2024 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[SiLo]

if they have correlation issues, their simulator is likely going to have them too. Setup changes will have to be found at the track, but they don't really get big amounts of time to try them.

[PlatinumZealot]

Reported correlation issues to blame.

This js not the first time in these ground effect regs!!

For sure the physics talent gap is there. And please don't confuse what a physicist is capable of versus an engineer. What engineers do is based on physics, but phyiscs is a science engineering is science-based. A scientist has to accurately with no strings or fudge factors attached, measure and interpret what nature is showing. We engineers bend things to our will to make things work or sorta work.

[chrisc90]

Is there any word on the cause of the engine failure? Just 3 races in?

[Vanja #66]

Reported correlation issues to blame.

This js not the first time in these ground effect regs!!

For sure the physics talent gap is there. And please don't confuse what a physicist is capable of versus an engineer. What engineers do is based on physics, but phyiscs is a science engineering is science-based. A scientist has to accurately with no strings or fudge factors attached, measure and interpret what nature is showing. We engineers bend things to our will to make things work or sorta work.

Wait, planetary laws of physics changed between '21 and '22?

[CaribouBread]

Is there any word on the cause of the engine failure? Just 3 races in?

I think I heard the race podcast people say it was an oil system failure, but don't quote me on that could've been from elsewhere.

[SiLo]

Reported correlation issues to blame.

This js not the first time in these ground effect regs!!

For sure the physics talent gap is there. And please don't confuse what a physicist is capable of versus an engineer. What engineers do is based on physics, but phyiscs is a science engineering is science-based. A scientist has to accurately with no strings or fudge factors attached, measure and interpret what nature is showing. We engineers bend things to our will to make things work or sorta work.

Wait, planetary laws of physics changed between '21 and '22?

No, but our ability so simulate them more accurately is probably a variable they couldn't account for. i guess most tests are relatively static, but ideally they need dynamic CFD which is probably outside of the realms of possibility right now for the CFD time they get.

[Luscion]

Is there any word on the cause of the engine failure? Just 3 races in?

Will most likely get an answer today, they drop their race debrief videos on wednesdays

[214270]

This one’s a real gem.

[CaribouBread]

...

...

He's talking big game again, that's worked out pretty well for him these few years.

[Vanja #66]

No, but our ability so simulate them more accurately is probably a variable they couldn't account for. i guess most tests are relatively static, but ideally they need dynamic CFD which is probably outside of the realms of possibility right now for the CFD time they get.

But it still leaves the question - how did RB, Ferrari and McLaren get it right - unanswered. Everyone is restricted by the same rules...

For me it makes sense that Mercedes focused on designing relatively (aero) peaky cars and ironed out the peakiness with clever suspension designs that provided more stable attitudes on track. Those attitudes were easier to correlate and they made a more streamlined workflow fully focused on continually adding performance. Sometimes it was hard to achieve good balance on specific tracks, so they experienced performance slumps even in their most dominant seasons.

And now the aero development methodology required is completely different and requires very thorough aero mapping and highest level of suspension and ride height integration - leaving Mercedes and their former methodology thoroughly lacking...

[Espresso]

Is there any word on the cause of the engine failure? Just 3 races in?

My take on it. With speed the chassis get´s lower to the ground... in result the suspension is compressed to the max resulting in micro-porpoising (you can see the nose oscillating at high speed). The resulting violent shaking start to damage engine components.

[venkyhere]

. What we are seeing here today in the ground effect regs is not chassis incompetence but a phyisics talent gap in the Mercedes ranks.

This is the TotoWolff narrative. As if physics and engineering are disjoint with each other. Science forms the foundation of engineering --the "physics" of air molecule behavior is the foundation of aerodynamics engineering. The use of "physics" word is just clever PR.

And I'm sure you already know, in the ground effect regulations, aero and chassis are not separate engineering disciplines.

An interesting take from a dutch newbie.

If you dont have anything 'content-wise' to contribute, show some maturity and refrain from making personal jibes. I have no idea who you are, you have no idea who I am; but I can tell you i've been watching F1 for ~20 yrs. Being a new member in a forum doesn't make me a 'dutch newbie'.

