Team: Ross Brawn (TP), Nick Fry (CEO), Norbert Haug (VP, Mercedes Motorsport), Thomas Fuhr (MD, engines), Loïc Bigois (HA)
Drivers: Michael Schumacher (3), Nico Rosberg (4), Nick Heidfeld (Test)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
mep wrote:
What is so hard in building a new lighter spliter?
Sounds very easy when you can solve your problems with that.
wesley123 wrote:yes and then you still got to move the weight backwards, wich is the problem.
As Wesley said.
When you optimize car for a certain weight distribution, having to change the front splitter weight and --- it backwards into a compact and tight rear can be an issue.
This can be overcome, but what about the aero balance?
This then needs to be changed.
And what you are left with is a compromised car.
the car had to extend its slitter and plank to stay legal with the wheelbase elongating..it will forward the cop for the plank section ..but what about the sidepod raised floor ? that would stay were it is ..so how much is the splitter contributing to overall downforce /cop position..
The reat of the car looks not that different...I´d guess the aairbox might have reduced lift of the centre section of the car and help the rear wing so it might be the reason why they are soooo slow on straights they need that barndor rear wing to move their aero to the back.
No wonder they do not really put effort in the front then..
marcush. wrote:The reat of the car looks not that different...I´d guess the aairbox might have reduced lift of the centre section of the car and help the rear wing so it might be the reason why they are soooo slow on straights they need that barndor rear wing to move their aero to the back. No wonder they do not really put effort in the front then..
Yer, they've chased raw aerodynamic figures without any consideration of the balance of the car. Their two element front wing, which they introduced last year, just isn't cutting the mustard and the front is where they really should be concentrating their effort. Without assessing how the airflow happens at the front, which affects the rear, they're wasting their time. This stems from a poor front-end aerodynamic problem.
Unless they can actually build a front-wing that works with the rest of the car it doesn't matter what they do. The weight bias is the wrong treatment for the disease, and the fact that they're faffing with it and it's made no difference whatsoever thus far shows they're a bit baffled and are trying to take the easy route. It's not a good sign. This just looks like Honda aerodynamics reloaded.
marcush. wrote:the car had to extend its slitter and plank to stay legal with the wheelbase elongating..it will forward the cop for the plank section ..but what about the sidepod raised floor ? that would stay were it is ..so how much is the splitter contributing to overall downforce /cop position..
The reat of the car looks not that different...I´d guess the aairbox might have reduced lift of the centre section of the car and help the rear wing so it might be the reason why they are soooo slow on straights they need that barndor rear wing to move their aero to the back.
No wonder they do not really put effort in the front then..
The issues they have they are stuck with. The nose is unique in its porperties and was intended to work specifically with the front wing. To change the front wing without changing the rest would be a move of resource suicide.
The whole aero concept would need to be recalculated. So the balnce/weight problem has had an impact on its aero as I posted earlier. To correct it would mean a new front end. And that is not possible this year under homologation rules.
The front wing can be changed without changing the rest. We've seen this done repeatedly with other teams. It's not as critical as most think it is.
As long as a new front wing is completely better, downstream of it does not need to be changed.
They don't have to reinvent the front wing, they just need an alternate design with more favourable characteristics.
This has happen many times in the past..I remember with Heiki and Lewis, and Alonso and Massa; where one driver uses the old wing and the other the new wing.
ringo wrote:The front wing can be changed without changing the rest. We've seen this done repeatedly with other teams. It's not as critical as most think it is.
As long as a new front wing is completely better, downstream of it does not need to be changed.
They don't have to reinvent the front wing, they just need an alternate design with more favourable characteristics.
Ringo I would agree, but I think Mercedes were looking for a specific effect from the wing/nose combination. The front wing has not changed much since March 2009, and I wouldnt be at all surprised if it has somthing to do with some vortex effect that a poster kindly put up with a 3d wind model very early on in the thread.
The change cannot really be made because it would go against the awkward nose design. Renault can change at will I agree, but there nose is pretty simple in comparison to the W01.
