2024 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[maygun]

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.

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

When it comes to Merc I think losing names was one reason, but my bet is they couldn't figure out how to get around of budget cap effectively as others did.

For instance, you can develop these simulation/CFD tools in your other company, and sell them to your own F1 team at a reasonable price. Or send some of your engineers to the applied science team for 6 months, do some R&D work, and then hire them back. I am not super familiar with the recent rules, but have a doubt that Merc is not using very effectively, and Toto seems too strict and careful about it (I think once he mentioned he literally built a big accountant team so that they can be sure they are on the limit).

[SoulPancake13]

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.

Of course a mind like Newey is very helpful with designing these kinds of cars, but it doesn't explain how before TD39 how Ferrari with a bunch of "nobodies" relative to Newey made a car that was just as fast. Even Red Bull admitted that last season, they were surprised at how far ahead they were(it seems the other competition really messed up their development), Newey even went on to say how it wasn't all that special. What matters most is the understanding of how the car works, Red Bull got that from day 1 and that's why they are winning. McLaren and Ferrari understand it now and are closing in. Mercedes, regardless of the "top" level name, do not seem to understand these cars, so no matter what big name you lose or bring in, it won't matter.

[billamend]

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

He also worked on the AM hypercar, which is a Ground Effects car.

[Mosin123]

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.

that article says he did the suspension, and set all outlining principles and guildlines and over seen the work and corrected any mistakes they made........... EG he did it. Its like my boss telling me how to do my job and then me taking credit for his instructions... get real.

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.

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

When it comes to Merc I think losing names was one reason, but my bet is they couldn't figure out how to get around of budget cap effectively as others did.

For instance, you can develop these simulation/CFD tools in your other company, and sell them to your own F1 team at a reasonable price. Or send some of your engineers to the applied science team for 6 months, do some R&D work, and then hire them back. I am not super familiar with the recent rules, but have a doubt that Merc is not using very effectively, and Toto seems too strict and careful about it (I think once he mentioned he literally built a big accountant team so that they can be sure they are on the limit).

Hmm, he designed the AM - RB 01 ( Or you saying all those 100's of millions didnt go into researching ground effects in 2016? )

He is liteerally the leading areo dude on the grid when it comes to ground effecst, he is excellent, not good, not " new " like the rest of the grid, he is " Excellent " leading example, the best, the greatest, the GOAT.

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.

Of course a mind like Newey is very helpful with designing these kinds of cars, but it doesn't explain how before TD39 how Ferrari with a bunch of "nobodies" relative to Newey made a car that was just as fast. Even Red Bull admitted that last season, they were surprised at how far ahead they were(it seems the other competition really messed up their development), Newey even went on to say how it wasn't all that special. What matters most is the understanding of how the car works, Red Bull got that from day 1 and that's why they are winning. McLaren and Ferrari understand it now and are closing in. Mercedes, regardless of the "top" level name, do not seem to understand these cars, so no matter what big name you lose or bring in, it won't matter.

Ferrari was 100 % going againts the very spirit of the rules, it wasnt a shock it was swiftly changed, they was practically cheating.

McLaren last year didnt even finished top 15 first two races after swapping to Redbulls suspension, but finished the last half of the season with the clear 2nd best car. AM had started the season with the clear 2nd fastest car, yet finished 4th.

Im not one for picking the best of the rest after the first 3 races of a 24 race season, even more so, when it went to the very last race the year before.

[cplchanb]

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.

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

When it comes to Merc I think losing names was one reason, but my bet is they couldn't figure out how to get around of budget cap effectively as others did.

For instance, you can develop these simulation/CFD tools in your other company, and sell them to your own F1 team at a reasonable price. Or send some of your engineers to the applied science team for 6 months, do some R&D work, and then hire them back. I am not super familiar with the recent rules, but have a doubt that Merc is not using very effectively, and Toto seems too strict and careful about it (I think once he mentioned he literally built a big accountant team so that they can be sure they are on the limit).

dont forget, Newey's senior staff already stole a head start on everyone when they designed the x2010 and even the valkyrie where ground effect principles were in play. even if the majority doesnt apply to the current reg their conceptual understandings wouldve been far more in depth than others

[Vanja #66]

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.

Of those 6 teams, only 2 are title winners. Though last titles they won were in 1997 and 2006. And there are exactly 0 other teams to have won 8 WCCs in a row, ever...

