Mercedes problem!

[HighwayStar]

SturdyHSV said:

HighwayStar said:

SturdyHSV said:

HighwayStar said:

Ferrari and RedBull demonstrated they couldn’t win previous championships 3 times this years budget cap per year.

I think the pay to win model only works if you're the one spending the most...

What’s Ferrari’s excuse then?

Red wine

So more pizza, less wine

[honda_exige]

The Vambo said:

Leithen said:

Has Scarbs or anyone else summarised how the other teams have gone about mitigating the problem? Or is it all dark arts stuff and being kept hidden?

Scarbs thinks RB are running non Newtonian fluid dampers!

Interestingly named Engineer

Jo Keys-on-yu

[The Vambo]

honda_exige said:

The Vambo said:

Leithen said:

Has Scarbs or anyone else summarised how the other teams have gone about mitigating the problem? Or is it all dark arts stuff and being kept hidden?

Scarbs thinks RB are running non Newtonian fluid dampers!

Interestingly named Engineer

Jo Keys-on-yu

I'll collect my parrot from reception

[stemll]

davidd said:

ChocolateFrog said:

I'm surprised that modelling and wind tunnel testing still isn't able to predict this sort of thing.

Someone did explain somewhere (perhaps JSF) why the modelling wouldn't pick it up.

Possible explanation here

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/trwe...

[TheLimla]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Mclaren 2009

[ChemicalChaos]

stemll said:

davidd said:

ChocolateFrog said:

I'm surprised that modelling and wind tunnel testing still isn't able to predict this sort of thing.

Someone did explain somewhere (perhaps JSF) why the modelling wouldn't pick it up.

Possible explanation here

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/trwe...

Interesting point on scaling and Reynolds number, but I find it hard to believe they can't find a high enough velocity wind tunnel - how do aircraft companies cope?

Another thing pointed out to me by someone I know who studied aircraft aerodynamics, is that the rolling road floor does not behave the same as tarmac in real life due to the slight flexing and bulging of the treadmill belt (no matter how much it is tensioned). This means the underfloor flow is not fully realistic.

We went on to have a discussion about the illegal underfloor flaps in the Ligier, and both wondered - would there be any way to replicate this using air alone? IE. Air flows in one path under the floor until pressure reaches a set value, in which case it then "burps" down an alternative path before resetting.
The conclusion we reached was that getting it to do the first part was probably very difficult but possible, but getting it to reliably reset was probably the impossible part.
Would any of our resident aero experts be able to comment if we're talking rubbish or not?

[AndrewD]

deadslow said:

is it possible that the foundation laid by Ross Brawn up to 2013 flattered the present management, with a dominant car through those hybrid regs, but that they may have been found wanting in developing a new car under the new regs, under their own steam?

The work done by Brawn in a couple of years sustained them through 8 years against the best competition in the world? Seriously?

[stemll]

ChemicalChaos said:

stemll said:

davidd said:

ChocolateFrog said:

I'm surprised that modelling and wind tunnel testing still isn't able to predict this sort of thing.

Someone did explain somewhere (perhaps JSF) why the modelling wouldn't pick it up.

Possible explanation here

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/trwe...

Interesting point on scaling and Reynolds number, but I find it hard to believe they can't find a high enough velocity wind tunnel - how do aircraft companies cope?

Another thing pointed out to me by someone I know who studied aircraft aerodynamics, is that the rolling road floor does not behave the same as tarmac in real life due to the slight flexing and bulging of the treadmill belt (no matter how much it is tensioned). This means the underfloor flow is not fully realistic.

We went on to have a discussion about the illegal underfloor flaps in the Ligier, and both wondered - would there be any way to replicate this using air alone? IE. Air flows in one path under the floor until pressure reaches a set value, in which case it then "burps" down an alternative path before resetting.
The conclusion we reached was that getting it to do the first part was probably very difficult but possible, but getting it to reliably reset was probably the impossible part.
Would any of our resident aero experts be able to comment if we're talking rubbish or not?

It's not that they don't have or can't find a fast enough tunnel, it is that the tunnel speeds are restricted in the regs

Sporting Regs Appendix 7 para 3 said:

No RWTT may be carried out using a scale model and RATG which is greater than 60% of full size neither may it be carried out at a wind tunnel air speed exceeding 50m/s measured relative to the scale model and RATG

RWTT - Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing. RATG - Restricted Aerodynamic Test Geometry

50m/s is only 180kph (112mph) and the author of the reddit I linked has interpreted the bit about relative to scale (60%) as meaning an effective scale speed of only 108kph (67mph). Either speed is a lot lower than the speeds at which they are experiencing porpoising.

[witko999]

TheLimla said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Mclaren 2009

Arrows did a good job in 1997. They were some 6 seconds off the pace in the first race of the season. Hill should have won in Hungary and was only a few hundredths off pole in Jerez.

[Muzzer79]

witko999 said:

TheLimla said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Mclaren 2009

Arrows did a good job in 1997. They were some 6 seconds off the pace in the first race of the season. Hill should have won in Hungary and was only a few hundredths off pole in Jerez.

