Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[roon]

Do you think it's because of their aero in the sidepod area? Should they have gone the route of Ferrari and Red Bull?
They are not developing their car at the same pace of those two teams either.

Not the poster you were replying to but I think the aero is on the right track. Constant refinement and tuning of a proven concept. It appears there is a lot going on "under the skin" of the W09, as well.

Ferrari's gains and additions stand out more this year because they've basically copied Merc's concept from last year, just without the same level of detail and specificity (yet) in the bargeboard area, in particular. That's what Ferrari is trying to achieve this year.

I don't think Merc is in any real trouble. They just went to one of the most power-dependent circuits on the calendar with an old engine (down probably 10 hp through use/age), up against an upgraded Ferrari PU (down another 10-15 hp), that put them down easily 20-25 horsepower.

And Bottas was just pipped by Vettel for pole. Of course we find out after the weekend that Hamilton had a bird cooking in one of his brake ducts during Q3, which likely played a role in his repeated lock-ups at the hairpin.

Mercedes needs to once again re-adjust to the fact that the margins are smaller than ever, and they cannot afford any mistakes in strategy, or on the team/preparation side.

Regarding Hamilton's issue - haven't they a grid protecting the duct to "swallow" anything?

On the main outer scoop, but seems not to be the case on the smaller inlets.

[media]https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 8164247552[/media]

[zibby43]

There are several openings but only one has a grid on it. Of course, if a small bird hit the front wing first, you'd get bits of small bird that could end up anywhere. Or, maybe the bird hit the opening with the grid on it and then just covered the grid so preventing air getting to the brake. Being that near to 800degC brakes would probably give a gentle char to the birdy hence the reported BBQ smell...

Well said. It was a rough weekend for wildlife in Montreal. First the groundhog, then the bird.

It's likely the bird issue was only a contributing factor, as opposed to the predominant one. Hamilton also took a wrong setup turn late in practice.

Which makes Toto's comments about "small mistakes" all weekend a bit clearer.

On a side note, does anyone else get the feeling that the Merc is going to turn up at Paul Ricard with some major chassis upgrades, in addition to the new PU?

I personally don't think so. All they have done this year is brought simple small incremental upgrades. This is very odd to say the least. Either they're very very confident they have a good chassis and they did not plan any major upgrade and they have some other problem (tires) that they cannot extract the maximum out of the chassis, OR... everything is as I said, working to plan perfectly, it is just the competition overdeveloped them during the winter and now they are left playing catch-up with an unplanned plan. The just didn't do a good job (relative to the competition), and they seem to have underestimated the competition.

But there is another thing I suspect. It is about Winter Testing. Their apparent dominance was true, and they were lulled into false sense of security, however, as it turns out their dominance was track specific (Barcelona). So they must have calculated their performance relative to the others and must have assumed that small incremental upgrades would be enough to keep them ahead... until it apparently isn't.

They are playing catchup in so many areas.

1. Tire Management - time and time again, they just cannot use those softer compounds efficient enough.
2. Traction - they are lacking behind both Ferrari & Red Bull.
3. Max-Downforce - they are lacking behind both Ferrari & Red Bull. Especially the rear balance.
4. Engine - Advantage GONE.
5. Aero Efficiency - Straight-line Speed GONE. They are behind Ferrari.
6. Suspension - it is very edgy on high curbs, and bumpy surface. (I suspect new SMOOTH tarmac in Spain played on their hand more than we might give credit to).

Everything you set out seems entirely within the realm of possibility.

However, I'm not sure if the advantage in the early season was merely track-specific, because Mercedes blitzed Ferrari in Melbourne.

I'm also not sure I'd say the engine advantage is gone either. For a few reasons: 1) I think it's still the most fuel efficient on the grid; 2) Reliability: Merc just announced today they ran their old PUs as hard in Canada as they did in Melbourne (and isn't Raikkonen on the verge of grid penalties already?); 3) We've yet to see Merc's Spec 2 engine, but I have a feeling Merc is one of the few, if not the only manufacturers this year, truly planning on trying to make it 21 races with 3 PUs.

And regarding tire management, they made huge improvements over last year's car in terms of tire management, particularly in race trim. They weren't that bad on the Hypersoft in Canada, either. I'd argue their problem with the softest tires at the moment is that because they avoid them like the plague, they can't get enough setup work done in FP.

James Vowles said they had zero problems with the Hypersoft in Canada, other than not having enough of them. Judging by Bottas’ performance, I buy that.

In sum, what it all boils down to for me is that Mercedes hasn't qualified as strongly and consistently this year, and that has had monumental impacts on their weekend ceilings.

[djos]

Seems to me that the low rake design is reaching the end of its performance potential and Ferrari and RedBull are the better aero platforms now.

[mantikos]

Seems to me that the low rake design is reaching the end of its performance potential and Ferrari and RedBull are the better aero platforms now.

Other than gut feel and hearsay, what are you basing that on?

[djos]

Seems to me that the low rake design is reaching the end of its performance potential and Ferrari and RedBull are the better aero platforms now.

Other than gut feel and hearsay, what are you basing that on?

Think about it logically, Ferrari and RedBull have been able to increase their diffuser volume significantly and in Canada and Monaco we saw both teams significantly ahead of Mercedes until they turned up their engines in Q3. In Canada, a known power track, Ferrari stayed ahead of Mercedes despite most experts believing the two engines are virtually at parity now.

This strongly suggests Ferrari is ahead on aero now and the key philosophical difference between the two cars is aero, low rake vs high rake. I'm no aero expert, however those that are state that increasing diffuser volume is a huge advantage as producing down force via the floor and diffuser is the most efficient way.

Anyway, just my theory, happy to be proved wrong.

[djones]

I'm not sure who has the best aero in the top 3 and for all we know the Mercedes could be way ahead of even the Redbull. The reason I say that, is I think working the tyres correctly is such a significant factor that in kind of rules out a lot of aero.

It seems like you could have a car that is on paper 1 second a lap faster, but you can lose 1.5 by not working the tyres properly.

Canada they had engine issues with Hamilton (and it was at the end of its life) and Bottas had fuel issues. The team even admitted they got the tyre strategy badly wrong. So in any comparisons I think Canada is not really a fair benchmark. You could even say if the slower driver in the team, with a 7 race old engine, fuel issues and a poor tyre setup managed to come 2nd... How bad actually are they are the moment.

[LM10]

I'm not sure who has the best aero in the top 3 and for all we know the Mercedes could be way ahead of even the Redbull. The reason I say that, is I think working the tyres correctly is such a significant factor that in kind of rules out a lot of aero.

It seems like you could have a car that is on paper 1 second a lap faster, but you can lose 1.5 by not working the tyres properly.

Canada they had engine issues with Hamilton (and it was at the end of its life) and Bottas had fuel issues. The team even admitted they got the tyre strategy badly wrong. So in any comparisons I think Canada is not really a fair benchmark. You could even say if the slower driver in the team, with a 7 race old engine, fuel issues and a poor tyre setup managed to come 2nd... How bad actually are they are the moment.

Chief strategist James Vowles said:

In terms of what happened in the race with Valtteri and Lewis, both of them drove the power unit as they did in the first race, there was no additional management, no additional switches, or modes or turn-downs, we were effectively using the power unit to its full benefit.
What happened with Lewis was an entirely unrelated chassis cooling event, nothing to do with the engine itself. And you saw with Valtteri he was able to use it with good effect, second in qualifying and maintaining that second in the race.

Bottas had fuel issues only towards the end of the race. The reason was that at the beginning and throughout the race he was pushing to keep the distance to Vettel as short as possible.

Regarding tyre setup management, I don't think Mercedes had setup issues (at least Bottas didn't). They've never really had setup issues on race pace, but only in Qualifying. Though, they dont't have any tyre issues in Qualifying either aymore. Otherwise they probably would have told it like they did every weekend until Barcelona.

And I'm not sure if a probable issue working the tyres excuses or makes them look any stronger than other teams. I'm not an expert and might be mistaken, but I assume that going too aggressive aero or construction wise would cause you more headache to setup or work the tyres. To a certain exctend it's sacrificing things in one or the other direction.

Of course, we don't know the full story, like always. Maybe in France they are the clearly fastest again.

[djones]

I think that James Vowles chap is giving a PR speach or something.

Lewis said he was getting engine cut-outs later in the race over the team radio that was broadcast, even after they opened up the vents (or whatever they did at the first stop). And then in an interview after (its on Autosport) he said he thought the engine was going to blow up in the closing stages.

One quick quote I can find "the second to last lap I had some big dips in power".

[LM10]

It's true Hamilton had dips in power, however, it was chassis related. The engine itself was fine, but was overheating.

