- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Bob Bell (TD), Norbert Haug (VP of Mercedes-Benz Motorsport), Nick Fry (CEO), Ross Brawn (TP), Geoff Willis (Technology Director), Also Costa (Engineering Director)
Drivers: Michael Schumacher (7), Nico Rosberg (8)
If you look at the sector times, you will find that the W03 could have gone to P2 in Melbourne and P1 in Sepang. Also, in Malaysia Schumacher was just as much slower than Hamilton on dry tyres as he was in Q3. They didn't get the inters to work (but still better than JB) and had higher than expected tyre deg in Australia. We don't know anything else.Maelstrom wrote:While its true that Mclaren are clearly faster and the rest of the pack were separated by a few tenths at most MGP has performed well at both races in qualifying. If true to form there is no reason for them to not repeat the performance.madly wrote:I wonder, why you guys still think about W03 as speed killer, ultra qualifying performer?
Look at the facts.
In Sepang qualification first 5 places were in 0.2s and it was shared between 4 different teams including MGP (MCL, MGP, RBR, Lotus)!
If you see speed trap values, and best speed at particular sectors there is no supremacy of W03 at all. Yes W03 is quick, but it's far from F-duct time where MCL had few more km/h speed advantage.
Yes W-duct is innovative but some teams obtain similar results without this system.
Unless ofcourse the car is set up more for race pace and not qualifying.
Could Merc have been on pole in Sepang? Perhaps? But then I already said they have good qualifying pace.skgoa wrote:If you look at the sector times, you will find that the W03 could have gone to P2 in Melbourne and P1 in Sepang. Also, in Malaysia Schumacher was just as much slower than Hamilton on dry tyres as he was in Q3. They didn't get the inters to work (but still better than JB) and had higher than expected tyre deg in Australia. We don't know anything else.Maelstrom wrote:While its true that Mclaren are clearly faster and the rest of the pack were separated by a few tenths at most MGP has performed well at both races in qualifying. If true to form there is no reason for them to not repeat the performance.madly wrote:I wonder, why you guys still think about W03 as speed killer, ultra qualifying performer?
Look at the facts.
In Sepang qualification first 5 places were in 0.2s and it was shared between 4 different teams including MGP (MCL, MGP, RBR, Lotus)!
If you see speed trap values, and best speed at particular sectors there is no supremacy of W03 at all. Yes W03 is quick, but it's far from F-duct time where MCL had few more km/h speed advantage.
Yes W-duct is innovative but some teams obtain similar results without this system.
Unless ofcourse the car is set up more for race pace and not qualifying.
How this forum manages to fill hundreds of pages with what is essentially hot air will never cease to amaze me.
It hasn't dominated the season so yes that is the case.kris wrote: Could the car have an issue with having less downforce than other cars?
aduka11 wrote:They had less downforce...
Just take a look at Kobayashi vs Schumacher battle...Kobayashi was gaining huge amount of time in fast corners...compared to MS.
i dont think it have more aero then any other team, but they are in top aero performances with mclaren and lotus. mercedes and lotus worked hard in aero department this year, it's realy good suprise for fansFerraripilot wrote:aduka11 wrote:They had less downforce...
Just take a look at Kobayashi vs Schumacher battle...Kobayashi was gaining huge amount of time in fast corners...compared to MS.
No, this is not a case of W03 not having enough downforce. Their pace was a result of tire heat, which W03 was not producing enough of therefore the car was operating on non-optimal tires while others were. Just looking at the back end and other details of W03 is enough to tell the car has more aero than most any team out there.
but tyers are problem for Mercedes. i dont know, but maybe for Merc will be good, if they work on faster setup for shorter stints in race but with one more entry on pitstop, if you know what i mean. specialy in GP's who will be using soft and supersoft tires. harder and medium tyers can last longer in race even for Mercedes.
I'm reminded of Magny Cours 2004, where stuck behind Alonso in the first stint, Ferrari made an inspired gamble and switched Michael to a four-stopper. Schu was then unleashed in clean air and proceeded to tear up the track in the next 3 stints at near-qualy pace FTW over Renault. But that was when refueling during pit stops was still the norm...Neno wrote:...i dont know, but maybe for Merc will be good, if they work on faster setup for shorter stints in race but with one more entry on pitstop, if you know what i mean...
Not worth it.elf341 wrote:Does anybody know of any speed-trap data under race conditions (i.e. not F-duct-DRS-enhanced)?
It just occurred to me that Mercedes may have perhaps designed a car to aggressively target one circuit, e.g. Monza, in order to try and extract at least one win this year.
I had told this in few posts before and would re-iterate that, it is my strong feeling that they are having same tyre issues in qualifying as in race. Due to low fuel weight and a strong f-duct, they are qualifying where they have been. Once they resolve the tyre issus, we could see a jump in qualifying performance too. And that would mean improved sector times.Pandabeer wrote:They designed the car to win as much races as possible on every track. IMHO it's not clever to design a car which is "ok" at most tracks and only at a few tracks its "superb". You want to have a car which is always as fast as possible, not saying that the f-duct doesn't give you a greater advantage on some tracks then on others.
//Qualy-Speedtraps shows that the Merc isn't that much faster then other cars. (2 km/h faster at the end of a straight then Lotus or McLaren) IMHO race speedtraps aren't significant.
Yeap - probably better to make a car that's, say... 5th quickest on all tracks; rather than quickest at 1 or 2 circuits and nowhere at other circuits. Kind of like how the 2010 Findia vs the 2009 Findia.Pandabeer wrote:They designed the car to win as much races as possible on every track. IMHO it's not clever to design a car which is "ok" at most tracks and only at a few tracks its "superb".
Doesn't say much. They could have put on more wing; which would then be countered by the F-duct DRS; much like McLaren used to do in 2010//Qualy-Speedtraps shows that the Merc isn't that much faster then other cars. (2 km/h faster at the end of a straight then Lotus or McLaren) IMHO race speedtraps aren't significant.