Mercedes GP W02

[xpensive]

Could it be they have compromised their mechanical setup to be able to carry more rake at higher speeds?(eg morte spring rate rear)...this would help their high speed downforce but surely compromise grip /traction at lower speeds..
There are rumours around they want to change their rear suspension (maybe they want to achieve more progression and have a softer initial spring rate -so all new rocker geometries -maybe new gearbox casing?)

The car just looks like having mechanical traction issues and instability under braking ....both indicators of poor suspension performance .
Add Downforce and you will need more spring -leads to even more trouble at lower speeds...

Something like that marcush, besides, don't forget they are new to the rear pull-rod suspension, which could be difficult to fully comprehend, moreover it's more complicated and impractical to adjust the way I understand things?

[xpensive]

I still believe that MGP, just like many other teams, were bit hasty jumping on the pull-rod suspension bandwagon. When looking at the layout and geometry, with its three-dimensional pull-rod movement and short spring compression, it suggests to me that it might be very easy to get this wrong.

Combined with the added complications for adjustments and basically no opportunity for testing during the season outside of the races, it must be a challenge to implement the pull-rod unless you know xactly what you are doing?

[Adamski]

I still believe that MGP, just like many other teams, were bit hasty jumping on the pull-rod suspension bandwagon. When looking at the layout and geometry, with its three-dimensional pull-rod movement and short spring compression, it suggests to me that it might be very easy to get this wrong.

Combined with the added complications for adjustments and basically no opportunity for testing during the season outside of the races, it must be a challenge to implement the pull-rod unless you know xactly what you are doing?

Yes, You alright X, if that is what explain Brawn on AMuS, when somebody asked him about the W02 concepts. He said, it's the development state where they got problems, because last year when they start developing this car, the team was not in the best shape in the technical point of view. That's the reason, why they are getting wrong on the rear suspension, on the cooling, and what they are solved now: on the DRS.
But as Brawn also said, if you found your weaknesses, you got the weapon in your hand to make it different. I think that is what Mercedes doing now, but it needs time, to solve all the problems.

I'm very happy with this Canadian result. When it rains, this track hide the big differences between the cars, that is the way Schumacher can show his true abilities. In the red flag period, they did a nice work on the setup of the car, so it is shining in the rain, but then 2 second of the pace, when it's dried up. But he is still posting nice, consistent lap times, despite the wet weather setup.

The only problem for me about this race is, that we don't know, if they can sort out their rear tire issues, as Brawn give a promise, they are trying to solve it. It was the right track to compare it to Monaco, but the rain washed it. At least on Friday, they are consistent (as usual).

Anyway, FIA now give the big thanks to the off-throttle gases from Britain. I think it's a great place to do that, as we can see, how much it ruins the top teams.
What do you think guys? Is it good for our lovely team?

[mep]

Shouldn't this race be considered wet race before the start so everybody had the chance to change his setup (including rear wing)?
I don't know what FIA did but for me it is very careless not to do so.
The thing with the second DRS zone is a big fail when they don't make a second measure but that’s typical FIA foolery.

It doesn’t look like Mercedes had rain setup in qualifying because they had one of the highest top speeds there. So when did they switch to wet setup what the others didn't do? Also when Button also had wet setup then its still alarming how much faster he was on the dry track. All in all the car has not improved a tiny bit.

[shelly]

I watched quali yesterday and I have noticed a flexy behaivuor of schumacher's front wing. It was very evident when the car was seen form the front on the straight before the wall of champions: wing tips drooped laterally under load and then sprung back in the chicane. Does anyone have some frontal pictures of schumacher on the straight? the wing was bent so thta endpalted were no longer vertical

I witnessed the same.

I would like to know if there are other forumers, beyond marcush and me, who have had the impression of front flexi wing on the w02 in canada, and if someone can find screenshots/pictures of it.

I think also that montreal is not the kind of track on which a flexi wing gives the biggest advantage, because there are no mid speed/ high speed corners.

This, and a more race biased setup, are in my opinion the reasons why in qualifying there has been no significant progress of mercedes over the past bad showings.

It has been said that in order for a flexi wing to work they have to find some rear downforce also to balance; but things must also be seen this way: a flexi wing can give the same amount of downforce more efficiently than a conventional one, disrupting less airflow to the rear. From this point of view, a flexi wing it is an improvement that benefits the whole package even as a stand-alone

[mep]

I don’t think that’s the case. A flexi wing needs to produce a significant amount of force to even get close to the ground. So you can't reduce the angle of attack when you have a flexi wing. The Redbull is clearly a high downforce/drag package.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I was looking at the cars behaviour coming out of corners, specifically the rear end.
The barn door sized rear wing helped them in the wet and hindered them in the dry, that is obvious.
They qualified OK, but thats is because DRS is free to use at any point in quali.

