Team: John Owen (CD), Loic Bigois (HA), Craig Wilson (Head of Vehicle Eng. & Dynamics), Russell Cooley (CE), Ross Brawn (TP), Nick Fry (CEO), Norbert Haug (VP), Thomas Fuhr (MD), Rob Thomas (COO) Drivers: Michael Schumacher (7), Nico Rosberg (8)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:The flow detachment issues Brawn said he expects to be resolved by turkey with the new rear wing. The cooling issues are also expected to be addressed for a more long term solution as the season is now heading into european summer time with hotter temps to be expected at some races.
Its speculation from here on in, as to how well these proposed updates will work.
However, something big happened inside the team during China. There was an almighty swing from their first 2 races, something I havent seen heading from one race to another within 5 days. 1 full second was made up.
Their whole race weekend strategy was changed, and the benefits were there for all to see.
Someone, somewhere told the team to forget about the fancy stuff and crack on with things they can change.
On RAI TV the commentators remarked about their impressive gain of pace in China and attributed it to the fact that Mercedes's approach in Free practice was all wrong in the previous two races. He said that they were trying setups on very light loads and then on race day with a full tank the car was very difficult to predict. This time they did the exact opposite and they got much better results. Tested with a high fuel load and it paid off.
I think there are two things that explain the dramatic performance boost in China:
1) switching back to the Barça testing spec floor and diffuser. There is very little talk about this from the media, but I think this is a major reason for the car to perform better. The rear of the car was very twitchy in the first two races, and I think the newer floor / diffuser combo used in Melbourne and Sepang might be partly to blame. It might not have been built to the right specifications, or there was a change in it that did not work well. Whatever it was, the only major change in the car between Sepang and China was going back to the old floor, and the car was dramatically more competitive.
2) The setup approach. Tuning the car with full tanks to improve race pace makes much more sense, especially now that qualifying performance is not as important with the DRS helping overtaking. The extra weight also helps with mechanical grip when the track is still dirty and free of rubber at the beginning of the GP weekend. So maybe with the extra mechanical grip, the car behaves closer to how it will once the track is cleaner on Saturday? Also, they went back to Barcelona spec, with which they had found a starting setup that worked during testing. So they had a good starting point this time, which helps.
I'm pretty sure that with a bit of design optimisation, Mercedes can make that double decker radiator work for them. Maybe a bit more separation between the two decks would help? And they certainly will refine the cooling exit on top of the exhaust... If the exhaust stays there. The good thing about this car is that there is so many things that can be done. It is quite "crude" still, so it has piles of room for development, and China has shown it is already quite fast in cold conditions.
I love the fact that in China, we saw three completely different concepts leading the race at one point or another:
- RBR - High rake, flexing bits, long wheelbase, low tight sidepods
- McLaren - U sidepods, extra long wheelbase, lower nose
- Mercedes - Very short wheelbase, middle exhausts, double decker radiators with short fat pods
Shows there still is some creativity in F1, and there's not just one way to build a fast car.
Spartan -> That's the outlet for the hot air coming from the radiators. It is ducted to blow onto the beam wing. Most teams have those, including the W02, although not as extreme.
I think that's actually for KERS. If KERS is attached they need the trumpet, and if KERS isn't attached they have the smaller exhaust. Even in cold China they had that trumpet exhaust
raymondu999 wrote:I think that's actually for KERS. If KERS is attached they need the trumpet, and if KERS isn't attached they have the smaller exhaust. Even in cold China they had that trumpet exhaust
makes sense tbh since they were having KERS issues otherwise I would be surprised why other teams didn't look into it so much as it seems quite an extreme version.
p.s. if it is indeed coz of KERS then I wonder why this version was on Webber's car too and not the slimmer one since his KERS was not functioning? There must be some other use to it as pointed out by the other posters earlier.
KERS was installed during qualifying I believe. They're not allowed to change parts that are not damaged between qualy & race.
I thought it was for KERS cooling. That, I believe, is actually why they don't seem to like KERS much (laptime wise, not reliability wise) as it blocks a whole load of air from reaching the rear wing.
To be pedantic, that hole is the exit for hot air that has been used to cool several parts and all cars have some sort of hot air exit there. The installation of KERS requires additional cooling, hence a larger opening.
The larger opening and flow of exhausted hot air degrades the aero performance.
The wing just above the rear light is called the "beam wing"
Spartan - you ask if you should have one on your cars. No, it is probably not necessary for your road car. If you do happen to run an F1 team then I'm worried that you take your design advice from a forum!
Last edited by Richard on 20 Apr 2011, 13:14, edited 2 times in total.
richard_leeds wrote:To be pedantic, that hole is the exit for hot air that has been used to cool several parts and all cars have some sort of hot air exit there. The installation of KERS requires additional cooling, hence a larger opening.