Arrows were greatly helped by being on Bridgestones.

Important to realise that the Mercedes is not a “dog”

Dogs don’t qualify fifth and sixth on the grid.

I will say however that I’ve never seen a car that looks so bad to drive qualify so far up. Bodes well that if they fix the porpoising, it should fly.

Anyway, McLaren 2003 and Williams 1994 are both examples of cars which were race winners being converted to race winners in a season.

[blackmme]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The circumstances overall were quite extraordinary but I would suggest that the Lotus 72 of 1970 was from a drivers perspective an atrocious car when launched with its anti-dive and anti-squat suspension.

Over the course of the season it became formidable and achieved remarkable top flight longevity. Longevity of course denied to the driver who took the championship in it.

[jules_s]

Muzzer79 said:

.Bodes well that if they fix the porpoising, it should fly.

Its not the porpoising alone - it's the balance after braking (see Ferrari)

[KR158]

Muzzer79 said:

witko999 said:

TheLimla said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Mclaren 2009

Arrows did a good job in 1997. They were some 6 seconds off the pace in the first race of the season. Hill should have won in Hungary and was only a few hundredths off pole in Jerez.

Arrows were greatly helped by being on Bridgestones.

Important to realise that the Mercedes is not a “dog”

Dogs don’t qualify fifth and sixth on the grid.

I will say however that I’ve never seen a car that looks so bad to drive qualify so far up. Bodes well that if they fix the porpoising, it should fly.

Anyway, McLaren 2003 and Williams 1994 are both examples of cars which were race winners being converted to race winners in a season.

The Jordan 198. Early season was deeply uncompetitive (lapped in Brazil) before finishing a worthy, very competitive 1-2 at Spa just a few months later (regardless of the monster shunt on Lap 1, it had qualified 3rd). The original (early season) Williams FW16, the '97 Arrows A18 & the Jordan 198. Improvement probably due, in no small part, to Hill's testing & development abilities.

[CanAm]

blackmme said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The circumstances overall were quite extraordinary but I would suggest that the Lotus 72 of 1970 was from a drivers perspective an atrocious car when launched with its anti-dive and anti-squat suspension.

Over the course of the season it became formidable and achieved remarkable top flight longevity. Longevity of course denied to the driver who took the championship in it.

After the debut of the 72 in Spain, Rindt even reverted to the Lotus 49, famously winning in Monaco, until the suspension was sorted.

[entropy]

2005 McLaren - started off from being deep in the midfield to nearly winning the WDC. Reliability was also a hindrance.

[spikyone]

jules_s said:

Muzzer79 said:

.Bodes well that if they fix the porpoising, it should fly.

Its not the porpoising alone - it's the balance after braking (see Ferrari)

Spot on. The Ferrari is porpoising but through the twisty stuff it looks planted and nicely controlled.

I was in Bahrain, outside the T1-2-3 complex. The Mercs looked horrible through there all weekend. Aside from McLaren, who were struggling with inconsistent braking sending them past the apex every couple of laps, the Merc looked like pretty much the worst car through there. Obvious understeer from turn-in to apex of 1, then chasing the rear through the acceleration zone of 2 and 3.

[menguin]

Brainpox said:

In the latest Driver61 video (not going to link as he has put in an awful scam ad in at the beginning).

Just so you're aware, channels don't choose the ads that appear before the video starts. They're chosen by YouTube based on an algorithm that looks at your account, country, etc. Channels only choose ads: yes/no

[spikyone]

menguin said:

Brainpox said:

In the latest Driver61 video (not going to link as he has put in an awful scam ad in at the beginning).

Just so you're aware, channels don't choose the ads that appear before the video starts. They're chosen by YouTube based on an algorithm that looks at your account, country, etc. Channels only choose ads: yes/no

This is an ad that's part of the video itself, some crappy channel sponsor getting him to pretend he uses their crappy product.

[Derek Smith]

It seems Mercedes are willing to try anything to sort their porpoising problem. See https://writewheel.uk/the-nerd/

Lots of suggestions LH is going to leave Merc for 'another' team. Some say RB - him against Verstappen in identical cars is what I would like to see, but I doubt Marko would. Ferrari? They might well have a vacancy next season and I'd love to see him against Leclerc. Mind you, him against Russell is quite exciting.

[Leithen]

Derek Smith said:

It seems Mercedes are willing to try anything to sort their porpoising problem. See https://writewheel.uk/the-nerd/

Lots of suggestions LH is going to leave Merc for 'another' team. Some say RB - him against Verstappen in identical cars is what I would like to see, but I doubt Marko would. Ferrari? They might well have a vacancy next season and I'd love to see him against Leclerc. Mind you, him against Russell is quite exciting.

I'd be mighty surprised if he signed to RB. Horner might like the idea just to ps off Wolff, but I doubt Mateschitz would sanction it.

Ferrari? Maranello like Sainz a lot, and although everyone's money is on Leclerc for the title, don't be surprised if he pulls everything together as the season progresses. Not for nothing is that combo regarded the best in the paddock.

Far more likely for LH to hang up his boots if Merc can't figure out their problems IMHO.