283 replies to this topic

[Alexandros]

^ +1

 

And remember, the OP started out with the ridiculous pretense that it was ONLY the tyres that gave Merc the advantage it had. That is why this thread attracted so much valid criticism.

With a few races gone by, at least he has refined his stand to tyres play a role which even a layman can tell you that they do. This has now descended into the usual Pirelli tyre moaning thread that we have each year.

 

The tyres give Merc the huge advantage that it has, and I stand by it. Let's just say that compared to some theories that have been floating like "it's the packaging" or "it's the engine", I have the better facts. Of course everything contributes to car performance, but:

 

- When 4 teams have Mercedes engine, it's not the engine. Even if the Mercedes engine on the Mercedes is better due to integration, superior fuel, lubricants etc etc, it can't be 2s faster.

- It's not their "packaging". Packaging can't give seconds / lap. 

- It's not their fantastic aero. It can't explain low speed traction and corners where the car is planted.

- It's not their fantastic drivers (other teams have great drivers also).

 

So even if one doesn't know much, they can arrive at the conclusion of mechanical grip and the way the car works with the tires (actually putting the tires within the window - when other cars can't, thus gaining a massive advantage). 

 

Many here do not understand what it means to be inside the window. They think it's more of "oh the soft suits X, the hard suits Y, tough luck". These differences produce relatively small time gaps (tenths). Being outside the window makes massive time difference - over half a second, possibly several seconds (like Kimi in China when the tires dropped out of the window). And having others outside the window while you are in it, is a massive time diff in your favor.

[TheSpecialOne]

The tyres give Merc the huge advantage that it has, and I stand by it. Let's just say that compared to some theories that have been floating like "it's the packaging" or "it's the engine", I have the better facts. Of course everything contributes to car performance, but:

- When 4 teams have Mercedes engine, it's not the engine. Even if the Mercedes engine on the Mercedes is better due to integration, superior fuel, lubricants etc etc, it can't be 2s faster.
- It's not their "packaging". Packaging can't give seconds / lap.
- It's not their fantastic aero. It can't explain low speed traction and corners where the car is planted.
- It's not their fantastic drivers (other teams have great drivers also).

So even if one doesn't know much, they can arrive at the conclusion of mechanical grip and the way the car works with the tires (actually putting the tires within the window - when other cars can't, thus gaining a massive advantage).

Many here do not understand what it means to be inside the window. They think it's more of "oh the soft suits X, the hard suits Y, tough luck". These differences produce relatively small time gaps (tenths). Being outside the window makes massive time difference - over half a second, possibly several seconds (like Kimi in China when the tires dropped out of the window). And having others outside the window while you are in it, is a massive time diff in your favor.

The hilarious thing with this argument is that you essentially say the packaging, aero concepts and fantastic drivers don't make much of a difference, yet it will be these exact combination of factors that, put the car 'in the window' of the tyres as you so insist. Therefore even if it is the tyres as you so clearly enjoy shouting from the rooftops, it ironically caused by influences to lap time that you have been so keen to discredit as irrelevant.

The four points you make are causes, tyres being in or out of an operating window are an effect.

Edited by TheSpecialOne, 19 May 2014 - 21:03.

[jcpower13]

That would be a valid theory if they weren't "planted" in low speed corners where d/f doesn't play a role.

 

What sort of insane troll logic is this? The Merc has less downforce because it's good in low speed corners?  What a load of bull, the Merc is good in low speed corners because it has good mechanical grip, not because it's lacking downforce which is the worst explanation for low speed corner performance I've ever heard.

You can have great mechanical grip and alot of downforce the two are not mutually exclusive.
 

[bub]

The tyres give Merc the huge advantage that it has, and I stand by it.

 

That is just a guess, the same as those who say 'it is the overall package'

 

 

 I have the better facts.

 

Not really. You are just surmising, same as everybody else. 

 

 

 

- When 4 teams have Mercedes engine, it's not the engine. Even if the Mercedes engine on the Mercedes is better due to integration, superior fuel, lubricants etc etc, it can't be 2s faster.

- It's not their "packaging". Packaging can't give seconds / lap. 

- It's not their fantastic aero. It can't explain low speed traction and corners where the car is planted.

- It's not their fantastic drivers (other teams have great drivers also).

 

 

But if you gain a bit from each of those ^ plus a bit from working the tyres better, that could add up to the gap that Merc have. It doesn't necessarily have to be all or even mostly due to the tyres.

 

 

So even if one doesn't know much, they can arrive at the conclusion of mechanical grip and the way the car works with the tires (actually putting the tires within the window - when other cars can't, thus gaining a massive advantage). 

 

Many here do not understand what it means to be inside the window. They think it's more of "oh the soft suits X, the hard suits Y, tough luck". These differences produce relatively small time gaps (tenths). Being outside the window makes massive time difference - over half a second, possibly several seconds (like Kimi in China when the tires dropped out of the window). And having others outside the window while you are in it, is a massive time diff in your favor.

 

You always mention mechanical grip but whenever the drivers/teams talk about having problems with working the tyres, they always mention downforce. 

[pingu666]

well back in the day the "low speed downforce" pretty much ment "guys we need to fart our exhausts better"

[aguri]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114027

 

Felipe baby wants bigger rear tyres and more mechanical grip. 

 

I reckon he's spot on and it will improve F1.

[Timstr11]

Exactly what Mercedes proposed last year but other teams opposed it.

[Kingshark]

Someone on another thread made an excellent analogy between Red Bull in 2014 and Renault in 2003.

 

Mercedes have both the best chassis AND the best engine. The WO5 out-qualified the RB10 in Spain by over 1 whole second. You can't lose a whole second around Barcelona through power deficit alone, you just can't.

 

In 2003 Renault had a car with great handling and downforce, yet the Renault engine was rumored to be 60 hp down on power when compared to Ferrari and BMW. In Hungary, which is a full downforce track with very little straight, Alonso dominated. In Spain, which is slightly more power-oriented than Hungaroring, Alonso ran Schumi close. Why? Because around circuits like Hungaroring and Catalunya, Renault weren't hurt much, if anything at all by their top speed deficit to Ferrari and BMW Williams.

 

In Spain 03, despite Renault's engine power deficit to Ferrari, Alonso qualified only 0.471 sec behind Schumacher and finished 5.7 seconds behind. Comparatively, Ricciardo qualified 1.053 seconds behind Hamilton and finished 49 seconds behind.

 

In 2003 you could have made an argument that Renault had a better chassis than Ferrari and only lost out due engine power inferiority. But anyone who claims that Ricciardo finished almost 50 seconds behind Hamilton around Barcelona because of power deficit alone is kidding themselves.

[aguri]

Exactly what Mercedes proposed last year but other teams opposed it.

 

I suggest the teams would be more receptive this time around considering it would require a redesign of the car for next year that would likely shake up grid a bit. 

 

Like I said I'm all for it, just look at those tyres:

[Bumblebee]

- When 4 teams have Mercedes engine, it's not the engine. Even if the Mercedes engine on the Mercedes is better due to integration, superior fuel, lubricants etc etc, it can't be 2s faster.

- It's not their "packaging". Packaging can't give seconds / lap. 

- It's not their fantastic aero. It can't explain low speed traction and corners where the car is planted.

- It's not their fantastic drivers (other teams have great drivers also).

 

 

 

 

I've tried to stay away from this topic, but I have to point out that you haven't shown WHY a combination of all these things can't give such a large gap. All you have done, is said "it's not these things" without explaining your logic behind that conclusion.

So before you argue all of this any further, I think it's fair to ask you to explain your reasoning. Without it, you're giving us nothing but conspiracy theories on your part. 

[BrakeL8]

Combination of slower lap times, great mechanical grip, a good engine, improved tyres, a great car design and having Lewis in the team. Just remember that one second of extra speed he found in Malaysia, the truth is it is still helping the team today with upgrades and developments. When they want more speed, let him set up his car and release the beast!

[Rinehart]

The tyres give Merc the huge advantage that it has, and I stand by it. 

 

- When 4 teams have Mercedes engine, it's not the engine. Even if the Mercedes engine on the Mercedes is better due to integration, superior fuel, lubricants etc etc, it can't be 2s faster.

- It's not their "packaging". Packaging can't give seconds / lap. 

- It's not their fantastic aero. It can't explain low speed traction and corners where the car is planted.

- It's not their fantastic drivers (other teams have great drivers also).

 

What is so hard to understand?

 

All those things combined create a dynamically superior car that is then subsequently able to extract the most from the tyres. Its a case of A+B+C+D = Maximised Tyre Performance Potential.

 

Quite simply Mercedes have spent 3 years and a heck of a lot of money signing the best engineers to design and evolve the car and engine package to this point. They started earlier than anyone else on the engine design and car design for the 2014 season. They've been saying for 2 years that 2014 would be their year. F1 is a spending war and it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Mercedes are now at the front, or why. 

 

The idea that they've lucked into some sort of tyre lottery is ridiculous. With the sort of advantage you are suggesting, your basically saying Sauber could have been the best team this year if they'd been lucky with the tyres suiting their car the best, but no same-tyre compound on earth is going to swing Mercedes and Sauber performance by 4 seconds a lap. 

Edited by Rinehart, 21 May 2014 - 08:20.

[HoldenRT]

6 pages when the first 4 or 5 replies summed it up so well.

[garagetinkerer]

 

Someone on another thread made an excellent analogy between Red Bull in 2014 and Renault in 2003.

 

Mercedes have both the best chassis AND the best engine. The WO5 out-qualified the RB10 in Spain by over 1 whole second. You can't lose a whole second around Barcelona through power deficit alone, you just can't.

 

In 2003 Renault had a car with great handling and downforce, yet the Renault engine was rumored to be 60 hp down on power when compared to Ferrari and BMW. In Hungary, which is a full downforce track with very little straight, Alonso dominated. In Spain, which is slightly more power-oriented than Hungaroring, Alonso ran Schumi close. Why? Because around circuits like Hungaroring and Catalunya, Renault weren't hurt much, if anything at all by their top speed deficit to Ferrari and BMW Williams.

 

In Spain 03, despite Renault's engine power deficit to Ferrari, Alonso qualified only 0.471 sec behind Schumacher and finished 5.7 seconds behind. Comparatively, Ricciardo qualified 1.053 seconds behind Hamilton and finished 49 seconds behind.

 

In 2003 you could have made an argument that Renault had a better chassis than Ferrari and only lost out due engine power inferiority. But anyone who claims that Ricciardo finished almost 50 seconds behind Hamilton around Barcelona because of power deficit alone is kidding themselves.

 

Those were different days... Renault then was getting more torques out of the engine. Plus, in terms of percentage, the hp figures weren't that low comparatively speaking. It is not like you are speaking of Supertec engines or something like that. Now Renault engines in V8 era, the percentage figures were quite worse when it came to power, but they made up for it in fuel efficiency.

 

However, yes, i agree that what you said in general, holds true. However, some will tell you that it is driver skill resulting in Mercedes doing as well as they are.

[Kingshark]

Those were different days... Renault then was getting more torques out of the engine. Plus, in terms of percentage, the hp figures weren't that low comparatively speaking. It is not like you are speaking of Supertec engines or something like that. Now Renault engines in V8 era, the percentage figures were quite worse when it came to power, but they made up for it in fuel efficiency.

 

If Renault had more torque how come they were nowhere a few weeks later in Monaco, where torque is everything?

 

Also Renault's V10 engine was significantly lower in hp figures versus BMW (the leading powerplant) than their V8 engine, which was close to the best.

[garagetinkerer]

If Renault had more torque how come they were nowhere a few weeks later in Monaco, where torque is everything?

 

Also Renault's V10 engine was significantly lower in hp figures versus BMW (the leading powerplant) than their V8 engine, which was close to the best.

I do not claim to be privy to inside information, just regurgitating what i read around those times.

 

IIRC 2002 and before, yes when they were trying an extreme V angle, i think it was originally in excess/ region of 110 degrees and was to keep centre of gravity down, their power figures were a joke. However, they changed it later on, and it wasn't so bad in comparison. 2003,they had a standard 90 degree V10 i think, or close to it.

