2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[mendis]

I believe he said it as a joke. Just the way I see it.

You’d hope so. I mean if you campaigned so hard for a mid season, and 2023 rule change by coming out with its dangerous for the drivers, something needs to be done about it, then tell your drivers to call out the 2 teams ahead of you for cheating…

And it’s all backfired…. Never looks good does it.

I see him taking it on the chin with humour, he literally cracked a wry smile and so did Di resta.
For context, the video is plastered with "Wolff moaning".

Your comments are totally devoid of any reality. Most teams were porpoising, you act like it was only Mercedes.
Were they vocal? Sure.
But saying this was Mercedes driven is so biased it's simply laughable.

Like Mercedes are responsible for other teams porpoising or other drivers complaining.

Porpoising in other teams is one thing and goading FIA to change rules is entirely another. No other team pushed FIA to change rules other than Mercedes/Toto.

[gandharva]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... /10360410/

Toto basically reveals in this article that their data isn't correlating with reality and giving them the wrong results.

It's not looking good for next season too.

Official statement for: "We are lost."

[chrisc90]

You’d hope so. I mean if you campaigned so hard for a mid season, and 2023 rule change by coming out with its dangerous for the drivers, something needs to be done about it, then tell your drivers to call out the 2 teams ahead of you for cheating…

And it’s all backfired…. Never looks good does it.

I see him taking it on the chin with humour, he literally cracked a wry smile and so did Di resta.
For context, the video is plastered with "Wolff moaning".

Your comments are totally devoid of any reality. Most teams were porpoising, you act like it was only Mercedes.
Were they vocal? Sure.
But saying this was Mercedes driven is so biased it's simply laughable.

Like Mercedes are responsible for other teams porpoising or other drivers complaining.

Porpoising in other teams is one thing and goading FIA to change rules is entirely another. No other team pushed FIA to change rules other than Mercedes/Toto.

Exactly. There’s probably a page worth of quotes you could take from the team from Baku onwards on the topic of TD039. Let’s not forget the earlier comments on active suspension needing to be a ‘thing’.

[F1Krof]

So 2022 - 2026 -> RBR domination. So that's 5 WDC for Max & RBR.

[IM_055]

Someone able to explain to me the implications of correlation issues between CFD/Wind tunnel and on track. Clearly it’s something Merc have been struggling with this whole season. I read that their CFD tooling had fallen behind potentially but surely wind tunnel data and on track data should correlate more closely compared to CFD and on track data.

[IM_055]

Managed to find some articles to do with correlation issues
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-b ... 77356/amp/

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... 24051/amp/

[atanatizante]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... /10360410/

While Mercedes has gone it alone with its 'zero-pod' design this year, in contrast to Red Bull's downwash concept and Ferrari's in-wash, the biggest difference between the cars actually relates to how and where they produce their downforce.

(All below pictures were taken from the last race when the cars were in turn 14)

The Mercedes only appears to hit peak performance when the car runs super close to the ground, which is why it has had such a problem with bouncing and the floor hitting the ground.

Red Bull appears to be at the other end of the spectrum in being able to deliver its best performance at higher ride heights, which was one of the factors in it being so dominant around Spa-Francorchamps last weekend.

So my theory is this: could be that since Baku RB18`s floor DF is more down to diffuser rather than ground effect? Maybe someone with better aerodynamic knowledge could enlighten me had my presumption is wrong or not ...

On another note:

Red Bull thinks ride height compromises all teams were forced to make because of Eau Rouge were behind Max Verstappen’s dominance of Formula 1’s Belgian Grand Prix weekend.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10359983/

And Mark Hughes said that track temp was at the race higher than it was on Friday practice and FP3 + qualy and that the car`s balance switched from a front limited to a rear limited, something that affected both Ferrari and Merc and only played in RB hands for having a bigger operation window and produce floor DF in the way I stated above ...

[mendis]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... /10360410/

While Mercedes has gone it alone with its 'zero-pod' design this year, in contrast to Red Bull's downwash concept and Ferrari's in-wash, the biggest difference between the cars actually relates to how and where they produce their downforce.

(All below pictures were taken from the last race when the cars were in turn 14)

http://postimg.cc/njV6N7h3

The Mercedes only appears to hit peak performance when the car runs super close to the ground, which is why it has had such a problem with bouncing and the floor hitting the ground.

http://postimg.cc/mhTmNMdn

Red Bull appears to be at the other end of the spectrum in being able to deliver its best performance at higher ride heights, which was one of the factors in it being so dominant around Spa-Francorchamps last weekend.

http://postimg.cc/c6pFnwGP

So my theory is this: could be that since Baku RB18`s floor DF is more down to diffuser rather than ground effect? Maybe someone with better aerodynamic knowledge could enlighten me had my presumption is wrong or not ...

On another note:

Red Bull thinks ride height compromises all teams were forced to make because of Eau Rouge were behind Max Verstappen’s dominance of Formula 1’s Belgian Grand Prix weekend.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10359983/

And Mark Hughes said that track temp was at the race higher than it was on Friday practice and FP3 + qualy and that the car`s balance switched from a front limited to a rear limited, something that affected both Ferrari and Merc and only played in RB hands for having a bigger operation window and produce floor DF in the way I stated above ...

My two cents. There is a difference between the whole of the underbody and the edges of the floor. What you have highlighted, are the side edges of floor going lower. Everyone wants it to seal the floor. But what is not visible is, how the entire inside of the floor is curved to expand the airflow. What everyone is highlighting is, Mercedes also runs their entire floor close to the ground whereas Red Bull for instance, raises the inside of the floor to create voluminous flow under the body, while keeping the edges closer to the ground.

