Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 24 votes

Mercedes-AMG 2013 W04


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4001 replies to this topic

#801 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.

Advertisement

#802 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,348 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.

#803 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 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.

#804 Masenco

Masenco
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:51

The tire wear is pretty hard to judge atm because the times are so up and down. Rosberg will do 2/3 very similar lap times then one will be 7tenths slower then the next 2 will be similar again :S

#805 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:52

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.


Again:

"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."

If he means what you said, he sure has problems expressing himself. He is saying they should have gone for more wing to have more DF at thre rear, and insted they took off pieces which is counterproductive at the rear. What you say is what Scarbs has said, that they had to run less wing at the front, because they lacked DF overall.
It is not worth more debate though.



#806 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:00

Again:

"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."

If he means what you said, he sure has problems expressing himself. He is saying they should have gone for more wing to have more DF at thre rear, and insted they took off pieces which is counterproductive at the rear. What you say is what Scarbs has said, that they had to run less wing at the front, because they lacked DF overall.
It is not worth more debate though.


I am Northern English, so I am used to this manner of speech - what he is saying is what I have said - because they are missing rear downforce they need to balance the car. They have 40Kg of front downforce in their pockets - but cannot use it until they sort the rear out. The car missing so much overall downforce would go some way to explaining them eating tires last year too.

#807 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:03

I am Northern English, so I am used to this manner of speech - what he is saying is what I have said - because they are missing rear downforce they need to balance the car. They have 40Kg of front downforce in their pockets - but cannot use it until they sort the rear out. The car missing so much overall downforce would go some way to explaining them eating tires last year too.



Well, ok then. I still don't understand though what all he has said has to do with Merc's front wing philosophy?

#808 Masenco

Masenco
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:08

I am Northern English, so I am used to this manner of speech - what he is saying is what I have said - because they are missing rear downforce they need to balance the car. They have 40Kg of front downforce in their pockets - but cannot use it until they sort the rear out. The car missing so much overall downforce would go some way to explaining them eating tires last year too.


I fully understand you, the part that throws me off is when he says "that's 100kg of downforce they don't have that they could"- clearly they don't have the required amount of rear downforce inorder to put more front downforce on- he makes it sound like they are holding back on purpose because of their 'philosophy'.



#809 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:10

Well, ok then. I still don't understand though what all he has said has to do with Merc's front wing philosophy?


Quite a lot of people have been very down on Mercedes over their front wing since the Brawn car of 2009 - they are going for obvious easy front downforce without paying attention to what is happening at the back of the car. If you recall in 2009, McLaren had mightly front downforce, but the front wing was killing the rear of the car. In that car is was huge and obvious (the end plates) - while Mercedes aren't falling for that one, it has a similar problem. You can have a front wing that does one job (front downforce) but misses the point on the secondary role it plays (conditioning the air for the rest of the car) - this is what is said to be the problem with the Mercedes wing.

So - rather than go for a wing that does a better job at channeling the air - they are taking bits off it to do a 'quick fix' in balancing the car. Overall, the car is balanced, but they are down 100kg of downforce they would have if they sorted the front wing properly instead of just hacking bits off it.

#810 Masenco

Masenco
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:13

Quite a lot of people have been very down on Mercedes over their front wing since the Brawn car of 2009 - they are going for obvious easy front downforce without paying attention to what is happening at the back of the car. If you recall in 2009, McLaren had mightly front downforce, but the front wing was killing the rear of the car. In that car is was huge and obvious (the end plates) - while Mercedes aren't falling for that one, it has a similar problem. You can have a front wing that does one job (front downforce) but misses the point on the secondary role it plays (conditioning the air for the rest of the car) - this is what is said to be the problem with the Mercedes wing.

So - rather than go for a wing that does a better job at channeling the air - they are taking bits off it to do a 'quick fix' in balancing the car. Overall, the car is balanced, but they are down 100kg of downforce they would have if they sorted the front wing properly instead of just hacking bits off it.


