Official 2019 Monaco Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

[TheDeuce]

Deesee said:

Well then chaps, we will see how the big girl gets on in the tight curves.. If everyone’s got it then it must be just mercedes magic that’s putting them ahead in the slow corners..

By the way, its being talked about away from the forums..

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/mph-...

I think it's likely that Mercedes have focussed on this lesser discussed area of performance. Along with every other area they could seek a tiny advantage.

The fact it's not widely discussed probably made it ripe for some innovative thinking. Also, it all makes sense. Lewis has praised the turn around due to overnight setup a few times now. They get less tyre wear too... If they have an advantage, it's quite possibly a rear wheel steering setup that's adaptable (tuneable) track to track.

A lot of speculation in the above. But adjustment of rear wheel steering would certainly come after practice, and if adjusted correctly would certainly help in terms of hitting the apex at competitive speeds and tyre wear in general. We're not talking massive in terms of performance, but it would make a difference. And who knows how many other generally under-exploited areas they're shovelling cash in to?

[thegreenhell]

I'd be surprised if it was something as simple as passive steering built into the suspension geometry. This has been common in passenger and racing car design for a long time, and is well understood by pretty much all chassis engineers. The main reasons for doubt are, firstly, that the limited suspension travel in an F1 car makes it difficult to induce a significant amount of passive steer, especially without introducing other undesirable effects. Secondly, if it's purely a passive, geometric effect, then it will also come into effect in all situations where the suspension is compressed, slow or fast corners, and also notably on the straights where the downforce compresses the suspension, where it would lead to unwanted extra toe, and therefore extra drag from scrubbing the tyres.

I think it's more likely something in the brakes, perhaps in tuning the brake-by-wire, which operates only on the rear brakes. It could be set to release the rear brake pressure differently within different speed ranges, in such a way that in slow corners it held onto the rear brakes for a fraction longer than the fronts to induce some rear drag, but in higher speed braking operated more like a conventional setup that wouldn't disturb the car's natural attitude.

[HarryFlatters]

thegreenhell said:

I'd be surprised if it was something as simple as passive steering built into the suspension geometry. This has been common in passenger and racing car design for a long time, and is well understood by pretty much all chassis engineers. The main reasons for doubt are, firstly, that the limited suspension travel in an F1 car makes it difficult to induce a significant amount of passive steer, especially without introducing other undesirable effects. Secondly, if it's purely a passive, geometric effect, then it will also come into effect in all situations where the suspension is compressed, slow or fast corners, and also notably on the straights where the downforce compresses the suspension, where it would lead to unwanted extra toe, and therefore extra drag from scrubbing the tyres.

I suspect they've thought of this, and have designed it to work in exactly the opposite way around to how you think it works.

[Roofless Toothless]

Karts are supposed to be simple little things, really, but they use suspension geometry to help get a solid rear axled machine round a corner effectively.

How much of this discussion is just an extension of the same principles?

https://cometkartsales.com/xcms_entry.php?xcmsentr...

I have occasionally seen slow mo shots of F1 cars lifting wheels in corners, and this very much reminds me of what I have seen karts do at tracks.

[TheDeuce]

Roofless Toothless said:

Karts are supposed to be simple little things, really, but they use suspension geometry to help get a solid rear axled machine round a corner effectively.

How much of this discussion is just an extension of the same principles?

https://cometkartsales.com/xcms_entry.php?xcmsentr...

I have occasionally seen slow mo shots of F1 cars lifting wheels in corners, and this very much reminds me of what I have seen karts do at tracks.

I think the wheels lifting in the corners is just a symptom of track cars having very stiff suspension and limited travel. If the track undulates too much an F1 cars super stiff setup will sometimes mechanically not offer enough movement (travel) to keep all 4 wheels in contact with the track. Drivers seek to avoid that in various ways.

I didn't know karts took advantage of adjustable suspension geometry. It doesn't surprise me though, it's been in racing for decades. Even hear people discussing it on relation to road cars for track days. The principal is extremely basic and doesn't add any complexity over a 'normal' geometry. So yes, it sounds like the exact same thing for the same benefits.

[TheDeuce]

HarryFlatters said:

thegreenhell said:

I'd be surprised if it was something as simple as passive steering built into the suspension geometry. This has been common in passenger and racing car design for a long time, and is well understood by pretty much all chassis engineers. The main reasons for doubt are, firstly, that the limited suspension travel in an F1 car makes it difficult to induce a significant amount of passive steer, especially without introducing other undesirable effects. Secondly, if it's purely a passive, geometric effect, then it will also come into effect in all situations where the suspension is compressed, slow or fast corners, and also notably on the straights where the downforce compresses the suspension, where it would lead to unwanted extra toe, and therefore extra drag from scrubbing the tyres.

I suspect they've thought of this, and have designed it to work in exactly the opposite way around to how you think it works.

That's probably true to an extent. Often in F1 established thinking is flipped on its head after years of R&D reveal that, actually, doing something in the less obvious way could yield the best result.

As for the problem with toe in/out under high speed compression on the straights, I don't expect the forces pushing down are equal to hard cornering forces. In a straight line, of course the aero downforce is significant. But as the cars turn, they load the entire cars weight + kinetic force + 'some aero' effect into the outer tyres, mostly the rear. I'd imagine the outer rear wheel reaches the absolute limit of its travel in most corners. Just googled it and it's not an area which gets much attention so couldn't find any definitive answers.

[Munter]

Strikes me that this is the oldest trick in the book.

See Red Bull "hiding" the rear of the car when they had a flexible front wing/chassis.

If Merc have been leaking info talking about a fancy 4 wheel steer. Chances are they don't have that, but they do have something away from that which they'd like to keep secret.

[Deesee]

Munter said:

Strikes me that this is the oldest trick in the book.

See Red Bull "hiding" the rear of the car when they had a flexible front wing/chassis.

If Merc have been leaking info talking about a fancy 4 wheel steer. Chances are they don't have that, but they do have something away from that which they'd like to keep secret.

That was the fancy wheel rims from Singapore last yr, hiding this...

[Deesee]

Right I’ve had a think today, and I’m thinking 6/10ths for pole over Vettel for 3rd... although I’d like to be a bit more imaginative and say 6/10ths pole from max in 3/4th and 1.3 quicker than the slowest Ferrari.

[TheDeuce]

Deesee said:

Right I’ve had a think today, and I’m thinking 6/10ths for pole over Vettel for 3rd... although I’d like to be a bit more imaginative and say 6/10ths pole from max in 3/4th and 1.3 quicker than the slowest Ferrari.

You think the slowest Ferrari will be a as much 1.3 seconds off pole? That would be fairly huge, given how short the track is. They would have to lose 1/10th in pretty much every corner.

[Deesee]

TheDeuce said:

Deesee said:

Right I’ve had a think today, and I’m thinking 6/10ths for pole over Vettel for 3rd... although I’d like to be a bit more imaginative and say 6/10ths pole from max in 3/4th and 1.3 quicker than the slowest Ferrari.

You think the slowest Ferrari will be a as much 1.3 seconds off pole? That would be fairly huge, given how short the track is. They would have to lose 1/10th in pretty much every corner.

Yeh about that.. not had FP1/2, but I’d say ish that pole to 5th

[TheDeuce]

Deesee said:

Yeh about that.. not had FP1/2, but I’d say ish that pole to 5th

I dunno. That same gap (different cars of course) was just 0.6s last year. 1.3 seconds... What's the thinking based on?

The gap wasn't that big to 5th in Baku this year either, which is about the closest comparison we have from this year so far.

[TheDeuce]

Currently re-watching the 2010 Monaco GP. What a ridiculous race it was. 12 cars out, endless safety cars, Schumacher given a hugely contentious 20 second penalty.

Kubica at the wheel, pre-crash, for the last time in Monaco until this weekend. Watching the race now, reinforces how much the sport has evolved in that time.

Was it a good race? Well... no not really. There wasn't enough 'race' between safety cars sadly. Entertaining enough in it's own way though!

[FourWheelDrift]

Anyone who moans about Croft needs to watch a GP with James Allen again to understand true hatred.

Monaco 2003 on Sky F1 right now.

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND WEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEEE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACING!!"

[Vaud]

I like James Allen. I think he is a better blogger and writer than commentator, but I liked his enthusiasm.

#minorityview

[FourWheelDrift]

Vaud said:

I like James Allen. I think he is a better blogger and writer than commentator, but I liked his enthusiasm.

#minorityview

Exactly, but writers make terrible commentators because their skill is the written word that they can change it if they make a mistake or type something that's stupid. Something they can't do live.

[paulguitar]

Vaud said:

I like James Allen. I think he is a better blogger and writer than commentator, but I liked his enthusiasm.

#minorityview

Nowhere near as bad as Croft, in my view, and also has an immeasurably greater knowledge and understanding of the sport.

Croft is clueless about racing and yells much of the time without any reason whatsoever.

[Cabinet Enforcer]

FourWheelDrift said:

Vaud said:

I like James Allen. I think he is a better blogger and writer than commentator, but I liked his enthusiasm.

#minorityview

Exactly, but writers make terrible commentators because their skill is the written word that they can change it if they make a mistake or type something that's stupid. Something they can't do live.

Except that JA did some really rather good radio commentary for 5 live for a couple of years, having to be a bit more descriptive helped his style immeasureably, I think JA and Chandock would be a fantastic pairing.

[DanielSan]

FourWheelDrift said:

Anyone who moans about Croft needs to watch a GP with James Allen again to understand true hatred.

Monaco 2003 on Sky F1 right now.

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND WEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEEE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACING!!"

Try watching a race with Legard commentating and come back to this comment.

[skinny]

Legard was the worst.
That Ben guy we have on ch4 now, what i don't like is how when the same guy has been leading comfortably for the last half of the race, he still starts screaming as they take the flag as if its really exciting and unexpected