Im no aerodynamicist, but I do know if Mercedes can cut the air intakes, add an F-duct and have 2 versions of a blown diffuser, then recreating the front wing would be a formality.
Im speculating here, which is why you may be right. But I think the problem runs far deeper, or we would have seen a change of tact by the team.
I know, it´s not nice to say, and I can understand that it makes your heart bleed, but in a roundabout way, one could say, that the whole concept of the W01 "sucks".
I´m sure, they had the best intentions, but it looks like, that they are pretty deep in the woods now, with the whole thing.
Some things, just don´t stack up, and they have to come up with some improvements rather quickly, otherwise there is a fair chance that Renault will overtake them in the WCC standings.
And the problem is not money/budget IMHO. Sure it allways is easier with more money, but they went chasing the wrong butterfly, more money in June last year would not have made much of a difference, and 200 people more willnot help, if you run off in the wrong direction.
I think, that this is their challenge now. They need to understand, why they where running off in this direction. They have a conceptual problem, and more money, more people or a better infrastructure would not help, if you have the wrong idea/concept.
I don´t blame Merc for it, they can/could do little about it, as they where late to the party.
But now it´s up to them, to get the house in order.
Either by opening the chequebook or by generating enough "pull" for the right/good technical people to join their team.
The current people for one reason or the other have not come up with the right concept at the right time.
It seems that the efficiency of this group, is not that great, if you need 15 month and xxx million to come up with a winner, when the current development cycle in F1 is 8 month and xx million to do the job.
I hope that they have not lost the "good" pople and keeped the "bad" ones in there reshuffle.
Can they do it? I´m sure they can. But there need to be some hard questions ask, and some changes made to the technical side of the operation.
Ross Bawn, M.S. and a good engine, is not enough to get the job done these days.
This is where I´m not so sure if the resource restriction is really helping them.
Because now, more then ever, you need to be sure that you have the "right" 300-400 people in your team.
Now, you cannot compensate for any shortcommings by throwing money and resources at the problem. As we have seen in the past, there where times when Ferrari or McLaren would get it wrong at the beginning of the year, but if you have enough money and resources you could develop yourself out of the hole.
You would just built a B-spec chassis etc, or bring a massive aero update. If you have enough money and resources, it does not really matter where you start, as long as you can run more iterrations then anybody else, you will sooner or later arrive at the "optimum".
Now, with all the restriction, no testing, no B-spec chassis, no engine development, if you get it wrong - boy you are going to suffer for a long time, better to make sure you don´t get it wrong, in the first place !!!
Because, if this happens, you can´t really do anything about it, you just have to suck it up, for that year.
Still, I wish them the best, but it´s not an easy task.
Last edited by 747heavy on 17 Aug 2010, 23:55, edited 2 times in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
I actually agree that it sucks, Im a fan not a fanboy
I expected more for one, but there are roots to every problem as we all know.
B-spec chassis are not really plausible this year either, under the homologation rules.
The Brawn knows better than anyone what to do next. Its why Mercedes invested.
The problem this year is that they half a half baked car, with a good engine that shows speed very rarley and only in small windows of time.
The missive for next year is to win, and they need a fresh sheet of paper to do so.
Mercedes will need a totally new concept because it is very clear that the current concept has more pitfalls than advantages, and so cannot be continued.
They need to look at Vasselon, and to other technical staff that will become available in the next 3-6 months with all teams falling into line with the resource restriction.
Brawn will have a strategy, its how he works. He may already have changed things behind the scenes.
Hirings and firings go on all the time in F1, and it is very very hard to source info on staff. Unless a team gives a press release on who is coming or going, it is impossible to source a list. I have tried!
Its like Skunkworks or Area 51!
I know things will change, but for better or worse?
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:I actually agree that it sucks, Im a fan not a fanboy
I expected more for one, but there are roots to every problem as we all know.
B-spec chassis are not really plausible this year either, under the homologation rules.
The Brawn knows better than anyone what to do next. Its why Mercedes invested.
The problem this year is that they half a half baked car, with a good engine that shows speed very rarley and only in small windows of time.
The missive for next year is to win, and they need a fresh sheet of paper to do so.
