Mercedes GP MGP W01

[siskue2005]

Fexible front wing would sort their problem.

And a new driver! The car is actually not too bad, as evidenced by Rosberg, who is not really a top-line driver.

yup, why dont you go and drive it
the car is ok, as revealed by Brawn ....the Bstones fronts give ZERO grip in a fully loaded position...thats why it hurts Schumy more than Nico
The tyres are really flattering Nico

[aral]

Fexible front wing would sort their problem.

And a new driver! The car is actually not too bad, as evidenced by Rosberg, who is not really a top-line driver.

yup, why dont you go and drive it
the car is ok, as revealed by Brawn ....the Bstones fronts give ZERO grip in a fully loaded position...thats why it hurts Schumy more than Nico
The tyres are really flattering Nico

Are you prepared to pay me 3m + ?? But seriously, you say that the car has zero grip in fully loaded condition, but if you watch the races, you will see that Schumi was all over the track towards the end, when the car is NOT fully loaded. But again I draw attention to the fact that Nico does not seem to have the same problems that Schumi has. Yes, if Brawn says the car is OK, then the proplem HAS to be the driver, doesn't it?

[siskue2005]

Are you prepared to pay me 3m + ?? But seriously, you say that the car has zero grip in fully loaded condition, but if you watch the races, you will see that Schumi was all over the track towards the end, when the car is NOT fully loaded. But again I draw attention to the fact that Nico does not seem to have the same problems that Schumi has. Yes, if Brawn says the car is OK, then the proplem HAS to be the driver, doesn't it?

You mean to say that if we put A.Senna(the one who got most votes as the best driver) in this car he would win all races and be the WDC this year?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85823
read that...he says the tyres are not good and explains tht Nico got used to the tyres as it evolved for the past 3 years
If Schumy was a rookie then i would agree with you
But a 7 time WDC suffering like this surely means something isnt it
And moreover relative to Nico he is not that far off as Petrov and Kubica

[747heavy]

if they have "free" ballast to play with, I´m resonable sure you would find place for it in the rear. You make componets which are allready there out of a heavier material.
It´s not uncommon to use fins made out of Tungsten/Densimet in a rear diffusor for example.

O.k. if they have moulded xx kg of ballast into the front of their chassis/tub, then yes
they are stuffed, but boy you would need to be very very sure/confident that you are right to do that.

Anyway a wrong weigth distribution harms you yes, but it does not puzzle you. It´s a problem you have, but it´s fairly constant, it does not come and go.
IMHO you are puzzled if something does not meet your expectations or your assumptions.
You do something, do your maths, expect a reaction from the car, but it does react different. You have a "gap" between expectation and reality.

Some flaws in your simulations, undiscovered stiffness issues, wrong windtunnel calibartions etc. can have such an effect.
What it is for MGP I don´t know. Maybe one of it, maybe all of it, or something completely different.
If you say " I´m puzzled", you are saying "I don´t understand (yet)".
That´s not a comfortable position, because if you don´t understand you can´t fix your problem.
I hope they do understand, I buy that they got it wrong with their weight distibution,
but I don´t buy that this is their only problem.
IMHO they need to raise their game across the board.
Some of their race strategies this year where not that flash either.
I´m confident, that they can move forward (maybe only 2011) but they have there work cut out, and not all the time in the world to get it done.
The heat is on.
Good luck to them

BTW:
the example from Marcus and the Renault, makes perfect sense to me.
AFAIK Brawn/MGP is not using Showa, but not Oehlins either (unless they changed in the last 4 month)
there is something different in their suspension to all other teams AFAIK, but I don´t think it is their problem.

I´m amused when (some) people say Nico is not a top line driver, or not considered as one. I´m genuinely interested to know, how they come to this assessment, and what are there explainations / metrics to gauge driver performance.

have a nice day

[marcush.]

+1 747h

at least it´´s not long ago they used their products..

http://www.showa1.com/en/motorsport/index.html

[mike]

i think the issue in the front maybe caused by the use of single keel?, i mean no one in F1 atm is using them except them (maybe virgin) but when you go on a unique path of development, when you do screw up its hard to back track

[pipex]

I remember reading somewhere that they use a special type of Sachs dampers (at least in the rear suspension), and that these never worked for Ferrari.

[marcush.]

they use sachs indeed :
but so do:Ferrari,sauber and toro Rosso and HRT who of those still use the rotary dampers that seem to be not working satisfactory?

