Mercedes' recent straight line speed. How? Legal?
Discussion
gt_12345 said:
Christian Horner said Max's touch experiment told them the Merc wing part felt "significantly different" from the RBR equivalent.
I completely missed that! source ?If that's true and he was sent on a proper "corporate espionage" mission, then Max's 50 grand fine is a farce!
And Horner would be completely idiotic for admitting it
Civpilot said:
You can be facetious if you like but my comment was related to the Max fans saying Lewis only won because his car was faster in a straight line. The numbers not only prove this to be incorrect, but they also prove that in a straight line Max was quite severely at a disadvantage to most of the field.
So his ability to still put it second shows just how good he is.
Lewis is very good, but If it was all down to the speed of the car on the straights (as all the detractors keep saying) then Max should have finished near the back of the grid.
I’m not actually slagging off either driver here
You are exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of how you set up a racing car to produce the fastest lap of a circuit. It's a compromise and there is more than one correct answer to the equation depending on where the cars strengths lie.So his ability to still put it second shows just how good he is.
Lewis is very good, but If it was all down to the speed of the car on the straights (as all the detractors keep saying) then Max should have finished near the back of the grid.
I’m not actually slagging off either driver here
The Red Bull is fundamentally a dirty concept with regards to how it generates it's downforce and the lift/drag ratio it has, using the high rake design adds drag, but it gives better low speed downforce. Despite what most pundits tell you, it's the low speed downforce region that usually gives you a better overall laptime performance as that is where the car is tyre grip limited, this only really proves not to be the case where the majority of the circuit is high speed corners and traction is not the limiting issue.
The classic circuit to illustrate this is Spa, where there are two clear choices to be made on downforce level, one is low downforce to maximise the high speed, the other is high downforce to maximise the traction areas. Both can give identical lap times but the speeds at the various points on the circuit can mean one car will be able to race better than the other and make a pass, and vice versa.
With the level of driver i tend to work with, i usually get the best results with a high downforce setup, because they drive faster overall due to the extra grip they feel, it inspires confidence. When i work with a world class driver, the options open up and the choice becomes more complicated, it's then more about maximising the racing opportunities you provide with the choice you made.
Red Bull chose the wrong strategy in Brazil if they were going to stand a chance of racing Lewis, the only chance they had was to punt him off.
mat205125 said:
Hardly the case when both drivers in a team have such a boost in performance
Highly likely that Lewis' new engine was pushed far harder than they'd have liked to, which will become clear in the coming weeks
The FIA rule introduced after all the engines were homologated screwed things up for everyone. The engines were designed to be run in different modes during a race weekend, with high power being an option for qualy and when required racing.Highly likely that Lewis' new engine was pushed far harder than they'd have liked to, which will become clear in the coming weeks
What the new rule that mandates a fixed power level for the entire race weekend once into parce ferme conditions (start of qualy) has done, is limit the peak power they can use, because they physically cant handle more sustained over the race distance.
If you have a shorter life requirement, you can up the power level for the entire race weekend. A tactical choice may be to choose to take a penalty for a new ICE to exploit that.
Now if your engine is physically incapable of running at a higher power level than you are using now and you have negligible loss of performance (lets say Honda for comparisons sake), there is no benefit to changing the engine and running higher power, because it will go bang. Lets say you designed your engine to manage much higher power over a limited time period (Mercedes), if that can survive the race distances required, it's worth taking the new ICE.
This all goes back to the attempt to peg back Mercedes when they introduced the fixed power limit rule, they didn't think through the implications properly, when you have two teams dominant and a much higher capacity to run high power, it's a no brainer to do it. Honda have nowhere to go, Mercedes have plenty of headroom and are now exploiting that.
matrignano said:
gt_12345 said:
Christian Horner said Max's touch experiment told them the Merc wing part felt "significantly different" from the RBR equivalent.
I completely missed that! source ?If that's true and he was sent on a proper "corporate espionage" mission, then Max's 50 grand fine is a farce!
And Horner would be completely idiotic for admitting it
jsf said:
The FIA rule introduced after all the engines were homologated screwed things up for everyone. The engines were designed to be run in different modes during a race weekend, with high power being an option for qualy and when required racing.
What the new rule that mandates a fixed power level for the entire race weekend once into parce ferme conditions (start of qualy) has done, is limit the peak power they can use, because they physically cant handle more sustained over the race distance.
If you have a shorter life requirement, you can up the power level for the entire race weekend. A tactical choice may be to choose to take a penalty for a new ICE to exploit that.
Now if your engine is physically incapable of running at a higher power level than you are using now and you have negligible loss of performance (lets say Honda for comparisons sake), there is no benefit to changing the engine and running higher power, because it will go bang. Lets say you designed your engine to manage much higher power over a limited time period (Mercedes), if that can survive the race distances required, it's worth taking the new ICE.
This all goes back to the attempt to peg back Mercedes when they introduced the fixed power limit rule, they didn't think through the implications properly, when you have two teams dominant and a much higher capacity to run high power, it's a no brainer to do it. Honda have nowhere to go, Mercedes have plenty of headroom and are now exploiting that.
