2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

[dans79]

Besides the DF improvement is mostly ground effect based, which according to some posters here, improves overtaking. (Reality is much less clear, on that subject).

Down-force only improves overtaking, if it's not sensitive to turbulent flow. Over the last 2 decades, the rules have pushed the teams into using increasingly more sensitive methodologies. This is the reason you hear drivers complaining about it being hard to pass even though they are faster.

[FoxHound]

Mercedes is simply trying to protect their position

Not disputing that, but there is alot of sense in their approach. Mercedes are not against aero changes, but they are against changes that will lead to having an adverse effect to following cars.

IMHO, to interpret this otherwise, is being quite naive of the realities of F1.

The naivety here, is to ignore changing the formula to suit one party, which will also mean a greater disparity between teams, greater costs, less closer racing and harder overtaking.

My previous post deals with this. I know it's long....but bear with it.

Down-force only improves overtaking, if it's not sensitive to turbulent flow. Over the last 2 decades, the rules have pushed the teams into using increasingly more sensitive methodologies. This is the reason you hear drivers complaining about it being hard to pass even though they are faster.

And also why going down the mechanical grip route is a no-brainer for me.

[Sevach]

Tires are getting 23% larger, plus wider tracks.

FWs although phisically larger should be responsible for a lesser percentage of total downforce.
Floor area and diffuser getting big bumps.
RWs get lower and wider, but also much shallower, so i'm not sure of the net gain here.

[bhall II]

Down-force only improves overtaking, if it's not sensitive to turbulent flow. Over the last 2 decades, the rules have pushed the teams into using increasingly more sensitive methodologies. This is the reason you hear drivers complaining about it being hard to pass even though they are faster.

And also why going down the mechanical grip route is a no-brainer for me.

Ya know, a not-unreasonable argument can be made that mechanical grip is bad for overtaking.



Red: Massive aero dumbdown, slick tires, no change in overtaking
Yellow: Refueling ban, less mechanical grip due to narrower front tires, sizable jump in overtaking
Green: DRS, Pirellotteri-style grip, obscene jump in overtaking
Orange: Sharpest decline in overtaking in 30 years despite DRS and continued refueling ban, pit stops fall from 1,111 to ~725
Blue lines: 2016's likely overtaking range, aka "Holy hell, I can't wait for the shitstorm of complaints after the sport's ill-informed opinion-makers blame 2017's inevitable high-speed funeral processions on increased downforce."

Makes sense if you think about it: everyone loves wet races (when mechanical grip is at a premium).

[Cold Fussion]

Someone should go run the overtaking numbers on other racing series where aero is mostly a non factor. Whenever I watch V8 supercars, some spec Porsche series or even GTE pro I'm never blown away by the amount of overtaking happening.

[FoxHound]

Ben,

A valid point, if one I'm not in agreement with.

The issue for me is pirellotteri tyres almost at no point allow for flat out racing.
It's all very well having a tyre that goes off when pushed, and following cars overtake...but is that how we want to see our overtaking?

And if I may ask... how many overtakes were done during pit stops?

[Juzh]

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

[FoxHound]

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

DRS affected.

[iotar__]

Down-force only improves overtaking, if it's not sensitive to turbulent flow. Over the last 2 decades, the rules have pushed the teams into using increasingly more sensitive methodologies. This is the reason you hear drivers complaining about it being hard to pass even though they are faster.

And also why going down the mechanical grip route is a no-brainer for me.

Ya know, a not-unreasonable argument can be made that mechanical grip is bad for overtaking.



Red: Massive aero dumbdown, slick tires, no change in overtaking
Yellow: Refueling ban, less mechanical grip due to narrower front tires, sizable jump in overtaking
Green: DRS, Pirellotteri-style grip, obscene jump in overtaking
Orange: Sharpest decline in overtaking in 30 years despite DRS and continued refueling ban, pit stops fall from 1,111 to ~725
Blue lines: 2016's likely overtaking range, aka "Holy hell, I can't wait for the shitstorm of complaints after the sport's ill-informed opinion-makers blame 2017's inevitable high-speed funeral processions on increased downforce."

Ill informed like people designing these cars with thousand times more valuable data than drawing questionable conclusions from graphs? Why questionable:
1. Putting some facts together is not science, you need correlation that includes other factors. 1990 is very different from 2013, same for every jump
2. Connected to the above - the dumbed down issue is not if mechanical grip is better than aero at improving overtaking (or rather not making it more difficult = not the same) but if specific aero changes of '17 don't affect overtaking and if the alternative of mechanical grip improvement would be better.
3. More importantly, not included in your graph and connected to point 2 - the issue is faster cars, means to achieve them and if making car faster by 2-4 s (?) from '15 to '17 through aero rules is the best way. Faster cars AND overtaking which is not worse, not overtaking itself.

I like the fact that F1 engineer A. Costa is not making "100% certain" claims about aero '17 impact, weighs his words, questions the changes and talks about the possibilities but here something opposite: "no-brainers" and "ill-informed" gets you hundreds of points. "Makes sense if you think about it: everyone loves wet races (when mechanical grip is at a premium)". 1. No, not everybody loves wet races. Ill -informed 2. No - probably, depending what you mean by "premium" but tyres are also at premium and so is aero. Admittedly I know nothing about it but I did watch races and I have 2 real life and recent examples:
A. wet USA race when similarly simple claims were made about RB vs Merc and aero vs engine balance. http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 0Ricciardo Rosb vs Ricc

Code: Select all

9	1:57.162[2] 	1:56.930[4] 	+0.232	-1.267		6
10	1:58.183[2] 	1:57.870[4] 	+0.313	-0.954		7
11	1:58.149[2] 	1:58.220[4] 	-0.071	-1.025	4	
12	1:58.969[2] 	1:58.214[4] 	+0.755	-0.270		8
13	1:58.141[3] 	1:56.680[2] 	+1.461	+1.191		9
14	1:56.677[3] 	1:56.898[2] 	-0.221	+0.970	5	
15	1:56.172[3] 	1:55.362[1] 	+0.810	+1.780		10
16	1:56.329[3] 	1:54.685[1] 	+1.644	+3.424		11
17	1:55.790[3] 	1:54.650[1] 	+1.140	+4.564		12
18	1:56.124[2] 	1:54.194[1] 	+1.930	+6.494		13
19	1:55.927[2] 	1:54.143[1] 	+1.784	+8.278		14
20	2:13.229[2] 	2:18.388[1] 	-5.159	+3.119	6	
21	1:47.466[2] 	1:49.539[1] 	-2.073	+1.046	7	
22	1:46.148[1] 	1:48.350[2] 	-2.202	-1.156	8	
23	1:43.999[1] 	1:46.473[2] 	-2.474	-3.630	9	
24	1:43.534[1] 	1:46.060[2] 	-2.526	-6.156	10

What conclusions about mechanical grip/aero (constant for RB/Merc cars) can you draw from it, which is better, premium impact during lap 9, 19 and 21? Not that simple if the assumption is that 1. Track conditions changes in connection with aero/engine balance are not enough to explain change of pace like that. 2. Pace wasn't consistent: Merc overall slightly slower, then RB considerably quicker, then Merc considerably quicker. Check pace later to add more data to that.

B. dry Spain race when car/tyre characteristics described as "sliding" made overtaking more difficult than in '14 (assumption) with only slightly different aero and some tyres changes. Tyres - harder, aero combination: plus side overall development, minus side nose rules, combined unknown, either way not a big change.
So wet and dry races not comparable and number of wet races considerably lower than dry races = bad example.

[Juzh]

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

DRS affected.

With drs and kers RB7 was 1s slower round barcelona than RB6.

[FoxHound]

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

DRS affected.

With drs and kers RB7 was 1s slower round barcelona than RB6.

I was assuming you meant in relation to the number of overtakes Ben posted.

[bhall II]

Ill informed like people designing these cars with thousand times more valuable data than drawing questionable conclusions from graphs?

More like ill-informed people who seem to confuse "not-unreasonable" for "ZOMG, this is bulletproof! Suck it, haterz!"

I was thinking more about the Ken Andersons of the world.

As ever, the issue is complex. A reliance on sensitive aerodynamic packages, which tend to result from any appreciable aerodynamic development, makes overtaking a challenge, because it's difficult for such cars to follow one another. At the same time, a reliance on raw mechanical grip can't ameliorate the problem, because the overwhelming majority of corners only support a single viable racing line, and cars can't yet pass through one another.

Less uncertain is the apparent reality that, barring the intervention of radical change, overtaking always trends down over time. That suggests the problem is ultimately unsolvable, which in turns suggests the issue probably shouldn't be on anyone's radar, because a dedication to Sisyphean tasks is weird - but right up F1's alley!

And if I may ask... how many overtakes were done during pit stops?

I have no idea. My point here was really just to offer a not-unreasonable counterpoint.

I believe overtaking is the grayest competitive facet of the sport. Yet, it's also one for which many seem to have stark, black-and-white views.

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

I don't know how to discern between the effects of DRS and Pirellotteri tires and the loss of double-diffusers. For what it's worth, Mercedes analysis concluded that 45.1% of so-called "clean overtakes" in 2011 were because of DRS.

That said, the decline in overtaking since 2011, despite expanded DRS from 2012, also coincides with the organic maturation of tire strategy and the introduction of more conservative compounds, especially in 2015.

[Sevach]

2010 --> 2011 also a massive drop in downforce levels.

2014 introduced a much greater drop in downforce and yet we are getting back to 2010 level of overtakes.
Most downforce ever vs least downforce of the last 15 years and same results.

And 2010 had no DRS or Pirelli (even though Pirelli produces harder tires now they are still more "disruptive" than Bridgestones).

[dans79]

Gentlemen, the amount of down-force is not whats important, it is how it's generated. Over the last several years, teams have have adopted methodologies that are increasingly more sensitive to the wake of the car in-front of them.

[FoxHound]

Gentlemen, the amount of down-force is not whats important, it is how it's generated. Over the last several years, teams have have adopted methodologies that are increasingly more sensitive to the wake of the car in-front of them.

See, this is where I'm at.

Wake disturbance is attributable to anything moving forward in front of you.
However, how is this wake being disrupted?

Unlike Ben, I'm not predisposed to formulate graphs or give legible debate (some say).
I just wanna know, is the underside of the car responsible for more of the wake, or is it top side with wings et al...

I'm gonna guess the underside is responsible for a lot of the wake. Given the elaborate rear backsides, coke bottles and diffusers etc. It all gels with air coming out the arse.
A lot of things can be viewed in terms of the diffuser. But I just dunno.
Especially when you factor rake into things.

My suspicion is sorting out what goes over the car then working down....like a dirty first date.