Mercedes hedged their bets and bagged a decent 4th with the chance of a podium. Rosberg dissapointed but he showed he didnt have the measure of Schumacher during the race.

As for the front wing, I dont think the Mercedes is flexing so much as it is tilting when the car bounces of kerbs. You mentioned the wall of champions, its preceded by two kerbs that will cause a rocking effect on the front wing.

There was not that much movement from the wing under braking just before those kerbs on the straight so I wouldnt think Mercedes have a fully operational flexing wing. I dont even think its up to McLarens standard just yet but Im sure Mercedes are looking in this area.

[shelly]

I don’t think that’s the case. A flexi wing needs to produce a significant amount of force to even get close to the ground. So you can't reduce the angle of attack when you have a flexi wing. The Redbull is clearly a high downforce/drag package.

Agree that rbr is on high downforce/drag package. But when you say that you can not reduce the angle of attack when you have a flexi wing I think you are wrong.
If you say for example the downforce you need from the front wing is ScZ= 1.3, you can obtain it from an highly cambered rigid wing or from a less cambered flexi wing which would give you 1.2 in rigid shape, but gives 1.3 when flexed.
So you have no problem in finding force to close the gap to the ground.

I agree with you that probably rbr has a wing that goes from 1.35 in rigid attitude to 1.5 in flexi shape, and that could be where half of their estimated 30 points advantage comes from.

[dren]

Schumacher drove one hell of a race. I was cheering for him out loud sitting at home. The DRS really "screwed" his podium chances. Especially being able to run DRS on the second part of the track after being overtaken. I believe he could have fought back to overtake at least Webber. Button was just too fast. Great race either way.

[Leon]

[...]

[munudeges]

I still believe that MGP, just like many other teams, were bit hasty jumping on the pull-rod suspension bandwagon. When looking at the layout and geometry, with its three-dimensional pull-rod movement and short spring compression, it suggests to me that it might be very easy to get this wrong.

Well, it seems that Ringo I think took a pasting for steadfastly suggesting pull-rod was definitely the right way to go this year, but from an aerodynamic point of view and the amount of space teams need to work with at the back of their cars and where this single diffuser is you have to say that he looks to be right. Ferrari might be dragged into it themselves but it doesn't seem to have given Lotus the big jump they were hoping.

However, I'm not convinced that push-rod and pull-rod are both equal from a mechanical point of view as many have suggested. It's always easier and more accurate to push from my point of view and yes, I think this whole three dimensional movement will have an odd effect down to the contact patch of the tyre. In the case of Mercedes it's strange that it all seems to have got worse since China though when their qualifying pace coincidentally got far better. Not convinced the short wheelbase is helping either. I would think it would promote more movement.

[hardingfv32]

"The Redbull is clearly a high downforce/drag package."

Can this claim be made. RB had one of the flattest/low AoA rear wings in Canada. What am I missing?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"I think this whole three dimensional movement will have an odd effect down to the contact patch of the tyre."

What physical or scientific attribute of the rear suspension does the statement relate to? The rear suspension is easy to model and even easier to test in the lab. Assuming the team knows what dynamics it needs from the suspension, the engineers can provide it. The problem is that the correct parameter for the suspension have not been discovered.

Brian

[Ferraripilot]

"I think this whole three dimensional movement will have an odd effect down to the contact patch of the tyre."

What physical or scientific attribute of the rear suspension does the statement relate to? The rear suspension is easy to model and even easier to test in the lab. Assuming the team knows what dynamics it needs from the suspension, the engineers can provide it. The problem is that the correct parameter for the suspension have not been discovered.

Brian

Apparently they found the rear end was rolling too much for the settings applied, which caused them I believe to shorten the rear a-arm and raise the mounting point to the rear upright near the hub. No idea if it worked or not, but I have read that the issue with the rear end is fundamental meaning this geometry change is just a band-aid until W03 works out the real issue

[xpensive]

"I think this whole three dimensional movement will have an odd effect down to the contact patch of the tyre."

What physical or scientific attribute of the rear suspension does the statement relate to? The rear suspension is easy to model and even easier to test in the lab. Assuming the team knows what dynamics it needs from the suspension, the engineers can provide it. The problem is that the correct parameter for the suspension have not been discovered.

Brian

Thinking outloud here, when nothing is perfecly stiff or clearence-free, the angle of the pull-rod suggests that it will add a significant forward-load on the rear uprights, possibly leading to a rear-wheel toe-in if a-arms are not stiff enough?

Again, just hiking outloud and probably outrageously speculating?