They don't have this issue today, that's why they got on pole.
Hamilton has had some stellar starts in some of the recent GPs tho.
The floors contribution to the drag of a F1 car is about 10%. And thats a fact. So sorry if i keep hardly doubting your argumenation and even say its almost impossible that the floor is responsible for the drag problem. The canards and the big wing on the other hand - i totally agree that this is a part of the problem. But as they are a part sidepod concept - here we come full circle. And they probably did not change the AoA because things get even worse. There can be no other reason. At least i do not see any other reason.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 14:49Totally disagree when you say the floor is not responsible for drag. If you pitch the floor in a way that does not agree with the way the upper body was made to work then you will surely get more drag.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 08:52ringo wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 02:57what baffles me more than the w13 is how Haas is bring new upgrades to the body and merc cant. Where did the money go, into the high salaries?
Anyhow the issues as zealot says is the floor. The wheels and sidepods are easy to undersrand. The car's performance wouldnt be so unpredictable if it were those things.
The issue is something very detail and very dynamic and that's floor and suspension.
Possibly front wing as well.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 02:53Drag about the wheels and engine cover is the easiest thing to simulate compared to the floor and the wings.
This is NOT what caught Mercedes off gaurd.
It's the floor and the movement of it while the car is suspended. Time and time again we hear that this is not easy to simulate and not easy to test.
The floor and the movement of it may be a problem(Mercedes definetely has more than one problem and its a combination of things that makes them slower than Ferrari and Red Bull). But i hardly doubt that it is their main problem(and that its harder to simulate and test the movement of the floor than the whole rear aerodynamics. Lotus already put a lot of effort in this more than 40 years ago, so...)and their main problem in relation to drag. The floor is not responsible for a lot of the cars drag, while the front wheel wake contributes massively to that. It also can make a mess with the aero of a car. As it is well known that one of the main reasons for "big"-sidepods was exactly the management of the front-wheel wake, i think that being one of the main problems(it definetely is more than just one area Mercedes has problems compared to Ferrari/Red Bull) is far more likely. Also the other teams improving after using "big"-sidepods , points more into that direction.
The most apparent cause of drag on the Mercedes were the big wings and the canard thingy and the vortex drag it produces but the rear wings were fixed. The canard thing has to do with helping the floor work by downwashing near the eadge of the floor. If the floor is pitched suboptimally then it would change the angle if attack of this canard and also the vortices it makes will likely go somewhere suboptimal too. It is easy for Mercedes to change the angle of attack of it and the size of it but they haven't. They aren't stupid so we have to trust their plan.
Euhm, I think he lost more places than he gained at starts (due to the tyre warm-up issues), that's why Wolff always had to talk post-race about Lewis recovering the lost places at the start and the job well done.
No, recovering places because of the mismatch of quali and race pace, so he usually qualified below where he should be. The only time he's lost places at the start has been Imola, and Silverstone's 2nd restart where he was blocked by Perez.
I think what you are not connecting, is that donforce not made by the floor has to be made by the wings.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 18:37The floors contribution to the drag of a F1 car is about 10%. And thats a fact. So sorry if i keep hardly doubting your argumenation and even say its almost impossible that the floor is responsible for the drag problem. The canards and the big wing on the other hand - i totally agree that this is a part of the problem. But as they are a part sidepod concept - here we come full circle. And they probably did not change the AoA because things get even worse. There can be no other reason. At least i do not see any other reason.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 14:49Totally disagree when you say the floor is not responsible for drag. If you pitch the floor in a way that does not agree with the way the upper body was made to work then you will surely get more drag.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 08:52
The floor and the movement of it may be a problem(Mercedes definetely has more than one problem and its a combination of things that makes them slower than Ferrari and Red Bull). But i hardly doubt that it is their main problem(and that its harder to simulate and test the movement of the floor than the whole rear aerodynamics. Lotus already put a lot of effort in this more than 40 years ago, so...)and their main problem in relation to drag. The floor is not responsible for a lot of the cars drag, while the front wheel wake contributes massively to that. It also can make a mess with the aero of a car. As it is well known that one of the main reasons for "big"-sidepods was exactly the management of the front-wheel wake, i think that being one of the main problems(it definetely is more than just one area Mercedes has problems compared to Ferrari/Red Bull) is far more likely. Also the other teams improving after using "big"-sidepods , points more into that direction.
The most apparent cause of drag on the Mercedes were the big wings and the canard thingy and the vortex drag it produces but the rear wings were fixed. The canard thing has to do with helping the floor work by downwashing near the eadge of the floor. If the floor is pitched suboptimally then it would change the angle if attack of this canard and also the vortices it makes will likely go somewhere suboptimal too. It is easy for Mercedes to change the angle of attack of it and the size of it but they haven't. They aren't stupid so we have to trust their plan.
That 10% figure was under the old system.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 18:37The floors contribution to the drag of a F1 car is about 10%. And thats a fact. So sorry if i keep hardly doubting your argumenation and even say its almost impossible that the floor is responsible for the drag problem. The canards and the big wing on the other hand - i totally agree that this is a part of the problem. But as they are a part sidepod concept - here we come full circle. And they probably did not change the AoA because things get even worse. There can be no other reason. At least i do not see any other reason.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 14:49Totally disagree when you say the floor is not responsible for drag. If you pitch the floor in a way that does not agree with the way the upper body was made to work then you will surely get more drag.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 08:52
The floor and the movement of it may be a problem(Mercedes definetely has more than one problem and its a combination of things that makes them slower than Ferrari and Red Bull). But i hardly doubt that it is their main problem(and that its harder to simulate and test the movement of the floor than the whole rear aerodynamics. Lotus already put a lot of effort in this more than 40 years ago, so...)and their main problem in relation to drag. The floor is not responsible for a lot of the cars drag, while the front wheel wake contributes massively to that. It also can make a mess with the aero of a car. As it is well known that one of the main reasons for "big"-sidepods was exactly the management of the front-wheel wake, i think that being one of the main problems(it definetely is more than just one area Mercedes has problems compared to Ferrari/Red Bull) is far more likely. Also the other teams improving after using "big"-sidepods , points more into that direction.
The most apparent cause of drag on the Mercedes were the big wings and the canard thingy and the vortex drag it produces but the rear wings were fixed. The canard thing has to do with helping the floor work by downwashing near the eadge of the floor. If the floor is pitched suboptimally then it would change the angle if attack of this canard and also the vortices it makes will likely go somewhere suboptimal too. It is easy for Mercedes to change the angle of attack of it and the size of it but they haven't. They aren't stupid so we have to trust their plan.
The same that i say about Latifis P1 in Free Practice. I do not not think this qualifying was representing the real pecking order. Mercedes is still far away from Ferrari and Red Bull. But especially that makes it an exceptional performance by Russell and the team.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 19:37That 10% figure was under the old system.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 18:37The floors contribution to the drag of a F1 car is about 10%. And thats a fact. So sorry if i keep hardly doubting your argumenation and even say its almost impossible that the floor is responsible for the drag problem. The canards and the big wing on the other hand - i totally agree that this is a part of the problem. But as they are a part sidepod concept - here we come full circle. And they probably did not change the AoA because things get even worse. There can be no other reason. At least i do not see any other reason.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 14:49
Totally disagree when you say the floor is not responsible for drag. If you pitch the floor in a way that does not agree with the way the upper body was made to work then you will surely get more drag.
The most apparent cause of drag on the Mercedes were the big wings and the canard thingy and the vortex drag it produces but the rear wings were fixed. The canard thing has to do with helping the floor work by downwashing near the eadge of the floor. If the floor is pitched suboptimally then it would change the angle if attack of this canard and also the vortices it makes will likely go somewhere suboptimal too. It is easy for Mercedes to change the angle of attack of it and the size of it but they haven't. They aren't stupid so we have to trust their plan.
If your floor doesn't work well you will need more wing or you will need to pitch the car forward more.
Anyway. What do you say of the Hungary pole position?
No they are not. Its obvious they are closing in. No they havent caught yet but the gap is closing. Mainly the straight line speed deficit needs to be addressed then they will be a force everywhere.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 21:13The same that i say about Latifis P1 in Free Practice. I do not not think this qualifying was representing the real pecking order. Mercedes is still far away from Ferrari and Red Bull. But especially that makes it an exceptional performance by Russell and the team.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 19:37That 10% figure was under the old system.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 18:37
The floors contribution to the drag of a F1 car is about 10%. And thats a fact. So sorry if i keep hardly doubting your argumenation and even say its almost impossible that the floor is responsible for the drag problem. The canards and the big wing on the other hand - i totally agree that this is a part of the problem. But as they are a part sidepod concept - here we come full circle. And they probably did not change the AoA because things get even worse. There can be no other reason. At least i do not see any other reason.
If your floor doesn't work well you will need more wing or you will need to pitch the car forward more.
Anyway. What do you say of the Hungary pole position?
Based on what?Hammerfist wrote: ↑30 Jul 2022, 21:42
No they are not. Its obvious they are closing in. No they havent caught yet but the gap is closing. Mainly the straight line speed deficit needs to be addressed then they will be a force everywhere.