133 replies to this topic

[Maustinsj]

Toto was the first wing whiner, not Horner, and off course that Merc had twice a big margin to the midfield in Brazil had to with Red Bulls wing, come on...

So they are wing-gers?

[Gareth]

That comment is based on Mark Hughes calculation, from 0.55% to 0,98% versus the midfield.

 

https://the-race.com...ster-in-brazil/

Exactly, a single number twice as big as an average number. Whoop.

 

It's not "from" at all.

[Requiem84]

Exactly, a single number twice as big as an average number. Whoop.

 

It's not "from" at all.

 

That's how I understood AnR's comment, that Mercedes doubled it's gap vs the Midfield in Brazil versus the average gap Mercedes had had this year vs the midfield. 

 

Of course, from 0,55% to 0,98% is of course not double, but close to it. 

[AnR]

Exactly, a single number twice as big as an average number. Whoop.

 

It's not "from" at all.

 

then what is it then?

[AnR]

That's how I understood AnR's comment, that Mercedes doubled it's gap vs the Midfield in Brazil versus the average gap Mercedes had had this year vs the midfield. 

 

Of course, from 0,55% to 0,98% is of course not double, but close to it. 

 

that was what I was referring to, correct 

[Gareth]

then what is it then?

If I go out for a run today, it will be significantly quicker than my average run time over the last year. It will not be significantly quicker than my run yesterday.

 

EDIT: the gap in Mexico was 0.99% btw.

[Requiem84]

If I go out for a run today, it will be significantly quicker than my average run time over the last year. It will not be significantly quicker than my run yesterday.

 

But who was comparing it with your run yesterday?

 

If you're running quicker today than your average run of your fast runs (as we are comparing qualifying, we can take out your easy runs obviously), then you made some good progress. 

[Ivanhoe]

But who was comparing it with your run yesterday?

 

If you're running quicker today than your average run of your fast runs (as we are comparing qualifying, we can take out your easy runs obviously), then you made some good progress. 

I think Gareth's point is that he might have been slower than yesterday though. Although I agree that Mercedes' performance did make significant strides, using the average over a whole season as a benchmark isn't maybe the best way to measure it, I'd be using more recent figures to see if there's a trend break and if yes how big of a step they made.

[Requiem84]

I think Gareth's point is that he might have been slower than yesterday though. Although I agree that Mercedes' performance did make significant strides, using the average over a season isn't maybe the best way to measure it, I'd be using more recent figures.

 

Yeah, that's a fair point. On the other hand, you don't want to only compare it to only yesterday, because you need more than N=1 to take out outlier data. 

 

We can of course compare it to yesterday as well:

 

Mercedes vs rest of field Mexico: 0,62%

 

Then we can also include the day before yesterday:

 

Mercedes vs rest of field Austin: 0,52%

 

Or for fun we can throw in the week before the day before yesterday:

 

Mercedes vs rest of field Turkey: 0,48%

 

As you can see, even then the picture doesn't really change much compared to Brazil, so I think it was a pretty fair point by AnR.

Edited by Requiem84, 24 November 2021 - 10:07.

[Gareth]

then you made some good progress. 

I have done And it's been gradual. Whereas if you compared my latest fast run vs my average of fast runs over the year, you could make it look like I made a single dramatic step.

[Gareth]

you need more than N=1 to take out outlier data. 

Brazil is literally N=1, which is kind of my point, right?

[Requiem84]

I have done And it's been gradual. Whereas if you compared my latest fast run vs my average of fast runs over the year, you could make it look like I made a single dramatic step.

 

See above for a comparison with your last runs . 

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, that's a fair point. On the other hand, you don't want to only compare it to only yesterday, because you need more than N=1 to take out outlier data. 

 

We can of course compare it to yesterday as well:

 

Mercedes vs rest of field Mexico: 0,62%

 

Then we can also include the day before yesterday:

 

Mercedes vs rest of field Austin: 0,52%

 

As you can see, even then the picture doesn't really change much compared to Brazil, so I think it was a pretty fair point by AnR.

For a good insight in the trend I think you should make graph over the whole season showing the gap on the y-axis and the race weekends on the x-axis. That would show clearly when and how big the steps were that a team made during the season.