In any case, what RB, McL and Ferrari are doing differently seems to be looking for usable downforce only, over wide range of operating conditions and without compromising race pace for outright (Q) pace. Ferrari got on the wrong track with peak downforce last year and payed a hefty price. Yet Merc (and AMR, should be noted) seem to have made the exact same mistake even if Ferrari made no secret what they did wrong conceptually...

[maygun]

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.

Of those 6 teams, only 2 are title winners. Though last titles they won were in 1997 and 2006. And there are exactly 0 other teams to have won 8 WCCs in a row, ever...

In any case, what RB, McL and Ferrari are doing differently seems to be looking for usable downforce only, over wide range of operating conditions and without compromising race pace for outright (Q) pace. Ferrari got on the wrong track with peak downforce last year and payed a hefty price. Yet Merc (and AMR, should be noted) seem to have made the exact same mistake even if Ferrari made no secret what they did wrong conceptually...

Can you explain or give some references to how Merc opted to optimize just peak downforce instead of usable downforce?

[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.

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

Along time friend of mine has a PhD in physics and trust me, they are not the same as engineers. Their view of nature is very different. It's a more "pure" view. Perhaps what Mercedes needs at this time to see what could be the issue here.


I mean, suppose it as Brackley's global location being in a strong part of the Earth's magentic field or in some sort of dark energy well? You know there are things a physicist sees that us engineers do not.

[Luscion]

At the time of them making the video the engines hadn't arrived at the factory as yet so nothing concrete on what caused it, just Allison speculating on what it could be.

[Vanja #66]

Can you explain or give some references to how Merc opted to optimize just peak downforce instead of usable downforce?

W13B from the first few races is the prime example, they clearly went as low as possible with their floor and wanted to induce huge downwash to the rear with mid wings and they also didn't take into account some (driveability?) aspects Hamilton was concerned about (as we recently found out). W14 and W15 are steps in different directions and they are trying now to develop a useful car, not a peaky car.

What I'm suggesting is they used to rely a lot on clever suspension in order to smooth out the peakiness of aero map, to speed up the development workflow during every season and reduce the number of conditions they test in CFD and WT before approving an update. And now that suspension is very simple and very limited with what is allowed and the nature of these cars is far more sensitive to changes in attitude on track (and so needs to be developed by taking more steps than before) their methodology is simply proving to be lacking.

At the start of the 3rd year in this rule cycle they are further back than ever before and it's obvious they are missing some basic fundamentals in their workflow and methodology. I'm just offering my view on what it might be and how it came to be like that.

[maygun]

Can you explain or give some references to how Merc opted to optimize just peak downforce instead of usable downforce?

W13B from the first few races is the prime example, they clearly went as low as possible with their floor and wanted to induce huge downwash to the rear with mid wings and they also didn't take into account some (driveability?) aspects Hamilton was concerned about (as we recently found out). W14 and W15 are steps in different directions and they are trying now to develop a useful car, not a peaky car.

What I'm suggesting is they used to rely a lot on clever suspension in order to smooth out the peakiness of aero map, to speed up the development workflow during every season and reduce the number of conditions they test in CFD and WT before approving an update. And now that suspension is very simple and very limited with what is allowed and the nature of these cars is far more sensitive to changes in attitude on track (and so needs to be developed by taking more steps than before) their methodology is simply proving to be lacking.

At the start of the 3rd year in this rule cycle they are further back than ever before and it's obvious they are missing some basic fundamentals in their workflow and methodology. I'm just offering my view on what it might be and how it came to be like that.

Thanks for your answer, but still I don't have a clear understanding of what do you mean by peak downforce.

What I understood from peak-downforce is that, imagining a plot where on x axis I have speed (and other variables maybe like ride height, yaw conditions, temp etc), y axis is the downforce, and the maximum point of the graph (related to x axis) is the peak (the max value) and the area under the curve is available downforce. Imagining in a lap, peak value is where the maximum downforce I am obtaining during the lap, and the available downforce is the value I get on average during the lap. (you can change the lap variable with ride height, temp etc.)

So you are suggesting that they have optimised the peak value instead of the area under the curve? This sounds like a very-very foolish way to optimise performance if they did that.

[JordanMugen]

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

F1 no, but Newey did design the ground effect March 86C Indycar back when Indycars and Grand Prix cars were less different. Those were the days when one designer would literally pencil most of the car on paper and then be Bobby Rahal's race engineer as well, so that helps with the holistic drawing board to on-track side of things.

dont forget, Newey's senior staff already stole a head start on everyone when they designed the x2010 and even the valkyrie where ground effect principles were in play. even if the majority doesnt apply to the current reg their conceptual understandings wouldve been far more in depth than others

Mercedes also developed their own hypercar, the AMG One. Why didn't Mercedes GP use venturi tunnel principles on this car in preparation for the 2022 regulations?!

