So, you say that they put too much weight at the front which leads to "exaggerated rear slides and thus high tyre wear." Exaggerated slides? No, what happens is, to compensate the rear end grip is artificially lessened, but that just means less grip overall - poor traction etc. (which is exactly what we saw in China). If you are using the front end, and deliberately building oversteer into the car then the car will automatically have exaggerated rear slides, and will lead to higher tyre wear. That's why the Mercedes has been designed the way it has; because of the new regs - unfortunately they have over-compensated in the desing and it understeers, instead of the neutrality that they were after.
But your point about Schumacher's driving style is exactly what my point has been. He works on building oversteer into his set-up; that leads to (relatively) exaggerated rear slides which results in increased tyre wear. So, he may be able to race competitively, but unless refuelling was to be re-introduced, the different strategic requirements mean that he will not be a dominant factor - and nor would he have been were it not for the introduction of refuelling.
brawn himself said they had under-compensated for the narrower fronts....the only way for them to reduce understeer without major updates was to reduce rear grip
you are confusing things.at the start of the season,the narrower fronts meant the cars have an inherent tendency to understeer...what do they do now?..they develop the wings and suspension with that in mind to compensate for it so that the end product is the neutral thing they want...the mclarens and RB's in particular succeeded in this..the mercedes team didnt compensate enough and their end result in an understeery car.the chassis/wing updates were not realistic as there was no time for develoment b/w weekends.so what they did was (not my idea,quoting ross brawn from the bbc article
),shift the load more to the front to the car.a shift forwards means the car has a tendency to oversteer(i explained that in the previous page of this thread as well,imagine the trail oversteer phenomenon)...also note that this is the aerodynamic load,not weight itself....what happened is that they overcompensated,put too much load to the front(again quoting ross brawn) and that resulted in massive rear slides as the traction on the rear was removed out of proportion to the front..this leads to decrease in traction and faulty exits from corners where u cant get on the throttle early enough..
rear slides are not bad by themselves..oversteer kings like schumacher/raikkonen induce rear slides on both slow.fast corners..there was a full autosport article on this by the name of ''the slide rulers''..the difference here is those slides are ''controlled'' slides.i-e they dont lose time and carry maximum momentum..an oversteery driver will always have more front than rear grip and thus more rear degradation than an understeery driver.that because he launches the rear in an inevitable sliding motion everytime he oversteers.the problems with the slides schumi was having is that they were ''uncontrolled''..i-e hes infact losing time correcting them and then getting on the throttle.those are basically due to the heavy front weight bias that brawn mentions.
He works on building oversteer into his set-up; that leads to (relatively) exaggerated rear slides which results in increased tyre wear. So, he may be able to race competitively, but unless refuelling was to be re-introduced, the different strategic requirements mean that he will not be a dominant factor - and nor would he have been were it not for the introduction of refuelling.
this theory doesnt have a base as ive mentioned before ''all rear slides are not bad''....these oversteer guys are ''slide rulers''i-e they control their slides.problem with schumi is he hasnt been able to control these as he has very little rear grip.yes his style will always mean he less rear grip than front but this phenomenon has been exaggerated in the last few grand prixs.
if his problem had been the different strategic requirements of the ''no refuelling era'',then certainly ud expect him to show good qualifying speed
.he doesnt have those requirements in the new qualifying format,right?.lowest fuel load,new set of tyres..however as things have turned out hes been off rosberg's pace in quali as well...which simply shows it isnt the ''no refuelling'' change or the ''compromised setups'' problem that is hurting him........
its the car,plain and simple.the understeery,non responsive front.add his 3 year break to the equation and ull begin to realize we need to wait for the season to finish to form a decisive opinion on whether hes lost it or not.whether the car itself that has a 100% role in his lack of speed or it has a 50-60% role with the rest made up by him being ''past his prime'',is what he dont know at this point.i doubt hes lost anything..wait and see.
Edited by grunge, 26 April 2010 - 15:43.