Interestingly toyota did drop sachs after a back to back test and wanted to use Oehlins for 2010...

source:Sachs pr:

Formel 1: Podiumsergebnis für Nico Rosberg

Der Deutsche Nico Rosberg erzielte einen dritten Rang beim GP Großbritannien. Der Mercedes-GP-Pilot, dessen Fahrzeug mit Dämpfern von ZF Sachs Race Engineering ausgerüstet ist, ging vom fünften Startplatz ins Rennen und machte zwei Plätze gut. Damit feierte Rosberg bereits die dritte Podiumsplatzierung der aktuellen Saison. In der Meisterschaft belegt er den sechsten Rang. Teamkollege Michael Schumacher fuhr in Silverstone auf den neunten Platz und nahm damit noch zwei Punkte mit. Punkte holte auch das BMW Sauber Team, dessen Fahrzeuge ebenfalls mit Dämpfern made in Schweinfurt ausgestattet sind. Kamui Kobayashi belegte den sechsten Rang und feierte damit seine beste Platzierung der Saison. Weniger gut verlief das Rennwochenende für die Ferrari-Piloten Fernando Alonso und Felipe Massa, die in der Startphase aneinander gerieten und auch später in verschiedene Zwischenfälle verwickelt waren. Die beiden Ferrari-Fahrer, die ebenfalls auf Dämpfer von ZF Sachs Race Engineering vertrauen, belegten die Plätze 14 und 15. Ein kleiner Trost für Fernando Alonso war seine schnellste Rennrunde. Sebastien Buemi, in dessen STR-Ferrari Kupplung und Dämpfer von ZF Sachs Race Engineering zum Einsatz kommen, beendete das Rennen auf dem zwölften Platz. Die beiden Piloten des HRT F1 Teams, Karun Chandhok und Sakon Yamamoto, die auf Kupplungen und Dämpfer made in Germany vertrauen, fuhren auf den Plätzen 19 und 20 über die Ziellinie.

[747heavy]

are you sure about Lotus and SACHS dampers Marcus?
This would really surprise me, as M.G. was the one
getting them out of the Toyota.

And as I said, I don´t think that this is their problem

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

i think the issue in the front maybe caused by the use of single keel?, i mean no one in F1 atm is using them except them (maybe virgin) but when you go on a unique path of development, when you do screw up its hard to back track

I read this on F1Fanatic, apparently the single keel helps with certain type of tyre.
If this is true, maybe this explains some of Mercedes "unchangeable issues".
What are the benefits of single or V or even no keels?

747heavy

Thanks for the illustration, the W01 is a bit different to the normal shark tail F-ducts in that the air traverses a slightly contirved path up the rear wing support before reach the wing. Also agree that the weight distribution issue may be a problem but is by no means the only one.

[marcush.]

are you sure about Lotus and SACHS dampers Marcus?
This would really surprise me, as M.G. was the one
getting them out of the Toyota.

And as I said, I don´t think that this is their problem

hrt not lotus ,you are correct.

[747heavy]

I remember reading somewhere that they use a special type of Sachs dampers (at least in the rear suspension), and that these never worked for Ferrari.

correct, they use the rotary dampers

never worked is maybe a bit strong a wording for a car/damper that won multiple championships.

It´s a packageing/weigth vs. optimum damping performance argument.
Depending on where you have your preferences, seeing your larger gains, you make your choice.
Ah, yeah, and you need the budget to afford them, as they are not that cheap

A conventional (linear) damper is easier to tune in terms of damping performance/characteistic, that´s true, and is no secret.
But I would not go as far, as to say they never worked.
Like everything in motorsport, it´s a compromise.

[747heavy]

just another photo&comment of the MGP rear wing

>>>>>>>
Mercedes have introduced a new rear wing in Germany. It has a large opening in the main plane (see red arrow), which creates something akin to a three-profile rear wing. The solution was introduced in Monaco last year by McLaren and copied by BMW Sauber. This rear wing is designed to work better with the car’s sophisticated F-duct system.
<<<<<<<<

[747heavy]

I don`t know how accurate these numbers are, but it adds some "food for thought" to the weigth distribution debate.
And maybe gives an idea of how much "free" ballast teams now have or don´t have.
Maybe it also helps to explain where some people, perhaps, went off into the wrong direction, with there assumption in regards to the 2010 tires.

In my book, it´s still no excuse, as it was the same for everyone, but I can see that if someone fully commited to that, he is in hot water now.

courtesy of Alonso-planet.com

>>>>>>

Minimum Weight

KERS was a pain and we discussed this last year in detail as to how the KERS will add a good 30-45Kgs on the car towards the rear or at best closer to the middle depending on how compact your designs are. Some teams like BMW had bulky designs with radiators to cool the KERS unit down taking up most of the space inside the sidepods. This also forced them to have large and lesser under cut side pods and this hurt their cross section and increased drag. Teams like Ferrari had designed the KERS first and built their cars completely around the concept which made them unable to simply ditch the KERS and get back lost weight distribution flexibility.

People often think why not just remove the KERS and that should cured everything. It is not that simple. The 2009 car had a minimum weight of 605Kgs, the movable ballasts used in 2008 for example where around 25-30Kgs depending on the teams in question. Very little movable ballast was available after all the rigid car parts are accounted for, so when you have a 30-45Kg KERS being thrown in to the mix, weight distribution is a big problem.

