in Vtec YO mode...
And V6 Turbo's have plenty of torque, some say maybe too much.

Then we get to the tyre. It is the contact patch that takes all this torque after all. If you have too much, you break traction....regularly.
Yet this will be counter intuitive to conventional wisdom, suggesting that the Renault PU would be higher up in the torque stakes than the Mercedes, with the implication being Merc are utilising less torque more of the time.
And then people complain that the Mercedes is 20/30hp up on them.....

However, we saw during the weekend at Hockenheim that Red Bull managed a top speed of 345kmh. Excuse this mess of a copy and paste but the link is there for referencing.
Speed traps at Hockenhiem indicate that if you wanna go quick in a straight line, you need a Renault PU. And yes, Speed does not indicate driveability, but you need plenty of Horsepower to be pulling numbers like these, or stupid low cut aero package, of which neither Renault power team ran.

1 88 Rio Haryanto 349.9
2 3 Daniel Ricciardo 345.1
3 8 ROMAIN GROSJEAN 344.3
4 94 PASCAL WEHRLEIN 343.4
5 7 KIMI Raikkonen 342.9
6 21 ESTEBAN GUTIERREZ 342.4
7 33 MAX Verstappen 342.4
8 19 FELIPE MASSA 341.1
9 11 SERGIO PEREZ 340.3
10 20 Kevin Magnussen 340.2
11 26 DANIIL Kvyat 340.1
12 55 CARLOS SAINZ JR 339.1
13 6 NICO ROSBERG 338.7
14 77 Valtteri Bottas 338.2
15 5 SEBASTIAN VETTEL 338.1
16 9 MARCUS ERICSSON 338.0
17 30 Jolyon PALMER 337.5
18 44 LEWIS HAMILTON 337.1
19 12 FELIPE NASR 337.0
20 27 NICO Hulkenberg 336.6
21 14 FERNANDO ALONSO 334.4
22 22 Jenson BUTTON 332.8

http://grandepremio.uol.com.br/f1/notic ... 2016-da-f1

With all the above swirling about, are you suggesting Mercedes V6 is more driveable than the opposition, and does this also incorporate it's clients, with whom they share PU's, but do not hold a candle to the Factory cars performance?

Driveability was an issue with V8's fo sho(lack of punch albeit better than the peaky V10's). V6's because they went all arse happy breaking traction at the beginning(2014)(too much punch). But this year, I've seen little evidence to support this theory of yours Ben.

Horsepower is torque times revs, so they are (with the max revs) the same. Also, top
Speed has nothing to do with drivability.
Drivability is the ease that the driver can put the power trough the tires on the road, the more drivable the car is, the more efficient he is and the less skill it takes.
In a car with high drivability the differences between drivers are also smaller. The more drivable the car is, the less strain on the tires because of less sliding and spinning.

The tire wear, the closeness of Hamilton and Rosberg and how it's taking meters from corners indicate a very drivable engine (and chassis). It looks like the Mercedes people just have done an incredible job by engineering a drivable high power PU, a chassis that can be soft for good traction and is quite forgiving and an areo packege that works excellent on every circuit. Low tire wear, uses less fuel then the competition and, apart from some small silly things, very reliable.

[bhall II]

But you do disagree with my assessments that the W07 has class leading aero and chassis, and you are pinning that on driveability, vividly illustrating the point with a 2014 Ferrari clip.

No, I disagree with the logic you've used to support your assertion that W07 exemplifies class-leading aero and vehicle dynamics, because performance within the parameters you've chosen as benchmarks is in no way limited to aero and vehicle dynamics, and engine driveability is but one mitigating factor. There are others, too.

In other word, you need to come up with something else to make your case.

And I swear to God if you make me, or anyone else, have to explain why torque is irrelevant to this discussion beyond gearing, I'm gonna travel through the Internet and strangle you.

Power comes from speed; torque without speed is nothing.

Irrespective of output, excellent driveability is marked by a wide power band and a linear throttle response that allows for exquisite control by the driver. That's it.

Let's take another trip back to 2014...

[FoxHound]

Horsepower is torque times revs, so they are (with the max revs) the same. Also, top
Speed has nothing to do with drivability.

I made mention of this in my post.

Drivability is the ease that the driver can put the power trough the tires on the road, the more drivable the car is, the more efficient he is and the less skill it takes.
In a car with high drivability the differences between drivers are also smaller. The more drivable the car is, the less strain on the tires because of less sliding and spinning.

And I swear to God if you make me, or anyone else, have to explain why torque is irrelevant to this discussion beyond gearing, I'm gonna travel through the Internet and strangle you.

(Edit)....this goes to you too, Ben!! You know it anyway...but I'm lining up my next move here....


My bet is the Mercedes is more powerful in both torque figures and bhp. And as the simplest definition(there's a thread on this...lots of opinions) for the relation is Power = the rate at which bhp delivers it's torque. Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

Well the V6 Turbo's are pushing near 500nm Torque and around 900bhp all told(with recuperated energy).
No engine revs close to the maximum of 15k, but closer to 12k due to the fuel flow restriction.
The engine's torque is nigh on instantaneously available, as evidence from 2014 depicts, right through the rev range to 12k.


Bear this in mind, because now we have the tyre dealing with this torque. The tyres are the same for everyone, and the top 3 are within about 20bhp or so(torque figures for the turbo's are hard to come by).
Would it not stand to reason that a more powerful engine would be breaking traction more easily through the tyre?

We are traction, fuel and rev limited.

If anything, it is a map that functions with the engine to deploy it's power. You only get 2 for the season...

Kindly posted by Ben in 2015....

Teams are only allowed two proper maps for torque demand, and they're heavily restricted. Everything else relates to fuel-mix, ERS, etc.

5.5.3 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.

5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

5.5.5 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

So we are map limited too.

And Merc teams also get exactly the same maps as the factory team...
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/04/ ... h-engines/

So if you get the maps wrong, you are stuck for the season.

[Jolle]

Horsepower is torque times revs, so they are (with the max revs) the same. Also, top
Speed has nothing to do with drivability.

I made mention of this in my post.

Drivability is the ease that the driver can put the power trough the tires on the road, the more drivable the car is, the more efficient he is and the less skill it takes.
In a car with high drivability the differences between drivers are also smaller. The more drivable the car is, the less strain on the tires because of less sliding and spinning.

My bet is the Mercedes is more powerful in both torque figures and bhp. And as the simplest definition(there's a thread on this...lots of opinions) for the relation is Power = the rate at which bhp delivers it's torque. Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

Well the V6 Turbo's are pushing near 500nm Torque and around 900bhp all told(with recuperated energy).
No engine revs close to the maximum of 15k, but closer to 12k due to the fuel flow restriction.
The engine's torque is nigh on instantaneously available, as evidence from 2014 depicts, right through the rev range to 12k.


Bear this in mind, because now we have the tyre dealing with this torque. The tyres are the same for everyone, and the top 3 are within about 20bhp or so(torque figures for the turbo's are hard to come by).
Would it not stand to reason that a more powerful engine would be breaking traction more easily through the tyre?

We are traction, fuel and rev limited.

If anything, it is a map that functions with the engine to deploy it's power. You only get 2 for the season...

Kindly posted by Ben in 2015....

Teams are only allowed two proper maps for torque demand, and they're heavily restricted. Everything else relates to fuel-mix, ERS, etc.

5.5.3 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.

5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

5.5.5 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

So we are map limited too.

And Merc teams also get exactly the same maps as the factory team...
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/04/ ... h-engines/

So if you get the maps wrong, you are stuck for the season.

It would have been so simple if it's just an PU and tires. The (rear) suspension is also one of Mercedes' key points. The last couple of years they've been able to run a very soft rear, with sometimes strange amounts of roll.

[bhall II]

Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

I don't want anything to do with that one or whatever flows from it. Aside from being wrong, it's irrelevant.

From a hardware standpoint, driveability in F1 is largely a measure of how well the various components of the PU are integrated. The ICE, turbocharger, MGU-K, MGU-H, and the ES all have to reliably work together in perfect harmony across a very broad range of conditions and regimes in order to efficiently and effectively deliver power. If any part of the chain is amiss, every other part will suffer.

The complexities involved don't lend themselves to easy discussion, much less my ability to comprehend anything, so I'm not even gonna try. That's for real rocket surgeons, and I just play one on TV.

[FoxHound]

It would have been so simple if it's just an PU and tires. The (rear) suspension is also one of Mercedes' key points. The last couple of years they've been able to run a very soft rear, with sometimes strange amounts of roll.

My line of thinking too.

Here are a few pictures that demonstrate it.

Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

I don't want anything to do with that one or whatever flows from it. Aside from being wrong, it's irrelevant.

Well, it's simplified enough to actually be envisioned. He wasn't gonna pull the math out on this with a group of drunkards.

From a hardware standpoint, driveability in F1 is largely a measure of how well the various components of the PU are integrated. The ICE, turbocharger, MGU-K, MGU-H, and the ES all have to reliably work together in perfect harmony across a very broad range of conditions and regimes in order to efficiently and effectively deliver power. If any part of the chain is amiss, every other part will suffer.

The complexities involved don't lend themselves to easy discussion, much less my ability to comprehend anything, so I'm not even gonna try. That's for real rocket surgeons, and I just play one on TV.

You'll find no argument from me that integration is pivotal, or that harmony across the board is required or you'll look a donkey.
We are discussing my claims that Mercedes have the best aero chassis, on the premise of results, sector times and tyre management.
And pictures!

[bhall II]

Well, it's simplified enough to actually be envisioned. He wasn't gonna pull the math out on this with a group of drunkards.

It will never be advantageous to be down on power by some 12%. That's roughly twice the deficit from Renault to Mercedes this year (if Horner's statement is to be believed).

I don't really have an opinion about the relative standing of the chassis beyond a hand-wavy belief that Red Bull and Mercedes are close, but have different strengths, and both are ahead of Ferrari, a team that can't seem to take more than one step forward without tripping over themselves in the process.

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out next season. Theoretically, current aero concepts should just scale-up with no significant changes to philosophy. However, I do think Mercedes will have to start favoring peak downforce over consistency, because Red Bull is quickly gaining consistency with peak downforce, if that makes any sense.

[Cold Fussion]

My bet is the Mercedes is more powerful in both torque figures and bhp. And as the simplest definition(there's a thread on this...lots of opinions) for the relation is Power = the rate at which bhp delivers it's torque. Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

I would love to see the results from a laptime simulator where you subtract 12% of the power from one car. I have a sneaky suspicion that it won't say the less powerful car is faster.

Explained to me by a Honda technician(Yuasa racing).... A diesel has 200nm torque and can deliver that at a rate of 150bhp, versus a Petrol with 120nm torque that can deliver it at 170bhp. The diesel would be superior if the cars were of similar mass, size etc.

I don't want anything to do with that one or whatever flows from it. Aside from being wrong, it's irrelevant.

Are you sure? The most amusing discussions that have happened on this forum are the result of non-technical people trying to talk about power and torque.

[bhall II]

And Merc teams also get exactly the same maps as the factory team...
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/04/ ... h-engines/

So if you get the maps wrong, you are stuck for the season.

It's two maps per engine, not per season. Otherwise, updates would be sorta pointless, yanno?

Also...

How do the customer teams run their engines each weekend? Is everything handled by embedded HPP engineers in the customer team?

Mercedes: How the engine is run is defined by what we call the phase document. This dictates how many laps can be done in each engine mode and defines the safe operating limits. These are then fluid according to the damage metrics we monitor throughout each race weekend.

[...]

How do you track and plan mileage with 4/5 engines over a season and how do you gather data on customer engines?

Mercedes: Very carefully, is the answer. These data sets are gathered in same way as any others on the car. Performance data is firewalled per team and reliability data shared between all to maximise the chances of every Mercedes-Benz engine seeing the finish line at every race. Any issues detected on our works cars benefit our customers – and vice versa.

So, performance parameters are constantly adjusted, and customer teams don't know if they're getting the most from them, which is unfortunate, because...

Taking cooling installation as one of the examples you’ve mentioned, this is a chassis-side system...

The relationships between works outfits and any customers they supply have always been like this. Hence, McLaren-Honda, Pt II.

The most amusing discussions that have happened on this forum are the result of non-technical people trying to talk about power and torque.

I'm one of those non-technical people, and torque conversations tend to make my head hurt - until someone argues vociferously that torque is energy. That's when I break out the popcorn.

[FoxHound]

So, performance parameters are constantly adjusted, and customer teams don't know if they're getting the most from them, which is unfortunate, because....

Shall we let the customers look after the engines themselves? Because if they gone go tinker with it, Merc Ferrari et al won't sell it.
It should also be mentioned that both Williams and Force India have offices in Brixworth HPE.
So it's not a case of the customer never knowing if they don't get the most from the engine, it's symbiotic.

I still say that given data from sectors, lap times, from different circuits, allied to verifiable pictures of the cars running different wing angles, as well as the teams ability to run the tyres longer and harder, that Mercedes chassis and aero, as well as engine, is superior to anything else currently.