Official 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix **SPOILERS**
Discussion
kiseca said:
I would disagree, to an extent. particularly when considered from the point of view of WCC points. I believe, as a team scoring points, Merc had stronger seasons with Rosberg than they did when Bottas joined. From 2014 to 2016, the two Merc drivers were comfortably 1st and 2nd in the championship.
In his first two seasons with Merc, Bottas was 3rd and 5th. He was then 2nd in 2019 and 2020, but last year he was in real danger of finishing 3rd again.
That means points for the team, and I don't know for sure but I think the teams are rewarded financially for the number of points they score, so it does hurt them not to be the two highest scoring drivers even if they still win the constructors title.
Total points for the team are not just down to the drivers of course, they also depend on the relative performance of the cars and the rest of the team members (and change in number of races and points scoring systems of course), but I do think if we look at the Merc hybrid years, the pattern does follow the fortunes of the second driver quite closely so the two points might be correlated to the driver change.
With Rosberg, Merc got 701, 703 and 765 points respectively from 2014 to 2016.
From 2017 to 2019, Merc got 668, 655 and 739 points with Bottas.
This doesn’t really work though, with the team’s point scoring being impacted by outside factors. The Ferrari was the faster car at times in 2018 & 2019. In his first two seasons with Merc, Bottas was 3rd and 5th. He was then 2nd in 2019 and 2020, but last year he was in real danger of finishing 3rd again.
That means points for the team, and I don't know for sure but I think the teams are rewarded financially for the number of points they score, so it does hurt them not to be the two highest scoring drivers even if they still win the constructors title.
Total points for the team are not just down to the drivers of course, they also depend on the relative performance of the cars and the rest of the team members (and change in number of races and points scoring systems of course), but I do think if we look at the Merc hybrid years, the pattern does follow the fortunes of the second driver quite closely so the two points might be correlated to the driver change.
With Rosberg, Merc got 701, 703 and 765 points respectively from 2014 to 2016.
From 2017 to 2019, Merc got 668, 655 and 739 points with Bottas.
I rate Rosberg higher than Bottas, he appeared to be a more rounded performer with more tools in his box, but Rosberg was also up against a weaker Hamilton than Bottas has to contend with.
HustleRussell said:
kiseca said:
I would disagree, to an extent. particularly when considered from the point of view of WCC points. I believe, as a team scoring points, Merc had stronger seasons with Rosberg than they did when Bottas joined. From 2014 to 2016, the two Merc drivers were comfortably 1st and 2nd in the championship.
In his first two seasons with Merc, Bottas was 3rd and 5th. He was then 2nd in 2019 and 2020, but last year he was in real danger of finishing 3rd again.
That means points for the team, and I don't know for sure but I think the teams are rewarded financially for the number of points they score, so it does hurt them not to be the two highest scoring drivers even if they still win the constructors title.
Total points for the team are not just down to the drivers of course, they also depend on the relative performance of the cars and the rest of the team members (and change in number of races and points scoring systems of course), but I do think if we look at the Merc hybrid years, the pattern does follow the fortunes of the second driver quite closely so the two points might be correlated to the driver change.
With Rosberg, Merc got 701, 703 and 765 points respectively from 2014 to 2016.
From 2017 to 2019, Merc got 668, 655 and 739 points with Bottas.
This doesn’t really work though, with the team’s point scoring being impacted by outside factors. The Ferrari was the faster car at times in 2018 & 2019. In his first two seasons with Merc, Bottas was 3rd and 5th. He was then 2nd in 2019 and 2020, but last year he was in real danger of finishing 3rd again.
That means points for the team, and I don't know for sure but I think the teams are rewarded financially for the number of points they score, so it does hurt them not to be the two highest scoring drivers even if they still win the constructors title.
Total points for the team are not just down to the drivers of course, they also depend on the relative performance of the cars and the rest of the team members (and change in number of races and points scoring systems of course), but I do think if we look at the Merc hybrid years, the pattern does follow the fortunes of the second driver quite closely so the two points might be correlated to the driver change.
With Rosberg, Merc got 701, 703 and 765 points respectively from 2014 to 2016.
From 2017 to 2019, Merc got 668, 655 and 739 points with Bottas.
I rate Rosberg higher than Bottas, he appeared to be a more rounded performer with more tools in his box, but Rosberg was also up against a weaker Hamilton than Bottas has to contend with.