Mercedes will need a totally new concept because it is very clear that the current concept has more pitfalls than advantages, and so cannot be continued.
They need to look at Vasselon, and to other technical staff that will become available in the next 3-6 months with all teams falling into line with the resource restriction.
Brawn will have a strategy, its how he works. He may already have changed things behind the scenes.
Hirings and firings go on all the time in F1, and it is very very hard to source info on staff. Unless a team gives a press release on who is coming or going, it is impossible to source a list. I have tried!
Its like Skunkworks or Area 51!
I know things will change, but for better or worse?
The engine is probably the best thing in the whole package
The other teams will not fire there good people, so I don´t think that´s really helping anyone.
Merc/Brawn need to identify some key people and try to get them.
I would say as a estimate from the ~400 people in a team 50-70 are "mission critical" in the positons/areas where you need people who are ontop or close to the top of there game.
The rest will follow. Here I see the "problem" with the ressource restrictions, you can´t really compensate for any short comings in other areas. So that means the price for people like Adrian Newey etc. will go up. There is also a trend away from the "star designers" to a more collective approach (for better or worse), to try to keep as much know how in the team/organiztion, in case someone defects to the "other side".
The main challenge is to make all these "geniuses" work together as a team.
I have seen what it looks like when a manufacturer just tries to buy "all what money can buy", as far as specialists/people go.
It did not help much, as there was a lot of internal fighting and controvery between the ex-xxx people and the ex-yyy people with the ex-zzz people.
A champion team will beat a team of champions.
I think, this is where Jean Todt deserves a lot of respect for creating the "perfect storm"/"the perfect team" at Ferrari.
I hope Ross has taken some lessons and can make it work now - for him & Merc.
We will see, the heat is on, and the expectations are high. ( not from me, but from the general public/ the press etc.)
I think it´s possible, but time will tell.
Last edited by 747heavy on 18 Aug 2010, 00:01, edited 1 time in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
And somthing I have been trying to say for some time.
"The car we currently have is almost a 'survivor' from last year, which had already been shaped, moulded and developed for us. And we as drivers have had to make compromises accordingly."
=D> =D> =D>
absolutely.
the fish gets smelly head first they say....and my view is the head of design/chief designer is the real important guy who either has to be god ,like newey or an integrative /moderator type.
It starts to get fishy when God looses his earthing ,interest or just missed the boat on some important development-see Barnard...for example
it also is going to be a big issue if God is not god but he behaves like he was.
i could dwell on forever ,the point is the leader of a group is responsible for
extracting the most and best out of the group and out of the individuals and that seems to have not happened this year.Their proceedures and analyses were wrong or at least it was communicated in the wrong ways...That car has considerable weaknesses that cannotz be rectified as it looks .I´m VERY sure some people at MGP
said this from day one but it was decided to go that very route,nevertheless.
The good thing is you learn most from the things that go wrong big time ,as you are forced to ask and answer very severe questions in the process.If things go smooth ,no questions ,no learning.I guess that was their big mistake last year:they did not understand what happened with their tyre situation and as there were some races were they did not suffer tyre issues and Button with his calm approach ,they were content ,or even complacent about it ..AND wrongly analysed the situation for 2010....
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:From Schumacher this morning.
And somthing I have been trying to say for some time.
"The car we currently have is almost a 'survivor' from last year, which had already been shaped, moulded and developed for us. And we as drivers have had to make compromises accordingly."
Rosberg speaking of a winner car ,but Schumacher talking about problems ..from the outset ..speaks volumes about their views...it is obvious rosberg was no big help to williams developping their cars..?
Rosbergs inexperience at development is tempered by the fact he had a a toyota engined Williams last year. No wonder the W01 "felt" like a winning car.
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:The issues they have they are stuck with. The nose is unique in its porperties and was intended to work specifically with the front wing. To change the front wing without changing the rest would be a move of resource suicide.
This is nonsense. The front wing can be changed and other teams have been doing it consistently. The problem is that they cannot work out what is wrong with that two element front wing or work out why an alternative would be better. If they had they would have sorted it out last year. This has been a year long problem now.