Great post :up:
Thank you for clearing that up for me

#811 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:21

Quite a lot of people have been very down on Mercedes over their front wing since the Brawn car of 2009 - they are going for obvious easy front downforce without paying attention to what is happening at the back of the car. If you recall in 2009, McLaren had mightly front downforce, but the front wing was killing the rear of the car. In that car is was huge and obvious (the end plates) - while Mercedes aren't falling for that one, it has a similar problem. You can have a front wing that does one job (front downforce) but misses the point on the secondary role it plays (conditioning the air for the rest of the car) - this is what is said to be the problem with the Mercedes wing.

So - rather than go for a wing that does a better job at channeling the air - they are taking bits off it to do a 'quick fix' in balancing the car. Overall, the car is balanced, but they are down 100kg of downforce they would have if they sorted the front wing properly instead of just hacking bits off it.


Well - I really wouldn't like too go on forever - now you are saying exactly what GA has said. And that is, I think , completely wrong. So we are back to square one. The brainfade.





#812 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:24

If i understood well,this problem is always the key.

When Lewis was on Mclaren,for some years,we knew that the car really lacked rear downforce compared to Red Bull.

The hard thing is really this "rear" downforce.

When you get it,you just have to balance with the front wing downforce.

:well:

Edited by Boxerevo, 07 February 2013 - 13:25.


#813 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 13:39

Well - I really wouldn't like too go on forever - now you are saying exactly what GA has said. And that is, I think , completely wrong. So we are back to square one. The brainfade.



Ok - the air hits the car at the front and flows over and under the car to the back. The diffuser (which is where most of the rear downforce comes from) works by accelerating air under the car sucking the car down onto the track, in order to do that, it needs good quality air being fed to it - by the front wing. If the front wing isn't doing this, then the diffuser won't work as well as it 'should' - so, while you can have a front wing which gives good frontal downforce, it can be doing a bad job at feeding the diffuser good air.

As the car needs to be in balance in order to be drivable - if you are missing rear downforce - you need to take it off the front to balance the car. Which is what Mercedes are having to do.

So - Andersons point is that in order to need to take 40Kg off the front - they must be missing 60Kg at the rear - 100Kg in total. If they fix the front wings ability to feed the diffuser, they would get that 60Kg back and then would be able to put the 40Kg they took off the front back on - giving them 100Kg more than they were running before they fixed the airflow issue under the car.

How's that?

Edit:

Also, he is saying that they need to change their front-wing philosophy - not crank more downforce on the front. The philosophy can be seen as how the wing works the air - as they are going for easy downforce, the wing is making a mess of the air leaving it - which then ties into the point I make above.

Edited by MirNyet, 07 February 2013 - 14:15.


#814 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,193 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 07 February 2013 - 14:00

Please take the "blow by blow" posts about testing to the live page or the testing thread

#815 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 07 February 2013 - 15:12

To put some life back into this thread, here is Gary Andersons opinion of the new front wing - taken from the BBC live feed at http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21360298

Mercedes have brought a new front wing to Jerez and Nico Rosberg is running it on Thursday. We talked about their front-wing problems earlier and this one is definitely a step forward. It is a five-element wing, but what's unusual is that it has five elements all the way from the endplates up to the start of the FIA-defined aerodynamically neutral section in the centre of the wing. The large number of elements is a good idea in front of the front tyre because the team want to have enough wing shape to give good downforce during braking, but when the driver turns into the corner, the blockage created by the front wheels is removed, and in that situation it's easy for the airflow to separate and for the car to lose downforce. The slot gaps between the elements of the wing help stop that happening. But inboard of the front wing, the more slot-gaps you have, the less downforce you can create. So most teams will have fewer elements inboard of the tyre. Having said that, it is a step forward and it will give them more consistent downforce, and less understeer mid-corner, if not perhaps more overall downforce.


Seems a step forward, I reckon.

#816 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 15:13

Posted Image

Another angle of the wrong wing.

#817 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,576 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 15:57

There's no way you should be able to do 150 laps in an F1 car.......

It's obviously way, waaaaaayyyyy over-engineered.










<chuckles>

#818 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:09

If the car has good downforce in the rear, a (better)fw with more downforce is welcome.
If the car does not have good, enought or efficient downforce in the rear, a fw with more downforce will help the car in the overall picture(to a extend) but will bring some collateral effects - the rear will be more twitchy, there will be more graining and wear on the rear tires, etc.

