Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 24 votes

Mercedes-AMG 2013 W04


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3997 replies to this topic

#751 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,835 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2013 - 23:30

Some pictures of the crash site, found over at F1Technical: It's the trademark Mercedes gold painted exhaust area:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
(Click for larger images)

Considering the few laps he did in relatively cool conditions, they probably have a lot of thermal insulation work to do. Unless they plan to sport the 1996 Jordan look once we get to Malaysia. Oh, well, something would've been missing if we didn't get to see burnt silver paint, wouldn't it?

Also, a nice 1000pcs frontwing puzzle:
Posted Image

You can see the "real" nose below the cracked vanity panel. And cables sticking out. Just mentioning because we had that discussion before.

Edited by dau, 06 February 2013 - 23:37.


Advertisement

#752 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 February 2013 - 00:10

the burnt paint might be from not turning the engine off quickly

#753 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:03

Burnt paint isn't a big deal. Most other teams have unpainted carbon fiber around the exhausts.

#754 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 1,409 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:30

the burnt paint might be from not turning the engine off quickly

True, if the car is just sitting there with no air over it the burning is expected.

#755 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 4,826 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:47

Burnt paint isn't a big deal. Most other teams have unpainted carbon fiber around the exhausts.



Yeah, we seem to have gone further with the paint, whilst others stop much earlier.

#756 jstrains

jstrains
  • Member

  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:57

Nope, AMuS were pointing on the overheating sidepod visible already before the crash with this picture

http://img4.auto-mot...f47b-659370.jpg
Posted Image

Edited by jstrains, 07 February 2013 - 04:59.


#757 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:47

What's going to break on the car today? My guess is something related to the engine.

#758 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:59

that's quite a big heating problem,unless they are doing such 'set-up' knowingly to get some datas....

#759 kedia990

kedia990
  • Member

  • 402 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:19

Uh, is it possible that the "golden painted" burnt sidepod is due to the flash flames while Nico was driving on Tuesday? I don't think Merc repainted it, coz the same golden marks are on the right side of the car as well.
Sorry if this has already been pointed out.

Advertisement

#760 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 9,127 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:26

All this fuss about a little burnt paint.

Edited by peroa, 07 February 2013 - 07:31.


#761 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:32

that's quite a big heating problem,unless they are doing such 'set-up' knowingly to get some datas....


It's more of a problem of the livery.

#762 DarioAndretti

DarioAndretti
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:26

so far it does not look good. lewis and Nico will be fighting for positions between 7 and 12 and thats it really.

#763 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,811 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:42

Don't they test the car with the engine running at the factory? A standing test, maybe in the wind tunnel?

#764 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:59

so far it does not look good. lewis and Nico will be fighting for positions between 7 and 12 and thats it really.



You came to that conclusion how?

#765 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:13

The question should be, you came to that conclusion now ?

#766 pit5bul

pit5bul
  • Member

  • 667 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:39

actually Nico's times today look quite good..not sure what they test but its not looking bad for Mercedes this year.. looks like a good 2013 :cool:

#767 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,599 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:43

actually Nico's times today look quite good..not sure what they test but its not looking bad for Mercedes this year.. looks like a good 2013 :cool:



Press runs to cover for the bad press of the past two days

#768 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,396 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:47

Press runs to cover for the bad press of the past two days

:lol: good one.

Anyway new front wing looks great :up:

#769 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,889 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:49

:lol: good one.

Anyway new front wing looks great :up:

pics or it didn;t happen


#770 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,357 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:50

:lol: good one.

Anyway new front wing looks great :up:


Excellent :up:

An actual post on a technical aspect of the car.

Any links/pics?

#771 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 9,105 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:51

Anyway new front wing looks great :up:

http://img3.auto-mot...8b17-659678.jpg

Edited by Timstr11, 07 February 2013 - 09:52.


#772 DarioAndretti

DarioAndretti
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:53

You came to that conclusion how?


a lot of parameters.

2010 -2012 downward trend

2012 late part of teh season

2013 early testing problems

2013 grim look on the drivers and mechanics faces

etc, etc

my pecking order so far

1. RedBull, Lotus
3. Ferrari
4. McLaren
5. Sauber, Mercedes, Torro

#773 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,889 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:53

http://img3.auto-mot...8b17-659678.jpg

spectacular indeed

#774 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,396 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:56

http://img3.auto-mot...8b17-659678.jpg

Is it just the picture or does it look a tad asymmetric?

#775 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:56

Its pointless trying to read anything into the testing times, but sometimes the consistency in long stints can tell us something about how a car is treating its tyres - its a shame that Merc haven't been able to string together enough running to see if they still have their big tyre drop off problem.

The car may well have good and consistent pace, but all I'm seeing is the same old Mercedes from last year. First an overheating/wiring problem, then a brake failure. Do teams have testing rigs in the factory to fire these things up on and give a work out to, before bringing them to the track? I could be wrong, but these sound like basic flaws that are being shaken out just by the car running.

Mercedes were very sloppy last year, and have carried on exactly where they left off. My suspicion is the pace of the car will be about the same too - maybe 6th? - if Lewis thinks the downforce is down on last years McLaren, we assume McLaren and the teams around them have better downforce now, it could be a bigger gap than he's expecting.


To be honest, I suspect the early iteration of the 2013 Mclaren doesn't have the same level of downforce straight out of the box as the 2012 that was running in Brazil. That car had a season's worth of refinements, at the first test none of these cars are going to be optimised in the same way. I can't see merc fighting for wins but scrapping with Lotus and Ferrari through the season and trying to get closer to the front two is a realistic ambition.

#776 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:57

http://img3.auto-mot...8b17-659678.jpg


Wow

#777 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:00

http://img3.auto-mot...8b17-659678.jpg


OMFG

Is it just the picture or does it look a tad asymmetric?


:)

#778 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,396 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:03

:)

I assume its not but you can see where I'm coming from based on that pic.

Also interesting comments by GA on bbc live text. Could someone post them? Am unable to right now.

Edited by Markn93, 07 February 2013 - 10:08.


#779 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 11,364 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:05

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Jerez (on the Merc front wing)

"I've been saying since June last year that there was something wrong with their front-wing philosophy. All the teams are struggling to get enough downforce from the front wing, but Mercedes have been taking downforce-producing bits off it. From what I know the bits do, the pieces missing are worth about 40kg of downforce. That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21360298

Advertisement

#780 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:18

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Jerez (on the Merc front wing)

"I've been saying since June last year that there was something wrong with their front-wing philosophy. All the teams are struggling to get enough downforce from the front wing, but Mercedes have been taking downforce-producing bits off it. From what I know the bits do, the pieces missing are worth about 40kg of downforce. That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21360298


This doesn't sound massively scientific. Is it really this simple?

#781 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,704 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:24

This doesn't sound massively scientific. Is it really this simple?


The centre of gravity, grip and downforce ideally need to be kept as close as possible for optimal balance so is probably a safe educated guess from Gary. He doesn't know everything about the design of the car but I'd take his word over most other pundits given his background.

#782 Zoetrope

Zoetrope
  • Member

  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:28

Wow


Not sure whether it resembles Batmobil or Predator's armor more? o_O

#783 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,835 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:37

Burnt paint isn't a big deal. Most other teams have unpainted carbon fiber around the exhausts.

You're right, it isn't really a big deal, but Merc has some history with that.

Also, it isn't even burnt right at the exhaust, where other teams have unpainted CFRP or black heatshielding etc., but about 20cm in front of that. For comparison:

Posted Image

--

That FW looks awesome. Was about time they'd get a new one.

Edited by dau, 07 February 2013 - 10:37.


#784 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:43

Seems like the W04 hasn't really changed anything. Still suffering from heavy degradation.

#785 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:46

You're right, it isn't really a big deal, but Merc has some history with that.

Also, it isn't even burnt right at the exhaust, where other teams have unpainted CFRP or black heatshielding etc., but about 20cm in front of that. For comparison:

Posted Image

--

That FW looks awesome. Was about time they'd get a new one.



It was the same last season, and there were absolutely no cooling issues. I don't think they have any now either.

#786 meddo

meddo
  • Member

  • 1,679 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:47

Seems like the W04 hasn't really changed anything. Still suffering from heavy degradation.

How can you tell?

#787 Grundle

Grundle
  • Member

  • 763 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:49

I have a theory that Mercedes tend to use very aggressive engine settings. Gives great accn. and top speed, and is good in qualifying. But in the races the tyres suffer.
I think it's a classic case of trying to use power to overcome poor aero. This is backed up by Lewis' comments yesterday, when he could feel the lack of aero comp. to McLaren.

#788 Masenco

Masenco
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:53

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Jerez (on the Merc front wing)

"I've been saying since June last year that there was something wrong with their front-wing philosophy. All the teams are struggling to get enough downforce from the front wing, but Mercedes have been taking downforce-producing bits off it. From what I know the bits do, the pieces missing are worth about 40kg of downforce. That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21360298


That sounds very wierd

#789 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:03

That sounds very wierd


GA is weird.

#790 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:08

How can you tell?


Laptimes.

#791 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 9,127 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:11

It's not weird, it makes perfect sense, the car couldn't produce enough downforce at the rear, so they had to take downforce off the front to keep the aero balance.
Same thing happened at Macca last year when they removed the plough because it produced too much DF in relation to the rear.

#792 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,357 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:12

That sounds very wierd


I think it could be a function of having a DDRS front wing.


#793 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:16

Wow nice looking new wing!

#794 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:16

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Jerez

"I've been saying since June last year that there was something wrong with their front-wing philosophy. All the teams are struggling to get enough downforce from the front wing, but Mercedes have been taking downforce-producing bits off it. From what I know the bits do, the pieces missing are worth about 40kg of downforce. That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."


IIRC Scarbs stated something similar during the TFL. It is pretty basic. The C of P can not be too much upflow and if they struggle to generate D at the rear they have to give up D at the front to hurt the areo balance not too much. Too little efficient downforce at the back might also have been part of the rear tyre problem, apart from the complex suspension and unknown factors.

Edited by H2H, 07 February 2013 - 11:17.


#795 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 11,364 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:25

I think it could be a function of having a DDRS front wing.

good point :up:

#796 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:51

IIRC Scarbs stated something similar during the TFL. It is pretty basic. The C of P can not be too much upflow and if they struggle to generate D at the rear they have to give up D at the front to hurt the areo balance not too much. Too little efficient downforce at the back might also have been part of the rear tyre problem, apart from the complex suspension and unknown factors.



Yes. GA is saying the opposite, that is what is weird. Basically what he is saying that they should have put more wing on the front to gain downforce at the rear?

"That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

That is pure BS. One of his best brainfades, really.

Edited by Szoelloe, 07 February 2013 - 11:52.


#797 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:19

seems like they would manage to get some 120-150 laps today...:up:

#798 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:20

Well it depends on the reason, they used the front wing. If they had no point in improving it because the car lacked rear downforce anyway, this gain was never to be had, if the problem was the development of the front wing, then they could have gained something from it.

#799 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:21

Yes. GA is saying the opposite, that is what is weird. Basically what he is saying that they should have put more wing on the front to gain downforce at the rear?

"That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

That is pure BS. One of his best brainfades, really.


I think what he means is, the fact they were taking it off the front means that they werent getting the rear downforce they expected. If they "could" get the downforce at the rear that they expected, they could add it back at the front too, so +100 in total.

Advertisement

#800 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 1,583 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:40

Yes. GA is saying the opposite, that is what is weird. Basically what he is saying that they should have put more wing on the front to gain downforce at the rear?

"That equates to about 60kg of lost downforce at the back, because it's a 40:60 ratio, and so that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could. That's worth 0.8secs a lap."

That is pure BS. One of his best brainfades, really.


What is being said is that they are having to take downforce off the front to balance the car. So, from his knowledge of what set pieces do, he has calculated that they have removed 40Kg of front downforce, and as the cars all run a 40:60 ratio of front to rear downforce, if they are removing 40Kg from the front, that means they must be missing 60Kg from the rear. 100Kg overall.