There are a bunch of factors which contribute to the end result, and the driver in the car is definitely one of them so when you see a step change in performance it's logical to look at all the correlating conditions that changed at the same time. In 2017, when the step change happened, the two significant changes were the driver and the car format (narrow to wide track cars with higher downforce).
Bottas just isn't a massively strong race driver. Where a Hamilton or Verstappen can put in fast stint after fast stint, Bottas always feels like he's hanging on, them at some point loses seconds by the fistful.
He only seems to perform in the race when thrown out front with a car advantage.
He only seems to perform in the race when thrown out front with a car advantage.
jsf said:
Mag is real, not getting it in reverse and not knowing what gear it is in, isn't.
Unlike the other PU, you cant start the engine on the Mercedes without a remote starter, to stop you stalling it they have anti-stall, which makes very low speed maneuvering with the wheels in gravel tricky as you need very low torque to stop the wheels spinning and digging in, too little throttle and poor clutch control and the anti stall kicks in, too much and you spin the wheels and beach it.
I thought all of the current cars can self start, provided the batteries are chargedUnlike the other PU, you cant start the engine on the Mercedes without a remote starter, to stop you stalling it they have anti-stall, which makes very low speed maneuvering with the wheels in gravel tricky as you need very low torque to stop the wheels spinning and digging in, too little throttle and poor clutch control and the anti stall kicks in, too much and you spin the wheels and beach it.
jsf said:
No, Mercedes cant.
I thought that was the case upto 2019. I think I heard Martin Brundle mention it at some point, that they had introduced it. Could be wrong, although largely an irrelevance these days it seems. Anti-stall seems to be enough to keep them out of trouble after spins or excursions. I still can't fathom why reverse is such a process to engage. There must be thousands of functions available on the steering wheel yet it seems a much lower priority than it should be.
DanTVR said:
I still can't fathom why reverse is such a process to engage. There must be thousands of functions available on the steering wheel yet it seems a much lower priority than it should be.
Its probably something to do with the fact they shouldnt need it all being well, the primary purpose of the car is to go forward very fast for as long as possible not eating up the tires. Reverse is probably a device included later in the design process and I would guess is very small & weak gearset. The dont even reverse into their own garage, they are pushed
mattdavies said:
Its probably something to do with the fact they shouldnt need it all being well, the primary purpose of the car is to go forward very fast for as long as possible not eating up the tires. Reverse is probably a device included later in the design process and I would guess is very small & weak gearset.
The dont even reverse into their own garage, they are pushed
Agree with that. Although it does make me wonder why still. If it takes a good 20s to engage rather than 2s after a mistake or an off then its all still race time. I guess as you say its just really low priority. At the risk of derailing the thread, and having limited knowledge there must be an easier way. As I see it the main things they need on the steering wheel...The dont even reverse into their own garage, they are pushed
Clutch/shift paddles
Brake bias - thumb wheel
Throttle map - toggle switch
Diff - rotary? open/close
DRS - button
Comms - whinge button
Drink - button
Energy recovery maps - rotary (im sure this will be set maps for each track and how much you would recover in each braking zone)
Energy deployment - rotary (preset maps for attacking/defending, could be same control as above)
Menu button - accessing different systems to reset?
Reverse - could be another button, instead it seems to be menu 5, mgu-h rotary 2, engine 4 and press ctrl alt del, hold A then engage clutch
Cant think anything else they would need but as said, not got much knowledge on the subject.
Suspension/antiroll- pretty sure no adjustment allowed
Cooling - dont think they use this
Engine maps - no longer allowed..
Aero balance - no adjustment allowed
So that is 4 paddles behind the wheel, probably 5 buttons, 4 rotary switches, a toggle switch and a thumb wheel. Suddenly in race the priority seems higher.
DanTVR said:
mattdavies said:
Its probably something to do with the fact they shouldnt need it all being well, the primary purpose of the car is to go forward very fast for as long as possible not eating up the tires. Reverse is probably a device included later in the design process and I would guess is very small & weak gearset.
The dont even reverse into their own garage, they are pushed
Agree with that. Although it does make me wonder why still. If it takes a good 20s to engage rather than 2s after a mistake or an off then its all still race time. I guess as you say its just really low priority. At the risk of derailing the thread, and having limited knowledge there must be an easier way. As I see it the main things they need on the steering wheel...The dont even reverse into their own garage, they are pushed
Clutch/shift paddles
Brake bias - thumb wheel
Throttle map - toggle switch
Diff - rotary? open/close
DRS - button
Comms - whinge button
Drink - button
Energy recovery maps - rotary (im sure this will be set maps for each track and how much you would recover in each braking zone)
Energy deployment - rotary (preset maps for attacking/defending, could be same control as above)
Menu button - accessing different systems to reset?
Reverse - could be another button, instead it seems to be menu 5, mgu-h rotary 2, engine 4 and press ctrl alt del, hold A then engage clutch
Cant think anything else they would need but as said, not got much knowledge on the subject.
Suspension/antiroll- pretty sure no adjustment allowed
Cooling - dont think they use this
Engine maps - no longer allowed..
Aero balance - no adjustment allowed
So that is 4 paddles behind the wheel, probably 5 buttons, 4 rotary switches, a toggle switch and a thumb wheel. Suddenly in race the priority seems higher.
Supersam83 said:
CoolHands said:
Schumacher junior will be like ralf.
For those in the know, It's another Schumacher (David) who is the son of Ralf who is actually the one to watch in terms of future talent.I believe he is racing in F3 this season so we will see.
Leithen said:
A question for the ask an F1 engineer thread perhaps. I suspect the difficulty may be more of a mechanical nature, rather than electrical one. The gearboxes are designed to go forwards, 99.999999% of the time, with the priority for reverse probably only being that of capability to comply with rules, rather than utility.
I would also imagine they would want to be sure that what ever method for selecting it absolutely can't be selected by accident. When you consider that Norris' "clutch fault" on sunday was in fact a kneepad fault, reverse being difficult to find would normally be a good thing!Ian974 said:
Leithen said:
A question for the ask an F1 engineer thread perhaps. I suspect the difficulty may be more of a mechanical nature, rather than electrical one. The gearboxes are designed to go forwards, 99.999999% of the time, with the priority for reverse probably only being that of capability to comply with rules, rather than utility.
I would also imagine they would want to be sure that what ever method for selecting it absolutely can't be selected by accident. When you consider that Norris' "clutch fault" on sunday was in fact a kneepad fault, reverse being difficult to find would normally be a good thing!
k when trying to use a gear they only ever use in the first place if something has gone very wrong with their session.Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 22 April 12:47
LucyP said:
That won't have been hard to engineer. All modern road cars have "reverse inhibit" on automatics. If you try to engage reverse when you are moving forward at any speed, the electronics will just ignore your request.
That's not true on at least two levels.Although I would expect F1 cars do prevent reverse selection whatever the speed, due to the gears fragility.
TheDeuce said:
It's not that it's difficult to find, it's as easy to find as the steering wheel selection process the team chooses to use makes possible. I assume when the commentators talk about drivers 'trying to find' reverse, they actually mean trying to engage and use reverse. Too low revs and anti stall kicks you out of the gear, whatever gear. Too high revs and the very fragile reverse gear could fail instantly. That must be something of a headfk when trying to use a gear they only ever use in the first place if something has gone very wrong with their session.
And in Lewis's case, waiting to be guided out by the team radio onto a live track.k when trying to use a gear they only ever use in the first place if something has gone very wrong with their session.'If it was me' (he said, knowing sweet fa about F1 transmissions) I'd have the reversing done by the electric motor(s).
Must be easier to make an electric motor go backwards than it is to incorporate a reversing drive train (gear).
Maybe someone who knows - jsf- can disabuse me of the notion.
Kim
Must be easier to make an electric motor go backwards than it is to incorporate a reversing drive train (gear).
Maybe someone who knows - jsf- can disabuse me of the notion.
Kim
kimducati said:
'If it was me' (he said, knowing sweet fa about F1 transmissions) I'd have the reversing done by the electric motor(s).
Must be easier to make an electric motor go backwards than it is to incorporate a reversing drive train (gear).
Maybe someone who knows - jsf- can disabuse me of the notion.
Kim
You still have to connect the electric motor to the drivetrain somehow.Must be easier to make an electric motor go backwards than it is to incorporate a reversing drive train (gear).
Maybe someone who knows - jsf- can disabuse me of the notion.
Kim
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff