Mercedes' recent straight line speed. How? Legal?
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
Piginapoke said:
TheDeuce said:
Piginapoke said:
It's true, but I think it's moot whether the previous engines actually failed, or whether it was all about Merc setting this up for the end of the season. I think it's pushing the sporting regs to the absolute limit.
No it isn't. They're absolutely allowed to set their power mode to whatever they wish and it's a fundamental part of the sport that they gamble performance Vs reliability.What regulation is it that you think they're skirting..?
They're not doing anything that RB couldn't copy in principle - RB are limited only by their own ability vs Merc. The sport exists to test the abilities of each team vs one another.
If you're right and Merc/Lewis wrap up the titles, then that will be because they're simply better at the F1 game than their rivals. We hold this annual competition to work out who plays the game best do we not?
I myself am far less confident they'll get either title. I think 50/50 as there is plenty of opportunity for misfortune and I don't think the Merc has the level of pace advantage at the remaining circuits that it had at Brazil. I think the two cars remain very close in terms of overall performance.
If Mercedes are pushing their PU to the limit and reducing it's life span for increased performance, it may be 'clever' and well within the rules..
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
Piginapoke said:
TheDeuce said:
Piginapoke said:
TheDeuce said:
Piginapoke said:
It's true, but I think it's moot whether the previous engines actually failed, or whether it was all about Merc setting this up for the end of the season. I think it's pushing the sporting regs to the absolute limit.
No it isn't. They're absolutely allowed to set their power mode to whatever they wish and it's a fundamental part of the sport that they gamble performance Vs reliability.What regulation is it that you think they're skirting..?
They're not doing anything that RB couldn't copy in principle - RB are limited only by their own ability vs Merc. The sport exists to test the abilities of each team vs one another.
If you're right and Merc/Lewis wrap up the titles, then that will be because they're simply better at the F1 game than their rivals. We hold this annual competition to work out who plays the game best do we not?
I myself am far less confident they'll get either title. I think 50/50 as there is plenty of opportunity for misfortune and I don't think the Merc has the level of pace advantage at the remaining circuits that it had at Brazil. I think the two cars remain very close in terms of overall performance.
Who knows - it's a new circuit for F1 and we don't really know it's nature just yet.
My understanding of the Mercedes reliability issues is that they were due to a bad batch of parts, rather than a design flaw.
I think they’ve been running their engines conservatively for most of the year. Now they’ve introduced new engines - with parts that don’t have the problem - they can use higher performance. That would be true (i guess) even if they still had to do the 8 races. But they don’t, they have to do 4. So they can (relatively) thrash them even more.
I think they’ve been running their engines conservatively for most of the year. Now they’ve introduced new engines - with parts that don’t have the problem - they can use higher performance. That would be true (i guess) even if they still had to do the 8 races. But they don’t, they have to do 4. So they can (relatively) thrash them even more.
There appears to be a lot of focus on the power unit in the back of the Merc.
Don't forget about the clever droopy suspension that stalls the rear diffuser reducing drag on the straights and facilitates more downforce on the rear wing in the corners without a big drag penalty on the straights as the stalling diffuser does its job.
Red bull are snookered in the final frames of the championship.
Game set and match it would appear to the creativity brains at Mercedes.
Don't forget about the clever droopy suspension that stalls the rear diffuser reducing drag on the straights and facilitates more downforce on the rear wing in the corners without a big drag penalty on the straights as the stalling diffuser does its job.
Red bull are snookered in the final frames of the championship.
Game set and match it would appear to the creativity brains at Mercedes.
TheDeuce said:
Piginapoke said:
It's true, but I think it's moot whether the previous engines actually failed, or whether it was all about Merc setting this up for the end of the season. I think it's pushing the sporting regs to the absolute limit.
No it isn't. They're absolutely allowed to set their power mode to whatever they wish and it's a fundamental part of the sport that they gamble performance Vs reliability.What regulation is it that you think they're skirting..?
AllyBassman said:
If Mercedes are pushing their PU to the limit and reducing it's life span for increased performance, it may be 'clever' and well within the rules..
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
Red Bull were doing it a few years ago, when Honda were down on power, and they worked out that they were bettter off with a number of penalties than an underperforming engine. But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
The only way you address ‘tactical’ engine changes, is to make the reliability penalties even more severe. One component change = back of the grid, two component changes = pit lane start. Until then, which would be really unpopular with the fans, the teams will balance reliability and PU performance in the way that they think maximises championship points.
Not sure what is the best way to do it, personally. Most of the PU budget goes on R&D, rather than manufacturing of a handful of units, the marginal cost of a part with an homologated design is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
AllyBassman said:
If Mercedes are pushing their PU to the limit and reducing it's life span for increased performance, it may be 'clever' and well within the rules..
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
You are right, it is "not within the spirit of the rules", the same as the RBR flexi wings. Although it is not illegal, the FIA should issue a technical directive to stop the practice and that should become enforceable in three races time, after the Abu Dhabi GP.But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
Not sure what you mean. The only RB engine changes have been as a result of accident damage (by Hamilton and Bottas ironically). The issue here is that Merc has introduced an engine with a lifespan of only 4 races, not 8 and Honda hasn't done this.That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
Sandpit Steve said:
AllyBassman said:
If Mercedes are pushing their PU to the limit and reducing it's life span for increased performance, it may be 'clever' and well within the rules..
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
Red Bull were doing it a few years ago, when Honda were down on power, and they worked out that they were bettter off with a number of penalties than an underperforming engine. But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
The only way you address ‘tactical’ engine changes, is to make the reliability penalties even more severe. One component change = back of the grid, two component changes = pit lane start. Until then, which would be really unpopular with the fans, the teams will balance reliability and PU performance in the way that they think maximises championship points.
Not sure what is the best way to do it, personally. Most of the PU budget goes on R&D, rather than manufacturing of a handful of units, the marginal cost of a part with an homologated design is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
Piginapoke said:
The issue here is that Merc has introduced an engine with a lifespan of only 4 races, not 8 and Honda hasn't done this.
Which is something the rules allow for. The price is a grid penalty, which they took. There's nothing stopping Honda from doing the same if it's advantageous to do so.thegreenhell said:
Which is something the rules allow for. The price is a grid penalty, which they took. There's nothing stopping Honda from doing the same if it's advantageous to do so.
The bizarre thing about that penalty system is that the penalty decreases after so many engines are used, surely it should increase really to stop a team using that loophole? HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
Just imagine the upset if Lewis wins this season AND Mercedes prove to have built the best car for 2021 and set off on another multi year wining streak... Some people on here might actually explode.TheDeuce said:
HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
Just imagine the upset if Lewis wins this season AND Mercedes prove to have built the best car for 2021 and set off on another multi year wining streak... Some people on here might actually explode.
Piginapoke said:
HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
Not sure what you mean. The only RB engine changes have been as a result of accident damage (by Hamilton and Bottas ironically). The issue here is that Merc has introduced an engine with a lifespan of only 4 races, not 8 and Honda hasn't done this.That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
https://www.f1-fansite.com/2021-f1-season/2021-use...
PhilAsia said:
AllyBassman said:
If Mercedes are pushing their PU to the limit and reducing it's life span for increased performance, it may be 'clever' and well within the rules..
But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
You are right, it is "not within the spirit of the rules", the same as the RBR flexi wings. Although it is not illegal, the FIA should issue a technical directive to stop the practice and that should become enforceable in three races time, after the Abu Dhabi GP.But to me it does seem a little 'not within the spirit of the rules' as the PU element limits were brought in for cost caps and sustainability?
Where does it stop? Do teams just develop Race spec ICE's / engine maps that are designed to run 1 or two race distances at a much higher performance for certain circuits?
Byker28i said:
Piginapoke said:
HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
Not sure what you mean. The only RB engine changes have been as a result of accident damage (by Hamilton and Bottas ironically). The issue here is that Merc has introduced an engine with a lifespan of only 4 races, not 8 and Honda hasn't done this.That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
https://www.f1-fansite.com/2021-f1-season/2021-use...
Also, Mercedes have not introduced an engine with a lifespan of 4 instead of 8, it's the same engine, which is homologated. How turned up they run that will depend on how long it has to last. If you introduce a new PU for the last race, you will turn it up to a higher power output than if you run it for 8 races, or 4, or 2.
HustleRussell said:
Where was this thread when Red Bull had its engines strategically turned up to 11 at its home races in Austria / Styria and was consequently untouchable on the straights for those two weekends? I certainly don't remember anybody casting aspersions around the 'sporting fairness' of that?
That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
The Mercedes was faster, or certainly just as fast, in sector 2.That Red Bull were faster in Sector 2 gives you half of the reason why Mercedes appeared to enjoy a straight line advantage. Interlagos simply wasn't the 'Red Bull circuit' that people were expecting, at least not in the configuration that Mercedes and Red Bull eventually competed in.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff