2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

[SR71]

So Merc is better all the way around the track.

No. They are better in certain corners and they have more electrical energy to use. On most parts of the track the Bulls are equal.

You really need to go look at the numbers, because you are talking nonsense now. Of the 37 data points provided, Merc was faster in 23 of them (62.1%), RBR was faster in 6 (15.4%) and they where equal in 8 (21.6%)

Additonally:
Merc was Equal or better to RBR in every turn below 150kph. At those speeds and lower in turns, 2016 F1 cars are traction limited, not power limited. So, it doesn't mater how much Mercs power advantage is, because they can't get it to the ground.

Based on the data points provided, Merc has the better chassis, anyone who think otherwise must be smoking something.

Which supports Red Bulls claim that if they had a more powerful motor they could challenge...

its almost painfully obvious that if Red Bull had a PU with more power than Merc they could challenge. How some cannot see it is equally painful.

Develop more power than the leading power unit = compete for wins. This is true throughout the entire history of F1...

[dans79]

its almost painfully obvious that if Red Bull had a PU with more power than Merc they could challenge. How some cannot see it is equally painful.

Develop more power than the leading power unit = compete for wins. This is true throughout the entire history of F1...

If RBR is only being held back by the PU, then why are they at best equal, and usually behind in slow speed corners where the PU doesn't matter?

Answer: Because the PU isn't their only problem.

[flmkane]

No. They are better in certain corners and they have more electrical energy to use. On most parts of the track the Bulls are equal.

You really need to go look at the numbers, because you are talking nonsense now. Of the 37 data points provided, Merc was faster in 23 of them (62.1%), RBR was faster in 6 (15.4%) and they where equal in 8 (21.6%)

Additonally:
Merc was Equal or better to RBR in every turn below 150kph. At those speeds and lower in turns, 2016 F1 cars are traction limited, not power limited. So, it doesn't mater how much Mercs power advantage is, because they can't get it to the ground.

Based on the data points provided, Merc has the better chassis, anyone who think otherwise must be smoking something.

Which supports Red Bulls claim that if they had a more powerful motor they could challenge...

its almost painfully obvious that if Red Bull had a PU with more power than Merc they could challenge. How some cannot see it is equally painful.

Develop more power than the leading power unit = compete for wins. This is true throughout the entire history of F1...

For once I agree with you.

However, consider the fact that resources (ie manpower and funds) are managed differently between Mercedes and Red Bull. Given about 500 million euros, Mercedes spends a portion on power unit development, whereas Red Bull spends most of their development budget on aero. As a result, Mercedes will never have aero as good as Red Bull. What counts is the complete package and how it comes together. It is obvious that the Mercedes is the better car overall.

It is obvious that winning in F1 is achieved through proper management of resources, rather than magically being fast on a given day. Red Bull historically chose to prioritize aero in a frozen engine era, which succeeded at that time. However, once engines became a factor again, the game changed.

In the early 2000s, Ferrari had the best package, whereas BMW Williams had the best engine and Mercedes Mclaren had pretty much the best aero. Remember who did all the winning?

[Just_a_fan]

RedBull saying they'd be better with more power is the same as Manor saying they'd be better with more downforce. The Mercedes is the best car because it perfectly blends all of the required elements. Mercedes spent a lot of time and money developing their power train and car together. Now they are reaping the rewards.

Back when RedBull were winning, they liked to pretend it was all the chassis and not the engine. But the engine allowed them to develop the diffuser blowing techniques that they perfected. Again, car and power train were ideally suited.

Horner and his bleating about engines has become background noise now - it's predictable and it's boring.

[FoxHound]

its almost painfully obvious that if Red Bull had a PU with more power than Merc they could challenge. How some cannot see it is equally painful.

Develop more power than the leading power unit = compete for wins. This is true throughout the entire history of F1...

If RBR is only being held back by the PU, then why are they at best equal, and usually behind in slow speed corners where the PU doesn't matter?

Answer: Because the PU isn't their only problem.

The entry to Copse is most telling, both doing near identical speed, and Mercedes pulls out 3kph in the space of a few meters BEFORE the steering is straight and the throttle is hammered.
It's also a high aero and tyre load corner.

But yea....PU!!!!

[bhall II]

If RBR is only being held back by the PU, then why are they at best equal, and usually behind in slow speed corners where the PU doesn't matter?

You sure about that?

The entry to Copse is most telling...

I think what happens immediately after the apex says more. Once the cars are no longer traction-limited, i.e. when the role of driveability has been greatly diminished, they're at the exact same pace.



I'm rather fond of these two.

Despite arriving at the circuit's fastest corner down by 3kph, RB12 rounds the apex 3kph quicker.



And through the twistiest of the twisty bits, RB12 leads W07 in the sections where stability off-throttle and under braking are of more importance than driveability (just like at Copse).



Also, keep in mind that cars spend 70% of a lap around Silverstone at full throttle, making it one of the more demanding "power" tracks on the schedule. (For context, cars at Monza spend 76% of the lap at full throttle.)

With stuff like this, there's always gonna be a valid counterargument, because there's no way to coherently put these pieces together.

[OO7]

RBR generally run more wing angle on their cars and this was certainly the case in Silverstone.

[dans79]

If RBR is only being held back by the PU, then why are they at best equal, and usually behind in slow speed corners where the PU doesn't matter?

You sure about that?

I'm pretty sure!

Lets get nit picky then, and look at data points 11 through 22, Brooklands entry through Copse exit.

sequence:
Coming up to Brooklands Merc is up 8 kph on the strait and 9kph in the braking zone. They are still up 7 kph at the apex, but are down by 2kph on the transition to Luffield.

analysis:
This is pretty much what I would expect, for a high speed entry and mid speed exit. Merc is running less DF than RBR, and thus can't get on the power as soon in the mid speed transition.



sequence:
Entering Luffield Merc is down by 2kph, Up by 3kph at the apex, and still up by 3kph at exit. But note they are equal as they sweep through Woodcote.

analysis:
As expected for a mid speed entry and slow speed exit. Merc is able to work the tires better or the chassis is more compliant, take your pick. Being equal through Woodcote is as expected since, RBR runs more DF. RBR can get the power down a little faster, and thus make some gains.



sequence:
Old pit strait through Copse exit. This is the interesting bit, because even though they where even through Woodcote, RBR pulled ahead by 2kph mid strait only to be behind by 9kph in the breaking zone. However they gain it all back and are even through turn exit.

analysis:
This shows that RBR are running a lot of downforce. They got the power down faster because of the extra DF, but ran out of grunt part way down the strait. It's clear they didn't run out of electrical power, because they are doing 313 down the strait and in to the breaking zone. They didn't loose speed, they just didn't have the power to go faster. No one but RBR will know for sure how much top speed they are trading for DF.

RBR enter the mid/high speed Copse behind on speed but exits even, the only way they can do this is if they are running more DF, as it lets them put the power down faster.


synopsis:

• Merc is ahead in the slow speed sections,because they can either better utilize the tires, or the chassis is better.
• RBR is even or better in the mid speed and low high speed sections, because they are running more DF.
• Merc is ahead on the high speed straits because they have more power and are running less DF.

Despite arriving at the circuit's fastest corner down by 3kph, RB12 rounds the apex 3kph quicker.

If Abbey is so significant, please explain to me how they are slower through turn two that's just as fast?

And through the twistiest of the twisty bits, RB12 leads W07 in the sections where stability off-throttle and under braking are of more importance than driveability (just like at Copse).

I'm gonna disagree here. Imo and i think a lot of people would agree with me, they are faster through the mid/high speed sections because they are running more DF.

Even then it's questionable because they are behind, ahead, behind, ahead, behind. Hardly a clear cut advantage.

[bhall II]

If you'll notice, I didn't make any sweeping generalizations one way or the other. Frankly, I don't care enough.

My issue is with your assertion that power units don't matter in low-speed corners. That's just wrong, and to even marginally base a viewpoint upon it is misleading. Driveability matters a lot.

With FoxHound's comment, I wanted to show how the figures presented here are both inconsistent and open to interpretation. Otherwise, I don't know how anyone can look at something like that and discern the influence of one component from that of another. There's waaaay too much overlap.

W07 may very well be the season's best chassis. But, I've not yet seen an objective argument in favor that can't be swatted down with an equally objective alternative.

[SR71]

its almost painfully obvious that if Red Bull had a PU with more power than Merc they could challenge. How some cannot see it is equally painful.

Develop more power than the leading power unit = compete for wins. This is true throughout the entire history of F1...

If RBR is only being held back by the PU, then why are they at best equal, and usually behind in slow speed corners where the PU doesn't matter?

Answer: Because the PU isn't their only problem.

The entry to Copse is most telling, both doing near identical speed, and Mercedes pulls out 3kph in the space of a few meters BEFORE the steering is straight and the throttle is hammered.
It's also a high aero and tyre load corner.

But yea....PU!!!!

I'm simply saying that if RB had MORE power than merc, the difference in mercs better chassis would be diminished enough to provide some real competition for wins.

I'm not saying RB has a better chassis (although possible). Nor am I saying RB would dominate if they had a HP advantage on Merc.

I'm pretty sure that's what Horner means as well.

We'd actually have some pretty good racing.

[diego.liv]

2016 F1 cars are traction limited, not power limited. So, it doesn't mater how much Mercs power advantage is, because they can't get it to the ground.

Right from the start in '14 Merc were said to prefer bigger tyres in order to properly push, three years later we have bigger tyres but general opinion is Merc will lose any tyre advantage.. Why is that? I partly understand PU's diminishing returns (although Andy Cowell says his team was surprised by the improvements made on the hybrid front, IIRC saying something like "if we can get 200hp from the hybrid part in the next 10 years..."), but 'it seems' they know better how to switch the tyres on, it can't be just about pushing..next year everyone will have more downforce, but highly likely someone will complain about tyres. So if the suspension/efficient aero philosophies are carried over, why Merc should lose their tyre adv?

[dans79]

2016 F1 cars are traction limited, not power limited. So, it doesn't mater how much Mercs power advantage is, because they can't get it to the ground.

Right from the start in '14 Merc were said to prefer bigger tyres in order to properly push, three years later we have bigger tyres but general opinion is Merc will lose any tyre advantage.. Why is that?

who is saying that?

[diego.liv]

2016 F1 cars are traction limited, not power limited. So, it doesn't mater how much Mercs power advantage is, because they can't get it to the ground.

Right from the start in '14 Merc were said to prefer bigger tyres in order to properly push, three years later we have bigger tyres but general opinion is Merc will lose any tyre advantage.. Why is that?

who is saying that?

My bad, "general opinion" was too much, maybe i've read too many times FoxHound's posts or even on italian forums; everything started here
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 83#p648783
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 22#p650722
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 47#p650747

[Juzh]

The primary reason merc's in the lead is still power. They have a better chassis for some types of corners - mainly slow to medium speed turn ins, but power is still the main thing keeping them ahead in quali. Monaco pretty much confirms it.

[FoxHound]

The primary reason merc's in the lead is still power. They have a better chassis for some types of corners - mainly slow to medium speed turn ins, but power is still the main thing keeping them ahead in quali. Monaco pretty much confirms it.

I disagree.

Silverstone is an alleged power track, and while Mercedes retain an advantage on the straights at silverstone, it is not decisive.

Equally, Red Bull ran ridiculous rake angle and larger wings comparative to the Mercedes cars, meaning higher drag.
This automatically hampers them on straights to give them advantages in the corners.

Yet we see Mercedes beat them through the twisty bits more often than not with less wing.

And Monaco confirms nothing other than both Mercedes drivers could not get clean laps at the end of Q3, a fact you seem happy to forego.