Will Mercedes GP become for sale for Honda Racing to buy back? That would be an excellent outcome for Honda (with all due respect to AlphaTauri's sales prospects).
I don't understand how this can be what is going on in the background, yet the team promises they will be 'fighting for wins" with yet another attempt at a fix, using the same tools that led to this problematic car in the first place?Andi76 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 23:06Andi76 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 20:58
https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/10205 ... y-meeting/
At Mercedes, at least, there are crisis meetings. I can confirm this report and have already reported this this morning. There are problems on the front axle and there are problems as soon as they get below a certain ground clearance.
Sorry, but crisis meetings are not why teams test and what is the order of the day in testing. The balance changes constantly and nobody knows why, the rear end breaks out uncontrollably, aero load is not consistent and changes extremely with vehicle height, to the point that the car becomes uncontrollable as soon as it gets below a certain ground clearance. At the front axle there is a sudden loss of downforce when cornering. The car should behave largely according to the simulations and calculations. But this is not the case at all with the W14. The problems are so far-reaching that a crisis meeting has been called to discuss how to proceed and what to do. And unplanned crisis meetings are not part of the test program and why one tests. Likewise, you don't test to clear up unexplained reactions of the car. I don't even want to talk about the other rumors, because on the one hand these are actually rumors so far for which I haven't received any direct confirmation, and on the other hand it is a very sensitive topic to which a few people here react sensitively. At least in the past. But in fact, many of these statements are reminiscent of what was said about cars that had a fundamental aerodynamic problem.
Why giving away all these details?chrisc90 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 23:14Teds development corner
Paint:
* Predominantly the branding to work with
* Hard to say how much weight saved 2-3kg paint normally
* Bodywork not too sensitive to paint finish, but wings, leading edges maybe a bit more
A lot of effort put into problems last season and over winter to try and fix the issues, bit sceptical whether they are 'Back' but they seem confident they will be competitive
Higher nose on front wing - a lot into the realms of aero dynamics and CFD etc
Push rod suspension - Stayed the same, track rod moved down, top wishbone down to the bottom, carefully balanced with the geometry and kinematics.
Rear suspension developed in conjunction with the floor and airflow around and to the diffuser.
Slot gap separators - rules changed from the primary purpose - aero as secondary purpose. 2 planes 10mm apart which you have to fill however you feel. Not game changers - but wait and see if they appear on the Merc front wing.
Mirror stays to control front tyre wake and the other little fins - all part of the little details on wake management.
FW endplates meant to be closed down but theres a loophole that allows them to run it.
Cockpit hasnt moved at all
Halo integration into the cooling tunnels (gulleys) and drivers head all about managing the losses from the open cockpit. Pretty light bodywork of the cooling tunnels and wont affect CoG.
Reckons Ferrari chassis duct is to just manage the losses off the side of the chassis to manage airflow.
Sidepod concept not the issue - Upgrade package will look different, wont look like someone elses, will be a evolution of ours. no other teams concept not in the teams plans.
Floor throat - most of the performance is from the floor and managing how the air travels under the car / interaction with the ground.
Floor raise 15mm, worse edge of bouncing last year, a lot of development into that and ensuring the metrics were working over the winter, seems of so far.
Straight line speed - not running the wing when they come racing next week. Cars efficiency developed a lot over the winter - testing is there to understand, not improving downforce levels.
Reckons the car is operating on the weight limit and might even have a little ballast in there.
One more thing, if you think a team would have a crisis meeting such as that in front of the worlds media then you have no clue how a successful team operates. Whatever that meeting was it was not a crisis debrief played out in front of the cameras. (If you want an example of how this is poor management check out Phil Brown keeping Hull City on the pitch and berating them at half time when they were being beaten by Man City.). Management 101 is keep it in house and berate your team behind closed doors if that’s what’s required, not out front of the team hospitality. Whatever that was it was most certainly not a crisis meeting or b*llocking.Andi76 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 23:06Sorry, but crisis meetings are not why teams test and what is the order of the day in testing. The balance changes constantly and nobody knows why, the rear end breaks out uncontrollably, aero load is not consistent and changes extremely with vehicle height, to the point that the car becomes uncontrollable as soon as it gets below a certain ground clearance. At the front axle there is a sudden loss of downforce when cornering. The car should behave largely according to the simulations and calculations. But this is not the case at all with the W14. The problems are so far-reaching that a crisis meeting has been called to discuss how to proceed and what to do. And unplanned crisis meetings are not part of the test program and why one tests. Likewise, you don't test to clear up unexplained reactions of the car. I don't even want to talk about the other rumors, because on the one hand these are actually rumors so far for which I haven't received any direct confirmation, and on the other hand it is a very sensitive topic to which a few people here react sensitively. At least in the past. But in fact, many of these statements are reminiscent of what was said about cars that had a fundamental aerodynamic problem.f1jcw wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 21:09I might be wrong here, but this is why teams test....Andi76 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 20:58
https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/10205 ... y-meeting/
At Mercedes, at least, there are crisis meetings. I can confirm this report and have already reported this this morning. There are problems on the front axle and there are problems as soon as they get below a certain ground clearance.
Well...Kyle says he doesn't believe in it. Definitely he has not proved anything. In any case, there are the following facts :NoDivergence wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 21:40And yet you're still wrong. Watch Kyle's video to see the debunk (for the nth time) regarding wider sidepods being structurally improved over zeropod
- Aerodynamicists from other teams say this side box concept is too complex to make it work.