The larger opening and flow of exhausted hot air degrades the aero performance.
The wing just above the rear light is called the "beam wing"
Spartan - you ask if you should have one on your cars. No, it is probably not necessary for your road car. If you do happen to run an F1 team then I'm worried that you take your design advice from a forum!
Thanks for the info, when I said "our" cars I meant the Mercedes F1, the team I support
Spartan202 wrote:On RAI TV the commentators remarked about their impressive gain of pace in China and attributed it to the fact that Mercedes's approach in Free practice was all wrong in the previous two races. He said that they were trying setups on very light loads and then on race day with a full tank the car was very difficult to predict. This time they did the exact opposite and they got much better results. Tested with a high fuel load and it paid off.
I don't buy that. I remember reading that the team tested almost exclusively heavy with no DRS at Sepang. I think it's more likely that the cobbled ventilation, cooler temps and return to Barcelona spec had more to do with the improvements than a change in testing strategy.
Spartan202 wrote:On RAI TV the commentators remarked about their impressive gain of pace in China and attributed it to the fact that Mercedes's approach in Free practice was all wrong in the previous two races. He said that they were trying setups on very light loads and then on race day with a full tank the car was very difficult to predict. This time they did the exact opposite and they got much better results. Tested with a high fuel load and it paid off.
I don't buy that. I remember reading that the team tested almost exclusively heavy with no DRS at Sepang. I think it's more likely that the cobbled ventilation, cooler temps and return to Barcelona spec had more to do with the improvements than a change in testing strategy.
Well it was a comment Ross Brawn himself gave to the same italian F1 journalists. It could very well be an excuse to cut the interview short but I thought I'd mention it anyways.
I read it too and was a little shocked that they'd returned to that well.
After active in season development for the beginning of 2010 season failed to produce relative progress, the team made some progress in the second half of the season by concentrating practices on race setup. It's a well established fact that given the tires and passing expected this year, qualification pace is not expected to be as important as it was last year. Further- MGP continually asserted that pre-season testing this year was NOT done on light fuel. Given these 3 points, it makes no sense that they would run practice and race setup based on light fuel loads. The statement is very suspect and worrisome if true.
I find it much more credible that this is PR spin to take focus away from the design and management staff. Think about it- IF someone (like perhaps a Bob Bell) came in and immediatly spotted some factors that improved the cars pace by 1 second- and the team really hasn't been "touting" this new addition, coming out and saying as much would rightly produce some questions.
Well we know very well that Mercedes will not be trumpeting updates like they did last year.
Whats telling is what Rosberg has said:
We are just extracting the best from the car now," he said. "Set-up, basic things even, just coming together, understanding better – an example is big chunks of time from basic springs and parts. So that is good. It is not everything, a small bit, but there are bits and pieces everywhere."
And Dr Zetsche's presence must have added at least 0.5 seconds to the W02!
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:The flow detachment issues Brawn said he expects to be resolved by turkey with the new rear wing. The cooling issues are also expected to be addressed for a more long term solution as the season is now heading into european summer time with hotter temps to be expected at some races.
Its speculation from here on in, as to how well these proposed updates will work.
However, something big happened inside the team during China. There was an almighty swing from their first 2 races, something I havent seen heading from one race to another within 5 days. 1 full second was made up.
Their whole race weekend strategy was changed, and the benefits were there for all to see.
Someone, somewhere told the team to forget about the fancy stuff and crack on with things they can change.
On RAI TV the commentators remarked about their impressive gain of pace in China and attributed it to the fact that Mercedes's approach in Free practice was all wrong in the previous two races. He said that they were trying setups on very light loads and then on race day with a full tank the car was very difficult to predict. This time they did the exact opposite and they got much better results. Tested with a high fuel load and it paid off.
I dunno, I don't think Ross Brawn is that silly to test the car for 20 days on only light fuel. It must be something else, maybe the way he set the suspension or something..
They did a couple of lighter fuel stints during testing, but not to the point of it being there raison 'detre. They had plenty of race sims, only at the end of the day did they look at setting light fuel load times.
richard_leeds wrote:To be pedantic, that hole is the exit for hot air that has been used to cool several parts and all cars have some sort of hot air exit there. The installation of KERS requires additional cooling, hence a larger opening.
The larger opening and flow of exhausted hot air degrades the aero performance.
The wing just above the rear light is called the "beam wing"
Spartan - you ask if you should have one on your cars. No, it is probably not necessary for your road car. If you do happen to run an F1 team then I'm worried that you take your design advice from a forum!
If the air coming from that duct is hotter than ambient, then it stands to reason that it has more energy, and if the ducting narrows after it has been heated, it will also speed the air up. Then, as it exits out of that trumpet, it will slow down as it expands through the opening, kind of like how the diffuser works.