In 2008 the weights for most cars where 53-55% forward biased, no KERs, no worries. In 2009 those who had KERS, had at best 50% or less weight to the front, mostly rearward biased. And the Bridgestone always deliver their best when your weight is forward biased. The 2009 cars are already rearward biased in weight so all efforts are to making the cockpit area, seat belts, some elements of the rear suspensions etc lighter in order to afford moving weight forwards.

Ballasts can be fixed ballast as well, like deliberately heavy constructed front suspensions can add weight to the front, but this weight is not movable depending on the needs for the track and driver. This purposeful addition of weight is just a away to make the fronts heavier to compensate. But when you put the KERS in and the overall weight of the car is over 605Kgs. Ferrari would never admit it but their cars were well above the 605Kgs regardless of who the driver was. The same was true for Mclaren which is why you see a huge difference in their mileage compared to that of force India, because the mclarens always had less fuel that they seemed to have. Both Massa and Kimi got reduced weight chassis later on in a bid to have more flexibility on the weight distribution. Norbert Haug even hinted by saying “no one knows how many cars are above the minimum weight minus the fuel”

The problem is clear; whatever movable ballast was available before 2009 is now unavailable if you have KERS on your cars. This means they look for other areas to reduce weight and move it forward. The problem with this is that some parts are now weaker than before because the engineers reduced weights of those components to move the weight forwards. This is a safety problem, like a failed rear suspension can be very dangerous to not only the driver but also the marshals and even spectators close to the fence on the other side.

Raising the weight to 620Kgs means that these weakened parts can now be put back to full strength, and although the rule was change to reduce the penalty of having KERS, FOTA members have agreed to not use KERS, this is good news for weight distribution, we can expect a 51-52% forwards (minus the fuel) weight bias now for 2010, which can only help the balance at least when the fuel levels go down after the first 10-15 laps

Refueling ban

The fuel tank is made from Kevlar composites which have high tensile strength and are bullet proof. These tanks are not really ‘sturdy tanks’ so to speak, they are ‘fuel bags’ to be precise, they can crumble upon impact and prevent an outright explosion. The strength is approximately 1500 MPa.

Now this is positioned right behind the driver’s seating well with short 'arms' extending around the sides of the driver (for some teams), this is done to reduce the center of gravity (CoG) as the fuel is used up and the weight reduces the mass change should not affect the overall balance of the car, but with the tank now doubled in size the fuel tank must be extended either rearwards or forwards underneath the driver. Both have its merits and demerits and will depend on each car’s construction. But the rules don't allow for the modification of the monocoque to have a the fuel tank extend underneath the driver seating well. So the only way the tank will extend is backwards. There is no alternative route alleviate this problem unless the F1 Commission agrees to change the regulations, but perhaps that is exactly the point - they want it to be difficult for the drivers.

As we can see this is just as severe a change as the narrow front tyres, the weights of these cars will be so rearward at the start of a race the cars will get very forward biased by the end of the race when they are nearly on empty tanks. The handling will change significantly on full load to that of no load scenarios that all drivers will now face this in a 2010 race.

So its enviable they will move most of that extra 15kgs they gained (620 - 605kgs) by raising the weight limit, to the front as much as possible plus the abandonment of KERS will help as well. But if you optimize the weight to the front to completely balance out a heavy car full of fuel, it will prove to be a beast when its down on fuel because the handling will change drastically towards the end of a race.

But practically the driver can only try and struggle with the car at first and hope for a balanced car towards the middle of the race and beyond. This is the route teams will have to take. No team can go all out on full fuel weight optimization because the car will be undriveable towards the end. So the drivers will have to deal with a very understeery car at first and then after the first 15-20 laps or so find the car more to their liking and balances itself out as more laps are done and the fuel loads go down. This means tyre management is key. Those who eat their tyres faster will suffer severely (you all know a certain McLaren driver who will be whining next year). Smoother drivers will have the upper hand. Or else you will need more pitstops to change tyres and that’s going to work against you because everyone is continuously losing weight and becoming faster and faster as the laps count down.

You will obviously see the fastest laps being set in the last 10 -15 laps of the race.

The car’s side pods may take a bit of a hit with wider sized pods due to the placement of the larger fuel tank. But then again some teams have very efficient engines that can deal with reduced radiator sizes and still be cooled well enough and therefore freeing up some space that can be used by the larger fuel tank and related bulkheads.

<<<<<<

[marcush.]

747h,

I think that was the agenda of Ross Brawn....

they were thinking of a weight distribution of 51 front 49 rear and somehow hoped through a driver forward cab to counter that rearward move of the CG with lowering fuel loads...

The truth was ,the weight split was considerably more to the rear ,say 45 front 55 rear and suddenly the forward placed fuel tank and the increased crosssection off the driver in a more crumbled seating position were there for nothing .As the big mass of the front overworked the tyres and the weight split being forward robbed them of traction as well.Moving the front tyres forward has limits due to steering rack position and suspension pickuppoints,and of course the drooping nose ,wich is homologated part and any more forward would hamper front aero as the nose would affect flow between the front tyres ..