[Alexandros]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114027

 

Felipe baby wants bigger rear tyres and more mechanical grip. 

 

I reckon he's spot on and it will improve F1.

 

Interesting comments:

 

"The tyre is something we can improve a lot - softer, but not for just one lap, a consistent tyre," added Massa.

Kobayashi added: "The tyres are too hard. I say they are stone, and when you have stone tyres it's so difficult.

"It's like driving on ice. The tyre can be made much easier for everybody.

"At the moment, due to the tyre we cannot push 100 per cent. If we push we just overheat them.

 

I say "brick-hard" tires, he says "stones"... also interesting for those who think nowadays "drivers can really push with the hard tires". Yeah right 

 

I've tried to stay away from this topic, but I have to point out that you haven't shown WHY a combination of all these things can't give such a large gap. All you have done, is said "it's not these things" without explaining your logic behind that conclusion.

 

There is no logic fallacy. Let's say I examine how the Merc is taking a slow speed corner vs a rival. The Merc goes "planted" the rival is all over the place.

 

Now.. the rival is not a bad driver (could be Alonso or Kimi or Vettel), so it's not the driver. It's also not the aero because it's a slow speed corner where aero is a non-factor. It's also not the engine because I'm looking at cornering. What I'm seeing is very obviously mechanical grip. It's not rocket science to deduce what's happening - you just have to isolate factors one by one, to see what happens.

 

Over a lap, of course things will gather to make a better lap. A good car with a bad engine vs a good car with a good engine = the second will win. It's obvious.

[AngelaTifosi]

tyre shouldn't be a factor at all.

 

performance should come from driver and aero or even power unit ( current era)

Edited by AngelaTifosi, 22 May 2014 - 00:48.

[Alexandros]

So... 

 

- In a track where engine performance is more or less not so much of a factor

- In a track where aero is not so much of a factor for the larger part of the track due to very low speed corners

- In a track where mechanical grip / pushing the tires down in the right way is essential to find grip (and laptime)

 

...the Mercedes is 1.7s faster than their closest customer (Mclaren / Magnussen). Which in turn means that it should be clear that Mercedes' key advantage IS NOT "the engine" or "the engine packaging which provides more HP due to the air cooling" (as was propagated to be their "big secret").

 

With Monaco being an "engine equalizer" type of track, we see that Renault & Ferrari which have inferior PUs do come closer in terms of laptime, but they are still missing the mechanical grip advantage that Mercedes has.

 

Mech grip / tires = key.

Edited by Alexandros, 24 May 2014 - 13:31.

[HoldenRT]

Mercedes biggest advantage is the engine, but it's clear that the car is solid in all areas and pretty much is the best car in every area.  Redbull were quickest in S3 with both cars, but other than that.. Mercedes are pretty much the fastest car in every aspect.

[Timstr11]

So... 

 

- In a track where engine performance is more or less not so much of a factor

- In a track where aero is not so much of a factor for the larger part of the track due to very low speed corners

- In a track where mechanical grip / pushing the tires down in the right way is essential to find grip (and laptime)

 

...the Mercedes is 1.7s faster than their closest customer (Mclaren / Magnussen). Which in turn means that it should be clear that Mercedes' key advantage IS NOT "the engine" or "the engine packaging which provides more HP due to the air cooling" (as was propagated to be their "big secret").

 

With Monaco being an "engine equalizer" type of track, we see that Renault & Ferrari which have inferior PUs do come closer in terms of laptime, but they are still missing the mechanical grip advantage that Mercedes has.

 

Mech grip / tires = key.

 

You obviously don't know what mechanical grip is.

 

Mechanical grip is not about 'pushing the tires down'.

Mechanical grip is the result of the level of friction between tyre and track surface (friction coefficient) and how the tyres are positioned relative to the track surface (suspension geometry and settings).

The 'pushing the tires down' as you call it comes from aero load = downforce, which maximizes mechanical grip.

Tires don't push themselves down. The force has to come from somehwere. Think about it for a minute.

Edited by Timstr11, 24 May 2014 - 14:18.

[Massa]

Timstr11

 

Mate, you were right, all car overheat the tyres, i don't know if you remember but we had an argument about this, i was saying that the tyres were too cold and that's why they were sliding, but you were right.

 

BTW, it's not the tyres, it's the engine. Ferrari less than one second behind Mercedes while they were always more than one second behind. RBR is 2 tenths behind here. Their dominance is engine related, i think their chassis is not on par with RB who have the best chassis.

[ExFlagMan]

Gaps are always going to be smaller at a shorter track even if the performances of the cars where identical to a longer lap circuit.
Mechanical grip is al about how well you control the interface between the tyre and track surface - for example, how well the car suspension keeps the tyre contact patch constant and maximised rather than the car bouncing, even by very small amounts. It makes little difference how grippy or not the tyres are if they are not making good contact with the tarmac. Increasing downforce can help mask the problem but it does not eliminate it.

As for engine power question, on a circuit like Monaco, whilst absolute power levels are less critical, the way the PU delivers the power it has is probably much more critical. Mercedes seem to have produced a car that meets the requirements for this years regulations in that they can utilise the tyres better than most of the others - they have just done a better overall job than everyone else.

[Timstr11]

Timstr11

 

Mate, you were right, all car overheat the tyres, i don't know if you remember but we had an argument about this, i was saying that the tyres were too cold and that's why they were sliding, but you were right.

 

BTW, it's not the tyres, it's the engine. Ferrari less than one second behind Mercedes while they were always more than one second behind. RBR is 2 tenths behind here. Their dominance is engine related, i think their chassis is not on par with RB who have the best chassis.

 

 

I remember. Thanks for acknowledging.

[peroa]

In a nutshell, the tyres are waaay too hard for Monaco.

http://www.auto-moto...nd-8387079.html

[RuleyRamundo]

It was not NR fault for the error it was the tyres, Pirelli stone type rubbish. 

Edited by RuleyRamundo, 25 May 2014 - 09:42.

[droiddamudi]

I think tire temperature is the key. Mercedes was notorious when it comes to tire overheat in all previous season with pirelli.

 

today DR was catching merc at end of each sting which could be because mercedes eating its tire faster just like last year.

 

I'm not saving 1 sec. gap is because of tire, obviously its not, its everything, but tire can make big contribution to pace of the car, remember 2003-04 tire war era, how michilin out perform Bstone during start of each sting and how ferrari was faster after half way in race sting,

[ExFlagMan]

Well is it? Interesting to see the OP's feelings now the season is over.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 30 November 2014 - 13:52.

[LORDBYRON]

Its a combination of

 

4 years developing a good engine 

 

Good drivers

Good aero package

Good chassis

Good mechanics / dev team 

Tracks that favour their car (same for any car)

Weather 

[krod]

Its a combination of

 

4 years developing a good engine 

 

Good drivers

Good aero package

Good chassis

Good mechanics / dev team 

Tracks that favour their car (same for any car)

Weather 

AND THE TYRES DAMMIT!

[LORDBYRON]

AND THE TYRES DAMMIT!

Rubbish thats not the case as every team has the same tyres...LoL

[LORDBYRON]

I think tire temperature is the key. Mercedes was notorious when it comes to tire overheat in all previous season with pirelli.

 

today DR was catching merc at end of each sting which could be because mercedes eating its tire faster just like last year.

 

I'm not saving 1 sec. gap is because of tire, obviously its not, its everything, but tire can make big contribution to pace of the car, remember 2003-04 tire war era, how michilin out perform Bstone during start of each sting and how ferrari was faster after half way in race sting,

In many ways you are right its a pakage of things.But at Russian GP prielli over estimated the deg itl was like old school F1

[ViMaMo]

Who knows. It might be a factor. Has someone done an analysis ? Could Merc extend their tire life then?

[SenorSjon]

In many ways you are right its a pakage of things.But at Russian GP prielli over estimated the deg itl was like old school F1

 

Russia was very fuellimited. Old school F1 could refuel.

And those boring '10 races were a direct result of the dual compound rule.