- Mercedes has again problems to make the car work
- the car again behaves differently than in the simulations
- suddenly dropping uneven downforce, logically has an aerodynamic origin, as well as cars that showed this in the past usually had a fundamental aerodynamic problem
If you put one and one together and put this in relation to what the aerodynamicists of other teams have said about the complexity of this concept, then there is at least a lot to suggest that Vanja is not wrong here.
And quite honestly front wheel wake management is extremely important for the aerodynamics of a car. Without bargeboards, however, this is extremely difficult and the sidepods are a component of what Kyle also clearly stated. So now you can believe that the sidepods are not the reason at Mercedes. Certainly nobody says or knows that. But in any case it would explain the problems Mercedes has been struggling with since they introduced this concept. And in my eyes it would be a great coincidence that everything fits together so well.
Just because someone recognizes a pattern and correlations, and can also make a connection to how other vehicles "behaved" that were known to have aerodynamic problems, doesn't mean it can be solved. Add to that the fact that no other team has similar aerodynamic issues and both Williams and McLaren left a similar path in 2022. Moreover, Mercedes certainly knows this quite well itself. More I say to the topic also no more, because it is as always - as soon as one says something in this regard one is hostile. Should not be in such a forum, but unfortunately one or the other here is so. The problems are known and public. Everyone can make up his own mind whether sudden drop of downforce below a certain ground clearance and inconsistent downforce resulting in a different behaviour across the ride height variations is related to bad front wheel wake management and vortex control or not. Finally, it is an explanation that would explain pretty much all of Mercedes' problems and that also fits everything that has happened since Bahrain 2022 in this regard. My prediction is that Mercedes will gradually change their sidepods. If I'm wrong, feel free to remind me, and vice versa, I'll take the liberty of reminding you. In the meantime - whether someone believes what i said what probably is the reason in my opinion , or despite the clearly aerodynamic origin (is also an aerodynamic problem) as with the W13 in an ominous other reason that will probably never be clarified - everyone must decide for themselves. And with that I am out of the topic again!cplchanb wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 00:09You need to submit your cv to Mercedes right now since you know exactly what the problem isand how to solve it...Andi76 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 23:06Sorry, but crisis meetings are not why teams test and what is the order of the day in testing. The balance changes constantly and nobody knows why, the rear end breaks out uncontrollably, aero load is not consistent and changes extremely with vehicle height, to the point that the car becomes uncontrollable as soon as it gets below a certain ground clearance. At the front axle there is a sudden loss of downforce when cornering. The car should behave largely according to the simulations and calculations. But this is not the case at all with the W14. The problems are so far-reaching that a crisis meeting has been called to discuss how to proceed and what to do. And unplanned crisis meetings are not part of the test program and why one tests. Likewise, you don't test to clear up unexplained reactions of the car. I don't even want to talk about the other rumors, because on the one hand these are actually rumors so far for which I haven't received any direct confirmation, and on the other hand it is a very sensitive topic to which a few people here react sensitively. At least in the past. But in fact, many of these statements are reminiscent of what was said about cars that had a fundamental aerodynamic problem.
Why the constant need to twist our words? Haven't you guys had enough of that? No one was saying W13 zeropods were the predominant cause of bouncing, it was clear as day W13 initial floor was way too aggressive compared to RB and Ferrari and they had to dial it down with Barcelona upgrade. It was an improvement, but when they tried to lower the car back to intended ride height problems started re-occurring, coupled with flapping floor in the rear. Don't tell me the diffuser throat section movement doesn't affect floor performanceNoDivergence wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 01:34Yeah, so first hand that you're wrong about the sidepod width has any significance structurally to the whole porpoising effect. Rewatch Kyle's video again. He goes in depth with pictures of EVERY team on the grid's car which did and did not have stays, how many stays, etc. Regardless of width of sidepod. And there is no seeming correlation with the amount of porpoising experienced. Which leads to my conclusion which mirrors Kyle's that the porpoising correlates predominantly with the floor entrance geometry, throat proximity to ground, and very very little to do with the edge floor vortices. Which are a performance consideration, but not a flutter mode. This is classically understanding of ground effect. It's not new.
Simulations are better than ever today, users are also better than ever with input and proper settings. It's only going to get better still. I did a race car CFD with two software and correlation in WT, 1% error on downforce and 2% error on drag. And that was 7 years ago. On the other hand, the geometry of these cars is simpler than any since 2009 and even then the Y250 vortex and double diffusers were a headache for any meaningful prediction that very same year. Aerodynamics are not sorcery and witchcraft, they can be understood to great extent even when you are not in an F1 team. That's what we are trying to do here.NoDivergence wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 01:34Those of us with significant engineering experience know that almost NOTHING complex ever truly follows simulation. I can count on one hand the number of times I was positively surprised the behavior matched prediction. And that's mostly after decades of experimental correlation to our development tools, none of which exists for true innovations like what we see in F1.
That's literally why evolutions of successful car concepts continue to succeed. Because they're based on known performance behavior that is just optimized.
None of our simulations on this site can remotely come close to the real deal because the flow structures, the strength and position of vortices interacting with each other and wheel wake are some of the most complex analyses out there. And then to consider these in yaw, roll, and differing, dynamic conditions. This is why teams and engineers are generally fearful of making large changes. There ALWAYS is an expectation of it not following simulation.