[Requiem84]

For a good insight in the trend I think you should make graph over the whole season showing the gap on the y-axis and the race weekends on the x-axis.

 

Completely agree on that. 

[Mark123]

Italian Motorsport.com reporting RB found the flappy DRS wing issue. This was costing them quite some time on DRS straights, so hopefully for RB, the fix actually works.

The report said that they already made a stronger DRS actuator for Qatar (and Brazil?), but that ‘they made certain parts too stiff??)

More likely wobbles so much to stall the rear wing at speed as the air cannot attach to it.

[pdac]

Anybody heard of moving averages?

[ToniF1]

The issues in practice in Qatar came before Red Bull switched to its high downforce wing from qualifying onwards, which is a design it knows can be run without drama.

However, the next races in Saudi arabia and Abu Dhabi will likely lean towards a low or medium downforce requirement, which puts some pressure on Red Bull to ensure its problems in that configuration do not return.

 

Team principal Christian Horner said after the race in Qatar that going with the higher downforce option was what it wanted for there anyway – but is aware that it could need to use its more troublesome wing at the next venues.

“That was our preferred wing and it was the setup direction we wanted to go in,” said Horner about the change for the high downforce version.

“If those other wings are required in either Jeddah or Abu Dhabi, obviously we’ll need to have fixes in place to straighten them up, and the DRS mechanism.”

 

Red Bull’s ability to get on top of the problems are not helped by the fact the DRS actuator is an homologated component for 2021, so it is not possible to change the design at this stage, even though a fix would in theory be simple.

Horner is confident, however, that the matter will not cause his team too much of a problem to resolve.

 

“I think from a reliability point of view it should be relatively straightforward to sort out those actuators,” he said. “We’ve been using them for many years now, so it's not a new technology.”

 

 

 

Explaining Red Bull’s wing problems

 

The issue in question revolves around the rear wing’s top flap starting to flutter when DRS is in operation.

This fluttering occurs when the DRS actuator and linkage is unable to remain stable, owing to the loads imparted on the assembly.

Whilst it’s doesn’t offer a performance advantage, so there’s no suggestion of it being an attempt to get around the rules, the flapping is something that Red Bull would not want to carry in to a race for fear of the FIA getting involved on safety grounds.

 

Red Bull, just like everyone on the grid this season, has two rear wing adjuster designs at its disposal, with the FIA having included the DRS actuator and linkages in the homologation list for 2021.

In order for these to be redesigned, teams would be required to spend one of the two development tokens at their disposal. Red Bull spent its tokens at the start of the season on a new gearbox carrier.

 

This means the designs have been carried over from the freeze point in mid 2020. While the general design and layout of Red Bull’s rear wings haven’t changed dramatically since then, there are aspects that need to be taken into account.

There’s three main downforce arrangements (high, medium and low) in Red Bull’s pool that we’ve seen used on more than one occasion this year.

 

Furthermore, there’s also its ultra low downforce arrangement for the Italian Grand Prix (small inset) to consider too, along with various flaps and Gurney options that can be leveraged for a slightly different downforce to drag offset.

In the past, teams could match and evolve the DRS actuator to suit the individual demands of each wing setting; whereas the homologation limits mean that isn’t possible this season.

 

In Qatar, Red Bull trialled both the high and medium downforce arrangements on Friday, with the team expected to prefer the medium downforce arrangement for qualifying and the race.

However, with the DRS issue persisting throughout FP3, it made the switch to the high downforce arrangement, which meant sacrificing some of its straight line speed.

 

To give some idea of how detrimental this could have been to performance, Red Bull has only used the high downforce arrangement at two other venues this season - Monaco and Mexico.

 

 

Pics inside  https://www.motorspo...oblems/6818401/

Edited by ToniF1, 25 November 2021 - 12:54.

[w1Y]

If this peice that brakes is homologation then how has it all of a sudden stopped working.

I am assuming it is the wing that has changed and it is causing more forces than earlier in the season? But then it seems to be the medium df wing and not the high one.

Confused?

Edited by w1Y, 25 November 2021 - 13:30.

[Gareth]

If this peice that brakes is homologation then how has it all of a sudden stopped working.

I am assuming it is the wing that has changed and it is causing more forces than earlier in the season? But then it seems to be the medium df wing and not the high one.

Confused?

Does seem odd. Returning to the medium and low downforce spec used earlier in the season would surely fix it.

So there must have been a performance upgrade part way through the season that’s causing it, that the team don’t want to sacrifice, I guess?

[w1Y]

Does seem odd. Returning to the medium and low downforce spec used earlier in the season would surely fix it.

So there must have been a performance upgrade part way through the season that’s causing it, that the team don’t want to sacrifice, I guess?

And if its increased force can we assume that its more efficient and therefore they have a way of having higher df for a medium/low downforce wing but a way to shed drag aswell.

Aka a bendy trick we can't see on the TV /s

[SenorSjon]

Or something at the front changed. I saw some pictures about cooling between halo and main bodywork that could affect the airflow over the rear wing, giving it more turbulence to handle.

Edited by SenorSjon, 26 November 2021 - 08:21.

[ToniF1]

It is long so i wont copy/paste all

 

The photos that offer clues to Red Bull’s rear wing problems

 

Red Bull heads into this weekend's Saudi Arabian GP hoping to have solved the rear wing problems that have plagued it in recent Formula 1 events.

 

https://www.motorspo...oblems/6839768/

 

But, there is one last aspect of this design that Red Bull use that could be causing some of its issues - the endplate twisting when DRS is deployed.

As we’ve already seen in the image from Brazil, the endplate appears to be flexing, which opens the gap between it and the top flap more than in the rest position, whilst the second most profile appears to be angled away from the flap further still.

If we use this knowledge and look at an image from Hungary with the DRS open we can see that the lower profile is twisted here too, suggesting that when the DRS flap closes it might do so in a way that fouls the profiles and results in the damaged caused to the flap, the pivots and the DRS mechanism.

 

The two remaining races are being held at venues that would ordinarily require teams to use their medium downforce packages, which puts Red Bull in quite the quandary.

The question is, will it continue to use the parts it has over the last few grands prix and fix them as they go, or will it arrive with new parts that are similar in design but a little more robust in order to stand up to the forces at hand? Could there even be an all-new design?

 

Edited by ToniF1, 02 December 2021 - 17:13.

[w1Y]

It is long so i wont copy/paste all

The photos that offer clues to Red Bull’s rear wing problems

Red Bull heads into this weekend's Saudi Arabian GP hoping to have solved the rear wing problems that have plagued it in recent Formula 1 events.

https://www.motorspo...oblems/6839768/

Does this potentially imply that red bull is trying to I crease the drs gap by twisting the end plate or something else

[OneAndOnly]

Does this potentially imply that red bull is trying to I crease the drs gap by twisting the end plate or something else

With their knowledge of rear wing tricks I was wondering the same. DRS is used for almost decade now. I doubt they just made bad RW design.

[w1Y]

With their knowledge of rear wing tricks I was wondering the same. DRS is used for almost decade now. I doubt they just made bad RW design.

It would also make sense with horners comments saying how mercs trick is extremely sophisticated. That is thebwords someone would use who is trying to do something similar but isn't getting the same results.

Maybe red bull are more confident this weekend because they thonk they have it working

Edited by w1Y, 03 December 2021 - 08:27.

[OneAndOnly]

It would also make sense with horners comments saying how mercs trick is extremely sophisticated. That is thebwords someone would use who is trying to do something similar but isn't getting the same results.

Maybe red bull are more confident this weekend because they thonk they have it working

On these slow mo videos of Mercedes rear wing you can notice very subtle flapping. I didn't check other wings, but maybe that's what RBR is trying to achieve. Or maybe that's normal for everyone when DRS is open.

[kumo7]

Newey's car always had the flapping wing, Obviously he is going for the limit of the sport.

That is how I like his car, and it is known. So why now?

I mean this is Merc politics pulling the leg of RedBull.

[BCM]

If I were Mercedes I'd protest it on the grounds of it being a movable aerodynamic device. Not because it offers any performance benefit because of the flapping, but to force RB to waste resources fixing it. Every bit of time and money Mercedes can make RB spend on something that isn't making their car faster is of benefit.

 

It's clearly moving so it's in breach of the regulations.

[TheFish]

If I were Mercedes I'd protest it on the grounds of it being a movable aerodynamic device. Not because it offers any performance benefit because of the flapping, but to force RB to waste resources fixing it. Every bit of time and money Mercedes can make RB spend on something that isn't making their car faster is of benefit.

 

It's clearly moving so it's in breach of the regulations.

It hasn't broken during qualifying or the race, or I'm sure Merc would have kicked up a fuss. Especially after Brazil.

[Laptom]

Brazil is literally N=1, which is kind of my point, right?

But it can also show how much the Merc had in reserve?

[BCM]

It hasn't broken during qualifying or the race, or I'm sure Merc would have kicked up a fuss. Especially after Brazil.

It doesn't have to break for Mercedes to protest it.

 

I can see a few places in the regs they could probably protest on.

 

One is the gap between the upper and lower planes on the rear wing when the DRS is open. The upper section is clearly over rotating when it starts fluttering, which likely means that the gap between the upper and lower wing sections are exceeding the 85mm maximum gap that Mercedes themselves fell foul of in Brazil. I'd imagine that with some stills from Sky's vision down the front straight at Qatar, Mercedes could determine just how much it's exceeding the limit by.

 

Another one they could protest on is 3.10.10 (e) "The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position." The DRS mechanism is clearly failing as it is failing to maintain control of the upper wing section and it isn't failing to the safe state - ie closed.

 

Similarly (f) in the same regulation states:"Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.3". The alteration in incidence of the upper wing is not happening under the control of either the driver or the control electronics. It doesn't matter if it's not intended or not. It's happening and is in breach of the regulation.

 

Irrespective of any of the above, RB are clearly trying to achieve something with their rear wing that is causing the issue. It doesn't appear to be happening on any other cars. Merc should protest it just to derail what ever it is RB think they are trying to achieve that is leading to the fluttering side effect.

Edited by BCM, 03 December 2021 - 11:07.

[TheFish]

It doesn't have to break for Mercedes to protest it.

 

I can see a few places in the regs they could probably protest on.

 

One is the gap between the upper and lower planes on the rear wing when the DRS is open. The upper section is clearly over rotating when it starts fluttering, which likely means that the gap between the upper and lower wing sections are exceeding the 85mm maximum gap that Mercedes themselves fell foul of in Brazil. I'd imagine that with some stills from Sky's vision down the front straight at Qatar, Mercedes could determine just how much it's exceeding the limit by.

 

Another one they could protest on is 3.10.10 (e) "The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position." The DRS mechanism is clearly failing as it is failing to maintain control of the upper wing section and it isn't failing to the safe state - ie closed.

 

Similarly (f) in the same regulation states:"Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.3". The alteration in incidence of the upper wing is not happening under the control of either the driver or the control electronics. It doesn't matter if it's not intended or not. It's happening and is in breach of the regulation.

 

Irrespective of any of the above, RB are clearly trying to achieve something with their rear wing that is causing the issue. It doesn't appear to be happening on any other cars. Merc should protest it just to derail what ever it is RB think they are trying to achieve that is leading to the fluttering side effect.

But they haven't run it in qualifying or the race, so what would be the outcome of a protest? Getting them kicked out of a practice session?

[OneAndOnly]

So far into FP1 and it doesn't seem to flap.

[kumo7]

If I were Mercedes I'd protest it on the grounds of it being a movable aerodynamic device. Not because it offers any performance benefit because of the flapping, but to force RB to waste resources fixing it. Every bit of time and money Mercedes can make RB spend on something that isn't making their car faster is of benefit.

It's clearly moving so it's in breach of the regulations.

I mean, there isn’t a car that does have a wing NEVER moving. So ic you say that, then ALL teams including Mercedes has to spend money to have a wing that never moves.
Obviously you cannot immobilize the wing of a F1 car. You just have a wing that helps car go faster and that let it go slower. The wings all moves.