So you are suggesting that they have optimised the peak value instead of the area under the curve? This sounds like a very-very foolish way to optimise performance if they did that.

Yes, they got greedy thinking the W13 would be a monster. Seemingly, very few measures to mitigate porpoising or minimise ride height sensitivity were included in the W13's original design. But it was pretty good when it worked properly.

That doesn't explain Mercedes not making progress with the W14 and especially with the W15, or still seeing a deficit between expected and actual downforce to this day.

[Dunlay]

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

F1 no, but Newey did design the ground effect March 86C Indycar back when Indycars and Grand Prix cars were less different. Those were the days when one designer would literally pencil most of the car on paper and then be Bobby Rahal's race engineer as well, so that helps with the holistic drawing board to on-track side of things.

Newey just had 2 years in CART championship where he designed ground effect cars. With all the tools and simulations available now and the exposure engineers have, that past experience of Newey is potentially good for one year's headstart, may be less. This is the 3rd year of ground effect cars with loads and loads of data volume compared to barely any data of his time. So it's still being overstated. I strongly believe that the invisible hands at Red Bull are making far bigger impact than just Newey. What's happening at Mercedes from that point of view is really strange.

[NoDivergence]

I would argue that Newey's effect is a bit overrated, he does not have too much ground effect F1 experience, and he just did a very basic ground effect dissertation during his bachelor's. Yes, he is the number one guy as an F1 engineer, but ~1k number of people have an effect on the end result.

F1 no, but Newey did design the ground effect March 86C Indycar back when Indycars and Grand Prix cars were less different. Those were the days when one designer would literally pencil most of the car on paper and then be Bobby Rahal's race engineer as well, so that helps with the holistic drawing board to on-track side of things.

dont forget, Newey's senior staff already stole a head start on everyone when they designed the x2010 and even the valkyrie where ground effect principles were in play. even if the majority doesnt apply to the current reg their conceptual understandings wouldve been far more in depth than others

Mercedes also developed their own hypercar, the AMG One. Why didn't Mercedes GP use venturi tunnel principles on this car in preparation for the 2022 regulations?!

So you are suggesting that they have optimised the peak value instead of the area under the curve? This sounds like a very-very foolish way to optimise performance if they did that.

Yes, they got greedy thinking the W13 would be a monster. Seemingly, very few measures to mitigate porpoising or minimise ride height sensitivity were included in the W13's original design. But it was pretty good when it worked properly.

That doesn't explain Mercedes not making progress with the W14 and especially with the W15, or still seeing a deficit between expected and actual downforce to this day.

Because the AMG One is designed to actually be used on the road. Can't fit tunnels on a car that is meant for two people that aren't having intimate relations

[NoDivergence]

I think you’re vastly oversimplifying the reasons behind their past success and comparing the two regulation sets is like comparing apples to oranges.

How so? It's the 3rd year of regulations, a team of Mercedes' recent history absolutely must have figured out their aero by now. Russell was full 50 seconds behind Sainz when the accident happened. Is it another case of "wrong cooling choice" like Bahrain?

Remember 2009, when McLaren and Ferrari were abysmal with new regulations after 2 years of very competitive racing between them? They didn't go further back in 2010, both teams got straight back to the top with multiple wins and Championship fight all the way to the final race, like 2009 never happened and that's what Mercedes must be achieving right now.

That's some of the biggest revisionist bullshit I've read in a long time

Do enlighten us

Usually you post very insightful comments on a range of subjects, but this is seriously quite revisionist of you. If that was the case, why were Ferrari not able to comfortably beat them when their PU was quite obviously on par if not more powerful?

They did beat them easily in 2019 for a few races when they were actually ahead on PU, until Toto and Mercedes pulled all their political might to make sure this doesn't last. And Binotto crumbled like a cookie with FIA. Heck, they even beat Mercedes a few times in 17 and 18 without PU parity.

Ferrari had near parity in 2017. Full parity in 2018. Superior engine (with cheating) in 2019, and Red Bull has near parity in 2020. Not to mention even when they had engine advantage, they had absolutely top 2 no question chassis. IMO the best balance of efficiency and peak downforce every year except 2019