[chrisc90]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... /10360410/

While Mercedes has gone it alone with its 'zero-pod' design this year, in contrast to Red Bull's downwash concept and Ferrari's in-wash, the biggest difference between the cars actually relates to how and where they produce their downforce.

(All below pictures were taken from the last race when the cars were in turn 14)

http://postimg.cc/njV6N7h3

The Mercedes only appears to hit peak performance when the car runs super close to the ground, which is why it has had such a problem with bouncing and the floor hitting the ground.

http://postimg.cc/mhTmNMdn

Red Bull appears to be at the other end of the spectrum in being able to deliver its best performance at higher ride heights, which was one of the factors in it being so dominant around Spa-Francorchamps last weekend.

http://postimg.cc/c6pFnwGP

So my theory is this: could be that since Baku RB18`s floor DF is more down to diffuser rather than ground effect? Maybe someone with better aerodynamic knowledge could enlighten me had my presumption is wrong or not ...

On another note:

Red Bull thinks ride height compromises all teams were forced to make because of Eau Rouge were behind Max Verstappen’s dominance of Formula 1’s Belgian Grand Prix weekend.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10359983/

And Mark Hughes said that track temp was at the race higher than it was on Friday practice and FP3 + qualy and that the car`s balance switched from a front limited to a rear limited, something that affected both Ferrari and Merc and only played in RB hands for having a bigger operation window and produce floor DF in the way I stated above ...

My two cents. There is a difference between the whole of the underbody and the edges of the floor. What you have highlighted, are the side edges of floor going lower. Everyone wants it to seal the floor. But what is not visible is, how the entire inside of the floor is curved to expand the airflow. What everyone is highlighting is, Mercedes also runs their entire floor close to the ground whereas Red Bull for instance, raises the inside of the floor to create voluminous flow under the body, while keeping the edges closer to the ground.

Going forward into 2023 that 15mm could have major effects on things.

It would be interesting to compare it at a track where supposedly teams don’t have to raise their car due to eau rouge.

[cirrusflyer]

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNc1kBtV/

There’s the line of interview for context.

Not a very good look for him

I believe he said it as a joke. Just the way I see it.

You’d hope so. I mean if you campaigned so hard for a mid season, and 2023 rule change by coming out with its dangerous for the drivers, something needs to be done about it, then tell your drivers to call out the 2 teams ahead of you for cheating…

And it’s all backfired…. Never looks good does it.

It was a dig at Horner, who claimed that FIA is changing the rules to favor Merc...

[PlatinumZealot]

As discussed numerous times before.. The RedBull floor slams against the ground in the corners, but it has a higher static ride height thus more suspension movement. The performance of the floor itself however cannot be assessed by simple photos from afar. Even running CFD on a reverse engineered model from photos might not reveal how it is able to work so well for Mercedes would have copied it already!!

[Quantum]

Porpoising in other teams is one thing and goading FIA to change rules is entirely another. No other team pushed FIA to change rules other than Mercedes/Toto.

Ahh right.
Gasly needing to visit medical centre, Perez losing vision, Sainz insisting that something be done, Ricciardo complaining of compression of the spine and feeling sore, KMag having nerve pain in his back.


I mean, if we eliminate Mercedes and their drivers from the argument entirely, do you thing that solves the problem?
Nope.
So it's pretty moot pointing fingers at specific parties, when practically all drivers suffered from this (to varying degrees).

[mendis]

Porpoising in other teams is one thing and goading FIA to change rules is entirely another. No other team pushed FIA to change rules other than Mercedes/Toto.

Ahh right.
Gasly needing to visit medical centre, Perez losing vision, Sainz insisting that something be done, Ricciardo complaining of compression of the spine and feeling sore, KMag having nerve pain in his back.


I mean, if we eliminate Mercedes and their drivers from the argument entirely, do you thing that solves the problem?
Nope.
So it's pretty moot pointing fingers at specific parties, when practically all drivers suffered from this (to varying degrees).

They all had a choice and they made one. What happened to these physical problems since Baku? No regulatory changes, but suddenly porpoising was gone! Everybody was out of the woods. I have no idea what they were trying to prove and why Mercedes wanted regulatory changes when the problem was solved before any interference of FIA, without any regulatory changes. That begs the question, why was all that drama?

[Quantum]

They all had a choice and they made one. What happened to these physical problems since Baku? No regulatory changes, but suddenly porpoising was gone!

It's also a track dependant issue. Since Baku we've had tracks that are conducive to less of an issue.
Not entirely as we saw even with a jacked rear, the Ferrari was still porpoising.

I have no idea what they were trying to prove and why Mercedes wanted regulatory changes when the problem was solved before any interference of FIA, without any regulatory changes. That begs the question, why was all that drama?

Again, we've seen other cars porpoising and even after the TD continue to see it, albeit now measured and within what is deemed a safe tolerance.

[mendis]

They all had a choice and they made one. What happened to these physical problems since Baku? No regulatory changes, but suddenly porpoising was gone!

It's also a track dependant issue. Since Baku we've had tracks that are conducive to less of an issue.
Not entirely as we saw even with a jacked rear, the Ferrari was still porpoising.

I have no idea what they were trying to prove and why Mercedes wanted regulatory changes when the problem was solved before any interference of FIA, without any regulatory changes. That begs the question, why was all that drama?

Again, we've seen other cars porpoising and even after the TD continue to see it, albeit now measured and within what is deemed a safe tolerance.

Nobody defined the tolerance limit when teams brought it under control, including Mercedes. Question is, if they could do it without any regulation changes, why was Mercedes lobbying for it? Why did they risk driver safety?