Indeed the fw design is very important to help the air flow to the rest of the car, but other itens have influence on that too - the nose, nose pillars, suspension, tires, etc.

To be honest things does not look good. The car looks like a pile of well designed parts that were just thrown together without any care about how they would work together - or wondering about IF they would...

Edited by PedroBR, 07 February 2013 - 16:13.


#819 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 4,770 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:10

Good day for the W04. New front wing seems to be working, 150 laps & best of all... no problems! Best lap of the day was the 1st lap of a 15 lap run, so there is maybe a little pace inside this Silver Arrow!

Advertisement

#820 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:11

Look forward to Lewis' comments tomorrow after what will hopefully be a 100+ laps day.

#821 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:12

Good day for the W04. New front wing seems to be working, 150 laps & best of all... no problems! Best lap of the day was the 1st lap of a 15 lap run, so there is maybe a little pace inside this Silver Arrow!


Agreed. I think Mercedes might be as little as 0.5sec off from the leaders in pure 1-lap pace. The only issue is degradation. Mercedes still doesn't have a grip (no pun intended) on the Pirelli tyres. That's quite concerning.

#822 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,645 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:13

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

right upper limit... :wave:

#823 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:13

Very promising. Good stints and great reliability. Hopefully more of the same tomorrow.

#824 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 4,770 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:14

Look forward to Lewis' comments tomorrow after what will hopefully be a 100+ laps day.


If LH can muscle out 100-150 laps tomorrow then the 4-day average will be around 75 laps a day, which is probably comparable to most teams, so the damage from the days 1 and 2 will be minimal. Like LH himself said, good to get these problems out of the way early on!

#825 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:22

Wow. Now, how's them apples??

hat was a good day's work I would say.

#826 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:22

Wow. Now, how's them apples??

That was a good day's work I would say.

#827 jav

jav
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:26

you can say that again...

#828 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:28

Any chance we could get 300 laps over the next two days?



Also I wounder if we will see the new front wing this week.


Halfway there.

#829 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:32

Has Mercedes talked about bringing new parts in the upcoming tests?

#830 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:40

The only issue is degradation. Mercedes still doesn't have a grip (no pun intended) on the Pirelli tyres. That's quite concerning.


Oh I don't know. Admittedly, I only inspected the numbers and didn't do any fancy statistical calculations, but it didn't seem any worse than the rest. Was it really?

#831 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:44

I didn't see anything any worse than anyones else.

Im not going to look at that until we hit a proper track so to speak.

#832 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:51

Has Mercedes talked about bringing new parts in the upcoming tests?


yes


Oh I don't know. Admittedly, I only inspected the numbers and didn't do any fancy statistical calculations, but it didn't seem any worse than the rest. Was it really?


It wasn't any worse, really. Not that it means anything at this stage, on this surface. Tyre wear should be much better if they only found a good amount of overall DF, and did not even touch the suspension. Which has to be the case, because if they say THAT new FW works, that means the rear has way more DF. That FW looks like two America's cup sails bolted on the nose.


#833 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,081 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:52

yes

Did they specify in any way?

#834 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 16:54

Did they specify in any way?


Not that I remember, no.


#835 bauss

bauss
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:12

Oh I don't know. Admittedly, I only inspected the numbers and didn't do any fancy statistical calculations, but it didn't seem any worse than the rest. Was it really?


at first I thought it did, but after paying attention to the rest.... not really, perhaps a bit more but doesnt look too significant, all things been considered.

Like someone said, I suspect this car might be around half a second off the best. I think it will surprise a few doom mongerers.

The main issue will be for them to have a decent rate of development for once.


#836 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:12

http://www.formule1....60235304.48.jpg
http://www.formule1....60235298.13.jpg

Some nice Hi-res images of the rear of the car, I look forward to when the car hopefully runs without paint on those areas.

#837 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:18

Which has to be the case, because if they say THAT new FW works, that means the rear has way more DF. That FW looks like two America's cup sails bolted on the nose.


Did you say that if the FW works it means the REAR has more DF?

No, no, no way.

#838 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:25

Did you say that if the FW works it means the REAR has more DF?

No, no, no way.


??

You referring to the GA comments? Where do you see the contradiction?


#839 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,081 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:29

Not that I remember, no.

Correct.

"We have some things that we are quite excited about which will appear in the next few weeks," he said.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105399

Advertisement

#840 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:30

Agreed. I think Mercedes might be as little as 0.5sec off from the leaders in pure 1-lap pace. The only issue is degradation. Mercedes still doesn't have a grip (no pun intended) on the Pirelli tyres. That's quite concerning.


How you can be so categorical at this early stage... such talk is a bit silly.

#841 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:30

Did you say that if the FW works it means the REAR has more DF?

No, no, no way.


Its not as simple as saying "no way". If the front is effective at making the rear work properly then more df can indeed be generated. Aero has to be looked at as a total system not individual parts.

#842 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:35

??

You referring to the GA comments? Where do you see the contradiction?


No, I was referring just to the quoted text. If they found that the FW works, it means that the FW is more efficient, produces more downforce, whatever. But in no way it means that the rear has more downforce. I dont know how my posts sounds(polite, educated, etc) because english is not my native language, ok?


#843 paipa

paipa
  • Member

  • 255 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:36

Did you say that if the FW works it means the REAR has more DF?

No, no, no way.

You don't get it. The fact that they started using a high downforce FW suggests that they now have enough rear downforce otherwise they'd just screw the balance up with a high downforce FW. The new FW doesn't help with rear downforce but you wouldn't put one up if it wasn't balanced by high rear DF.

#844 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,694 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:37

You don't get it. The fact that they started using a high downforce FW suggests that they now have enough rear downforce otherwise they'd just screw the balance up with a high downforce FW. The new FW doesn't help with rear downforce but you wouldn't put one up if it wasn't balanced by high rear DF.


Thank you.


#845 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:41

Its not as simple as saying "no way". If the front is effective at making the rear work properly then more df can indeed be generated. Aero has to be looked at as a total system not individual parts.


The only ways the FW can help the rear work properly is by providing balance(adding or removing downforce in the front to balance the current rear downforce) or/and helping the air flow to the remaining of the car - but this point is not as big as people make it. There are a lot of other things in the air path to the middle/rear of the car.

#846 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:46

or/and helping the air flow to the remaining of the car


That's what I said.  ;)

#847 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:46

You don't get it. The fact that they started using a high downforce FW suggests that they now have enough rear downforce otherwise they'd just screw the balance up with a high downforce FW. The new FW doesn't help with rear downforce but you wouldn't put one up if it wasn't balanced by high rear DF.


I see. But maybe arent you guys reading too much into it? What if they just need to check if the new fw really works or not? The only thing needed to test a part is that the car fundamentals are right and you understand them all. There´s not such thing as "wait the rear to be good to test the new front wing".

If the rear is working fundamentally correct and you dominate it´s parameters, you can test whatever you want independent of the performance of the rear.
To assume that testing the FW and realizing that it works correlates to have better rear downforce is a very long shot imho.

#848 PedroBR

PedroBR
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:55

Please understand that I´m not trying to prove my point at all costs, it´s just a healthy discussion for me, but since english is not my native langague sometimes my posts can look and sound different of what I wanted to.

Edited by PedroBR, 07 February 2013 - 17:55.


#849 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:55

Congrats to Merc on the laps covered today, epic achievement.

#850 dans79

dans79
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 17:59

GA drives me crazy some times, I think he is going senile, and forgets things he knows. That or he is just super arrogant and needs to sound like he knows it all.

Brawn described (kind of indirectly) why they had a down force issue last year in this article.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104198

As I read it, the issues was with the DDRS. They had to use airfoil profiles that would stall when the DDRS was activated. Thus they probably couldn't use profiles that generated maximum downforce. This limitation had a knock on effect, as they had to remove/or not add downforce at the rear to keep the car aero balanced. since they had less downforce than everyone else they had worse degradation.

I remember reading another article that said the DDRS had a secondary negative effect. Something along the lines of when the DDRS was deactivated it could take like 2 tenths of a second for the flow over the front wing to reattach. During that time the car was incredibly unbalanced as it had full rear downforce but almost none up-front, thus inducing severe understeer. The article suggested Nico & MS started breaking earlier as one means of combating this issue.