Mercedes W13

[dialtone]

Well looking at the data for qualifying they are as fast on the straights as Ferrari. You can't just say that this is where they are losing the performance, because they aren't (EDIT: well they are, but mere 1kmh), in relation to that pole lap by Charles.

Quali Speed Trap:
https://i.imgur.com/vvg6v3p.png

Speed traps don't show how quickly you accelerate. Much of the laptime won from a better PU comes from strong acceleration up to a drag limited terminal velocity, not the value of that terminal velocity.

Ok so please post those numbers, so that we can understand what's going on

Ask and you shall receive.

Q3 lap from LEC, VER, HAM:


zoomed in the section for T9, T10 with their traction zones:


Easy to see Ferrari is well ahead in acceleration zones, and it's also well ahead in breaking, but you can see the same in T14 actually where everyone breaks more or less the same, Ferrari is stronger in traction out of it.

In any case Ferrari got the pole here in T4 through T7, just a good downforce difference paired with the engine power to keep up with the rest of the track thanks to the traction area.

[shamyakovic]

Speed traps don't show how quickly you accelerate. Much of the laptime won from a better PU comes from strong acceleration up to a drag limited terminal velocity, not the value of that terminal velocity.

Ok so please post those numbers, so that we can understand what's going on

Ask and you shall receive.

Q3 lap from LEC, VER, HAM:
https://i.imgur.com/mIZgjjg.png

zoomed in the section for T9, T10 with their traction zones:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/vv-d ... halmia.png

Easy to see Ferrari is well ahead in acceleration zones, and it's also well ahead in breaking, but you can see the same in T14 actually where everyone breaks more or less the same, Ferrari is stronger in traction out of it.

In any case Ferrari got the pole here in T4 through T7, just a good downforce difference paired with the engine power to keep up with the rest of the track thanks to the traction area.

So ferrari have good traction, and good acceleration and power. They also have higher over all downforce and that helps with traction and acceleration. That's all good, but how does that help with the claim that Mercedes engine is in the bottom now?

Got from Ferrari thread

*Ferrari selected shorter gear ratios as in testings. Leclerc hits 317 km/s and stays about 1.5-2 seconds.
*That causes bottleneck to the top speed at main straight on 317 km/s ( RB uses longer gear ratios , reaches 323-324 km/s )
*But it gives massive acceleration advantage with the help of New PU.

[dialtone]

Ok so please post those numbers, so that we can understand what's going on

Ask and you shall receive.

Q3 lap from LEC, VER, HAM:
https://i.imgur.com/mIZgjjg.png

zoomed in the section for T9, T10 with their traction zones:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/vv-d ... halmia.png

Easy to see Ferrari is well ahead in acceleration zones, and it's also well ahead in breaking, but you can see the same in T14 actually where everyone breaks more or less the same, Ferrari is stronger in traction out of it.

In any case Ferrari got the pole here in T4 through T7, just a good downforce difference paired with the engine power to keep up with the rest of the track thanks to the traction area.

So ferrari have good traction, and good acceleration and power. They also have higher over all downforce and that helps with traction and acceleration. That's all good, but how does that help with the claim that Mercedes engine is in the bottom now?

Got from Ferrari thread

*Ferrari selected shorter gear ratios as in testings. Leclerc hits 317 km/s and stays about 1.5-2 seconds.
*That causes bottleneck to the top speed at main straight on 317 km/s ( RB uses longer gear ratios , reaches 323-324 km/s )
*But it gives massive acceleration advantage with the help of New PU.

Yeah I don't know if Merc's PU is the bottom, not enough samples of Honda and Alpine is behind Mercs and they're both works teams.

Merc has the shortest gear ratio between Ferrari and Honda, this is clear from the gearshifts and RPMs as well as from all the graphs pre-season, so according to what you wrote above Merc should have the advantage in acceleration, but in reality that's not coming out of the telemetry. RB uses longer gear ratios yes, but it's not faster than Ferrari before you reach the speeds where drag is the limiting factor, and Ferrari made a massive change in T6 for FP3 and Qualy because until today they were the slowest in T6, so Ferrari added wing overnight to improve T6, T10 and T13 where they looked slower in FP2.

[ringo]

There is no way to know anything about these engines at the moment. The teams would have more tools at their disposal to do this.
I think the car is not in a good place. Poor traction and poor stability. possibly poor use of tyres as well.
They are running compromised.