Anyway, my point was - the same chef who is an expert with frying potato fingers as 'fries' needn't be an expert with the oven when it comes to making a 'baked potato' dish. But surely there has to be a working understanding of "heat", even if not to a scientist level. That's how the same set of engineers work on different regulations.

Using the word "physics" is clever word play by Toto - a subtle hint - "surely you cant expect us to know about heat, because our job is to only fry. So our struggles with baking is justified"

[SiLo]

No, but our ability so simulate them more accurately is probably a variable they couldn't account for. i guess most tests are relatively static, but ideally they need dynamic CFD which is probably outside of the realms of possibility right now for the CFD time they get.

But it still leaves the question - how did RB, Ferrari and McLaren get it right - unanswered. Everyone is restricted by the same rules...

For me it makes sense that Mercedes focused on designing relatively (aero) peaky cars and ironed out the peakiness with clever suspension designs that provided more stable attitudes on track. Those attitudes were easier to correlate and they made a more streamlined workflow fully focused on continually adding performance. Sometimes it was hard to achieve good balance on specific tracks, so they experienced performance slumps even in their most dominant seasons.

And now the aero development methodology required is completely different and requires very thorough aero mapping and highest level of suspension and ride height integration - leaving Mercedes and their former methodology thoroughly lacking...

I can accept this is a better argument for it. I don't know what Mclaren, Ferrari and RB are doing differently. But then, there are still 6 other teams on the grid that are also not doing as good.

[Mosin123]

How do you square the circle that is Mercedes struggling badly once engine parity was achieved?

Would it not be when the budget cap forced them to lose a lot of top staff?

So has been the case with Red Bull too. Current Mercedes situation is a good example to know that the top level management folks don't do much in terms of designing the cars. On one hand Red Bull lost so many key names, yet continues to perform better than any other team in the given scenario, whereas Mercedes struggles. Ferrari doesn't have great names in their top ranks, yet they continue to be in the top 3 and sometimes lead the field (although for less than full season or even half). It's not the big names that conceive ideas or design the cars, it's somewhere in the middle level and if that layer at Mercedes is not getting a hang of these regulations, then it doesn't matter whether it's Elliott or Allison that leads them.

So Redbull being on top is nothing to do with Neways past exp with ground effects?

How come its fine for Ferrari to finish top 3, but not Merc? If i remember rightly, Merc finished in front of Ferrari last year......

Losing Costa, Vowles, and Allison ( At start ) would have had a big impact on how things ran behind the scene and the organisation of things. They are some huge names in f1, and now they got Allison back, they lost Elliott. All big named people in key roles.

[Dunlay]

Would it not be when the budget cap forced them to lose a lot of top staff?

So has been the case with Red Bull too. Current Mercedes situation is a good example to know that the top level management folks don't do much in terms of designing the cars. On one hand Red Bull lost so many key names, yet continues to perform better than any other team in the given scenario, whereas Mercedes struggles. Ferrari doesn't have great names in their top ranks, yet they continue to be in the top 3 and sometimes lead the field (although for less than full season or even half). It's not the big names that conceive ideas or design the cars, it's somewhere in the middle level and if that layer at Mercedes is not getting a hang of these regulations, then it doesn't matter whether it's Elliott or Allison that leads them.

So Redbull being on top is nothing to do with Neways past exp with ground effects?

How come its fine for Ferrari to finish top 3, but not Merc? If i remember rightly, Merc finished in front of Ferrari last year......

Losing Costa, Vowles, and Allison ( At start ) would have had a big impact on how things ran behind the scene and the organisation of things. They are some huge names in f1, and now they got Allison back, they lost Elliott. All big named people in key roles.

Don't believe everything you read or hear. If you want to believe one individual builds an entire car, it would be too far stretched. Newey gets way too much center stage and that probably helps Red Bull in shielding their deeper talents that design and build the car. I repeat, folks are the higher design nothing. They are the maximum validate designs and provide some insights but that's mostly it.

This is a small anecdote from Mark Huges.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... ignificant.