[wesley123]

and in Canada and Monaco we saw both teams significantly ahead of Mercedes until they turned up their engines in Q3. In Canada, a known power track, Ferrari stayed ahead of Mercedes despite most experts believing the two engines are virtually at parity now.

Monaco wasn't a surprise for anyone. Canada was Merc running the PU for the 7th time on a powertrack where all the others had fresh, upgraded PUs. A PU that is at the end of it's cycle obviously wont deliver it's full performance anymore.

This strongly suggests Ferrari is ahead on aero now

Really? Them being quicker on tracks where aero means little suggests others are ahead? In Monaco aero doesn't mean anything. Speeds are simply to slow for aero to have a big effect.

In Canada it isn't of a big importance either, traction and straightline speed seem to have much more importance here.

and the key philosophical difference between the two cars is aero, low rake vs high rake. I'm no aero expert, however those that are state that increasing diffuser volume is a huge advantage as producing down force via the floor and diffuser is the most efficient way.

Then why isn't Mercedes running it? It's a concept that isn't anything new. Seems weird to not apply a solution that is so incredibly amazing.

[Big Mangalhit]

Not incredibly amazing. He just states that it although it might be much harder to work but has greater total potential since is has bigger total diffuser volume.

Why some teams don't seem to use can be because having big rake means bigger drag and mainly it is very hard to make it work without stalling ever. Maybe that is why Ferrari last year had so many winglets on the corner of the diffuser to help it extract air better losing obviously some of the expansion area allowed in the corners of it. This year maybe they've found a way of making it work without those winglets and can use the full allowed area for expansion (like RB could already) and thus have the maximum potential volume for expansion which is not the philosophy of mercedes.

[F1Krof]

and in Canada and Monaco we saw both teams significantly ahead of Mercedes until they turned up their engines in Q3. In Canada, a known power track, Ferrari stayed ahead of Mercedes despite most experts believing the two engines are virtually at parity now.

Monaco wasn't a surprise for anyone. Canada was Merc running the PU for the 7th time on a powertrack where all the others had fresh, upgraded PUs. A PU that is at the end of it's cycle obviously wont deliver it's full performance anymore.

This strongly suggests Ferrari is ahead on aero now

Really? Them being quicker on tracks where aero means little suggests others are ahead? In Monaco aero doesn't mean anything. Speeds are simply to slow for aero to have a big effect.

In Canada it isn't of a big importance either, traction and straightline speed seem to have much more importance here.

and the key philosophical difference between the two cars is aero, low rake vs high rake. I'm no aero expert, however those that are state that increasing diffuser volume is a huge advantage as producing down force via the floor and diffuser is the most efficient way.

Then why isn't Mercedes running it? It's a concept that isn't anything new. Seems weird to not apply a solution that is so incredibly amazing.

Simply because it would mean a complete re-haul of all other pieces, it is not just aero. It's the complete chassis, COG would be different, front wing, rear wing, engine position, weight distribution, suspension, gear box chassis, breaks. And this is a list, furthermore its not just a matter of building different pieces, it's the research, it's the development of those ideas, its understanding the behavior of the car, even the on track operations would be different, different setup, and TIRES ---> it's so hard to understand them even with a known entity, imagine if you change what you know?

I mean, if you want a real-world example look at McLaren. They changed in 2013 and never came back. This time around look at Williams, they're completely lost.

They figured it would be better to perfect what they already know, however they seem to have reached the limit.

[djos]

Then why isn't Mercedes running it? It's a concept that isn't anything new. Seems weird to not apply a solution that is so incredibly amazing.

Simple, their aero philosophy is quite different - in F1, teams usually converge on the optimal solution, Mercedes is the only team left running low rake, everyone else has decided that high rake is a more efficient aero platform. This is one area Mercedes are not leading - I'm not saying they havent done an outstanding job, they have. I'm just saying I personally think them sticking with low rake is going to cost them performance compared to RBR & Ferrari.

As others have said, it's not as simple as jacking up the rear ride height, it's an entire aero philosphy that needs to be in-sync to work.

That said, I think Spa and Monza will either validate or invalidate my theory.

[Big Tea]

Can I ask some of you knowledgeable guys please?
Does increased rake significantly affect C.O.G?

[e36jon]

I don't know how I rate on your knowledgeable scale, but, from a strictly geometric POV, yes, rake raises the CG.

In olden F1 times they were so worried about CG that they were choosing engine architecture to minimize the CG height of the engine! With the cars being so aero dominated that old way of thinking has given way to prioritizing aero efficiency / gain.

Cheers,

Jon