I think those sidepods need to be reshaped and they need another winglet over their crash structure at the side. The vanes aren't enough.
The car needs a new floor as well and suspension.

[Airshifter]

There is no way to know anything about these engines at the moment. The teams would have more tools at their disposal to do this.
I think the car is not in a good place. Poor traction and poor stability. possibly poor use of tyres as well.
They are running compromised.

I think those sidepods need to be reshaped and they need another winglet over their crash structure at the side. The vanes aren't enough.
The car needs a new floor as well and suspension.

So just a new car and things will be good?

Though I agree the car is not looking great, it could be a combination of small things that correct the issues. For any of us to speculate when the team isn't sure themselves would be just that.... speculating, random guesses, and more speculating. I'll leave it up to the guys that have pulled off 8 WCC's in a row before I guess what might need to be worked on.

[ryaan2904]

Their mirror wing is big on drag, let's not forget that.

Can you explain how is the mirror wing big on drag? I thought it looked perfectly shaped for minimal aero footprint

[wogx]

It has a big, flat surface on the rear, it's not perfectly shaped

[Vanja #66]

Can you explain how is the mirror wing big on drag? I thought it looked perfectly shaped for minimal aero footprint

It is shaped perfectly to achieve desired downwash with minimal frontal area for sure (very small leading edge radius is also there to reduce drag a bit), but it still has decent frontal area and good amount of camber - traits of high drag wings. Not to mention the cutout of trailing edge next to bodywork.

[restless]

Q3 lap from LEC, VER, HAM:
https://i.imgur.com/mIZgjjg.png

zoomed in the section for T9, T10 with their traction zones:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/vv-d ... halmia.png

Easy to see Ferrari is well ahead in acceleration zones, and it's also well ahead in breaking, but you can see the same in T14 actually where everyone breaks more or less the same, Ferrari is stronger in traction out of it.

Am I reading correct the pictures - it seems RB brakes massively worse than Ferrari?
Mercedes in-between, but closer to F imo.

[shamyakovic]

Q3 lap from LEC, VER, HAM:
https://i.imgur.com/mIZgjjg.png

zoomed in the section for T9, T10 with their traction zones:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/vv-d ... halmia.png

Easy to see Ferrari is well ahead in acceleration zones, and it's also well ahead in breaking, but you can see the same in T14 actually where everyone breaks more or less the same, Ferrari is stronger in traction out of it.

Am I reading correct the pictures - it seems RB brakes massively worse than Ferrari?
Mercedes in-between, but closer to F imo.

Ture, if u have seen the pole lap comparison it seems like Ferrari gains everything during braking

[Stu]

Can you explain how is the mirror wing big on drag? I thought it looked perfectly shaped for minimal aero footprint

It is shaped perfectly to achieve desired downwash with minimal frontal area for sure (very small leading edge radius is also there to reduce drag a bit), but it still has decent frontal area and good amount of camber - traits of high drag wings. Not to mention the cutout of trailing edge next to bodywork.

Also, it cannot be a closed section; not certain where the opening is, but it must be underneath as there is nothing visible on the top surface.

[shamyakovic]

Can you explain how is the mirror wing big on drag? I thought it looked perfectly shaped for minimal aero footprint

It is shaped perfectly to achieve desired downwash with minimal frontal area for sure (very small leading edge radius is also there to reduce drag a bit), but it still has decent frontal area and good amount of camber - traits of high drag wings. Not to mention the cutout of trailing edge next to bodywork.

Won't it still have lesser drag than a conventional sidepods?

[Mchamilton]

[NL_Fer]

Bahrein always benefitted from good traction, putting the extra power down accelerating out of corners. The Ferrari powered cars were quick here before in 18-19 because the identical rear mechanical section. It is not only the powerunit.

Maybe we will see the W13 shine at smoother tracks

[Stu]

Can you explain how is the mirror wing big on drag? I thought it looked perfectly shaped for minimal aero footprint

It is shaped perfectly to achieve desired downwash with minimal frontal area for sure (very small leading edge radius is also there to reduce drag a bit), but it still has decent frontal area and good amount of camber - traits of high drag wings. Not to mention the cutout of trailing edge next to bodywork.

Won't it still have lesser drag than a conventional sidepods?

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airpl ... nclind.gif

Even if not stalled, a greater angle of incidence increases drag.