A very interesting and fair point (and bleeding obvious now I've read it) do you think this is why we have seen an improvement in Ferrari? What the new rule that mandates a fixed power level for the entire race weekend once into parce ferme conditions (start of qualy) has done, is limit the peak power they can use, because they physically cant handle more sustained over the race distance.
If you have a shorter life requirement, you can up the power level for the entire race weekend. A tactical choice may be to choose to take a penalty for a new ICE to exploit that.
Now if your engine is physically incapable of running at a higher power level than you are using now and you have negligible loss of performance (lets say Honda for comparisons sake), there is no benefit to changing the engine and running higher power, because it will go bang. Lets say you designed your engine to manage much higher power over a limited time period (Mercedes), if that can survive the race distances required, it's worth taking the new ICE.
This all goes back to the attempt to peg back Mercedes when they introduced the fixed power limit rule, they didn't think through the implications properly, when you have two teams dominant and a much higher capacity to run high power, it's a no brainer to do it. Honda have nowhere to go, Mercedes have plenty of headroom and are now exploiting that.
Was it only the Honda that didn't have party modes?
LostM135idriver said:
He did, post race interview on sky. I too thought it totally idiotic. It might just be rambling, but if not then he revealed that red bull gained useful information from what max did, and didn’t just commit a symbolic rule break.
It's also a lie because according to the official FIA report when Verstappen pushed on the wing flap, it didn't move. So how can he have judged it was more flexible?Were the FIA lying, or did CH lie?
LostM135idriver said:
matrignano said:
gt_12345 said:
Christian Horner said Max's touch experiment told them the Merc wing part felt "significantly different" from the RBR equivalent.
I completely missed that! source ?If that's true and he was sent on a proper "corporate espionage" mission, then Max's 50 grand fine is a farce!
And Horner would be completely idiotic for admitting it
It was said by Toto that the wing was legit at one end and in the middle, but at the other end is was 85.2mm.
I do feel that it is a non-issue. Clearly Mercedes would not send a car out knowing it would likely be tested. But the rule is just that and not a technical guidance note.
However the incident at turn-4 from Lewis’s onboard, looked like they braked at a similar point but at turn in Max lifted slightly and shot forward with the net result that no matter how much lock he applied, he was unable to make the turn. If that now fair racing, I feel certain that Lewis has the skill to play the same game.
I do feel that it is a non-issue. Clearly Mercedes would not send a car out knowing it would likely be tested. But the rule is just that and not a technical guidance note.
However the incident at turn-4 from Lewis’s onboard, looked like they braked at a similar point but at turn in Max lifted slightly and shot forward with the net result that no matter how much lock he applied, he was unable to make the turn. If that now fair racing, I feel certain that Lewis has the skill to play the same game.
davidd said:
A very interesting and fair point (and bleeding obvious now I've read it) do you think this is why we have seen an improvement in Ferrari?
Was it only the Honda that didn't have party modes?
I don't know on the Ferrari, I would have to check on how many ICE they have been taking recently to see if they are playing the same game at the end of this season.Was it only the Honda that didn't have party modes?
I think it was Renault who didn't have the party modes, at the time Honda were nowhere.
I expect Red Bull will now understand the implications of this and will be lobbying the FIA to introduce a bigger penalty for introducing a new ICE, because the engines are fixed for the next 3 years (their request) and that essentially screws them if this tactic is still exploitable if Mercedes and Red Bull have built a very competitive 2022 package and still have a performance gain big enough to negate the other teams.
simonw67 said:
Does the data above help?
gshughes said:
I wonder if the OP is ever going to return and answer this question? I'm guessing not!
Do they measure the driver's terminal velocity, or the instantaneous velocity at three/four points on the track? Do they consider acceleration?You're effectively looking at one point on a velocity graph, not exactly smart.
gt_12345 said:
simonw67 said:
Does the data above help?
gshughes said:
I wonder if the OP is ever going to return and answer this question? I'm guessing not!
Do they measure the driver's terminal velocity, or the instantaneous velocity at three/four points on the track? Do they consider acceleration?You're effectively looking at one point on a velocity graph, not exactly smart.
gt_12345 said:
Do they measure the driver's terminal velocity, or the instantaneous velocity at three/four points on the track? Do they consider acceleration?
You're effectively looking at one point on a velocity graph, not exactly smart.
I know you’re trying to sound smart, but they’re measuring speed, not velocity. They measure it at certain points on the track, as you can see from the data.You're effectively looking at one point on a velocity graph, not exactly smart.
rsbmw said:
I know you’re trying to sound smart, but they’re measuring speed, not velocity. They measure it at certain points on the track, as you can see from the data.
Velocity is the speed + direction. Given those figures stated where the speed was measured, they also imply a direction.And you're still looking at one data point on the graph, which is silly.
gt_12345 said:
Velocity is the speed + direction. Given those figures stated where the speed was measured, they also imply a direction.
And you're still looking at one data point on the graph, which is silly.
Are you suggesting the Mercedes accelerated slower than all the other cars or had a slower exit speed from the corners than all the other cars?And you're still looking at one data point on the graph, which is silly.
gotoPzero said:
Anyone hear that strange sound when they get to high speeds - maybe louder with the DRS open?
Its like an old WW1 whistle.
It's the sound of their secret NOS system... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dKh0bGRD8Its like an old WW1 whistle.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff