2015 Testing Comparative Performance Speculation Thread

[Jordan44]

It seems like, many people here think the 2014 Mercedes domination it's the result of the best PU. (Only)

On the rain of Suzuka, Mercedes proove at each other they aerodynamic and chassis superiority. Vettel finish 22sec behind Hamilton !
They found a solution for the tyres issues, I take the same exemple than before : Hamilton on worn Supersoft tyre create 25sec pit window against RB on fresh hard tyres. Rosberg achieve 99% of the race at Sotchi on one set of medium tyres (56 Laps).

Obvioulsy, it was possible to missed the conception of a car, but with very similar regulations and the big ressources of team plus the proximity between Brackley and Brixworth, Mercedes seems difficult to beat. BUT that will be closer, and if the rivalry between Hamilton and Rosberg turn to a fight, they can lost may point, point for the challengers..

PU advantage:
1. Power advantage = speed, acceleration also allows running more df - makes chassis and aero look good.

2. MGU-K power deployment = faster and smoother power delivery helps tyre life in acceleration situations, increases acceleration, makes car more drivable in wet conditions = makes chassis and aero look good.

MGU-K harvesting = better brake stability - makes chassis and aero look good,

So yes, All of merc's superiority is down to the PU advantage.
Newey also says Engines are too dominant.

Having better top speeds may allow them to crank on more DF, but they need to be able to find that DF in the first place by having a very good aero package.

If Mercedes had a good engine in a bad car then Red Bull would have won more races, simple as. They would have won races with no Mercedes reliability problems/driver incidents. However they didn't, because the W05 chassis was near enough on par with the RB10

[Spoutnik]

It seems like, many people here think the 2014 Mercedes domination it's the result of the best PU. (Only)

On the rain of Suzuka, Mercedes proove at each other they aerodynamic and chassis superiority. Vettel finish 22sec behind Hamilton !
They found a solution for the tyres issues, I take the same exemple than before : Hamilton on worn Supersoft tyre create 25sec pit window against RB on fresh hard tyres. Rosberg achieve 99% of the race at Sotchi on one set of medium tyres (56 Laps).

Obvioulsy, it was possible to missed the conception of a car, but with very similar regulations and the big ressources of team plus the proximity between Brackley and Brixworth, Mercedes seems difficult to beat. BUT that will be closer, and if the rivalry between Hamilton and Rosberg turn to a fight, they can lost may point, point for the challengers..

PU advantage:
1. Power advantage = speed, acceleration also allows running more df - makes chassis and aero look good.

2. MGU-K power deployment = faster and smoother power delivery helps tyre life in acceleration situations, increases acceleration, makes car more drivable in wet conditions = makes chassis and aero look good.

MGU-K harvesting = better brake stability - makes chassis and aero look good,

So yes, All of merc's superiority is down to the PU advantage.
Newey also says Engines are too dominant.

Yes, that's a reality, but in 2013 the Merc had already a good chassis.

I can't think all of this year pace is the result of only th best PU. If it's to easy, all of the Mercedes client powered team trust the outsider place above Red Bull or Ferrari.

Mercedes = Best package last year.

[Juzh]

Spanish GP 2014, a race in which presumably everyone runs max DF they can. RB10 is flat trough last turn during the race. W05 isn't during Q3. That's power for you.

[Chene_Mostert]

No,
having a major top speed advantage means you don't need efficient DF, they can afford drag due to their power advantage, so all they have to do is just crank on more wing if they want more DF.

[PlatinumZealot]

I did not want to admit it myself last year, but Mercedes had a very good aerodynamic package. You could see all the little nuances; the curved front wings, the little bat wing under the nose, the forked control arms, the trapezoidal air intakes, ultra tight side pods, the monkey throne, fancy rear wing, fancy brake ducts... Everything you could see on a RedBull the Mercedes had it, with sugar on top. They have a fantastic chassis. No doubt all those chefs were really working in those two years leading up to these regs.

On another note... I really came here for the race simulation graphs. Who was doing it last year? Where is he?

[SectorOne]

Spoutnik it's not what I think but what I know Merc Dominance was only down to their PU advantage.

PU advantage:
1. Power advantage = speed, acceleration also allows running more df - makes chassis and aero look good.

2. MGU-K power deployment = faster and smoother power delivery helps tyre life in acceleration situations, increases acceleration, makes car more drivable in wet conditions = makes chassis and aero look good.

MGU-K harvesting = better brake stability - makes chassis and aero look good,

So yes, All of merc's superiority is down to the PU advantage.
Newey also says Engines are too dominant.
Also what does the proximity of Brixworth to Brackley have to do with merc advantage?
Ferrari chassis and engine plant is 322 meters apart, would this make them the dominant team?

Except that in Monaco and Singapore you slap on all you got. What happened?
Mercedes proved they just did not have the PU but also an incredible chassis and incredible downforce.

To say all of Mercedes advantage is down to the PU alone is bullsh*t. Just pure propaganda..

If it was true, Mercedes powered teams would be 1-2-3-4 in the championship standings.
So what happened? Red Bull second and Ferrari third... hmm... maybe it´s more to it then just an engine?

Fact is to win a world championship you need the full package, aero, chassis, engine. They ticked all boxes.

[Jordan44]

Spoutnik it's not what I think but what I know Merc Dominance was only down to their PU advantage.

PU advantage:
1. Power advantage = speed, acceleration also allows running more df - makes chassis and aero look good.

2. MGU-K power deployment = faster and smoother power delivery helps tyre life in acceleration situations, increases acceleration, makes car more drivable in wet conditions = makes chassis and aero look good.

MGU-K harvesting = better brake stability - makes chassis and aero look good,

So yes, All of merc's superiority is down to the PU advantage.
Newey also says Engines are too dominant.
Also what does the proximity of Brixworth to Brackley have to do with merc advantage?
Ferrari chassis and engine plant is 322 meters apart, would this make them the dominant team?

Except that in Monaco and Singapore you slap on all you got. What happened?
Mercedes proved they just did not have the PU but also an incredible chassis and incredible downforce.

To say all of Mercedes advantage is down to the PU alone is bullsh*t. Just pure propaganda..

I've got a feeling he's incredibly biased towards another team and just purposely downplays Mercedes success. I gave up.

[Chene_Mostert]

I did not want to admit it myself last year, but Mercedes had a very good aerodynamic package. You could see all the little nuances; the curved front wings, the little bat wing under the nose, the forked control arms, the trapezoidal air intakes, ultra tight side pods, the monkey throne, fancy rear wing, fancy brake ducts... Everything you could see on a RedBull the Mercedes had it, with sugar on top. They have a fantastic chassis. No doubt all those chefs were really working in those two years leading up to these regs.

On another note... I really came here for the race simulation graphs. Who was doing it last year? Where is he?

No,
there is no way to judge their Aero and chassis package with such a big PU advantage. we can only judge Aero and chassis when all PU's performance are closer.

Obviously you are looking at merc aero/design features with rose tinted glasses (suggested by your profile pic) and not thinking laterally and definitely not analysing critically.
If Merc looked like Sauber you would still consider it to be the best aero package out there.

[Chene_Mostert]

Spoutnik it's not what I think but what I know Merc Dominance was only down to their PU advantage.

PU advantage:
1. Power advantage = speed, acceleration also allows running more df - makes chassis and aero look good.

2. MGU-K power deployment = faster and smoother power delivery helps tyre life in acceleration situations, increases acceleration, makes car more drivable in wet conditions = makes chassis and aero look good.

MGU-K harvesting = better brake stability - makes chassis and aero look good,

So yes, All of merc's superiority is down to the PU advantage.
Newey also says Engines are too dominant.
Also what does the proximity of Brixworth to Brackley have to do with merc advantage?
Ferrari chassis and engine plant is 322 meters apart, would this make them the dominant team?

Except that in Monaco and Singapore you slap on all you got. What happened?
Mercedes proved they just did not have the PU but also an incredible chassis and incredible downforce.

To say all of Mercedes advantage is down to the PU alone is bullsh*t. Just pure propaganda..

I've got a feeling he's incredibly biased towards another team and just purposely downplays Mercedes success. I gave up.

Oh no
Just open minded, and considering that the possibility exist for other teams to get their PU's on the same level as Merc.
At the end of the day it is a technical item with design restrictions, If one team can get it to work others can also

[SectorOne]

Just open minded, and considering that the possibility exist for other teams to get their PU's on the same level as Merc.
At the end of the day it is a technical item with design restrictions, If one team can get it to work others can also

Open minded? "considering"

you haven´t considered anything, you´ve already decided what your beliefs are.

"When I look at the lap time deltas that we have to Mercedes and I look at some of their speeds through the high-speed corners, that's pure aerodynamics," he said.

"They've got some significant advantages over us in pure aerodynamics. So yes, there's still a lot to be had in aero.

"Even comparing it to the teams that traditionally had good aerodynamics, like Red Bull, Mercedes are still significantly quicker. We've got a lot to learn from them.

- Andy Green

Now do we believe a guy on F1T or an engineer working for an F1 team that obviously have taken into account them running extra wing on the car at SOME tracks?

I´ll give you some examples of when the engine is superior but the chassis, aero is not.
Williams BMW 2001-2005
Mclaren 2014
Williams 2014
Force India 2014

Your logic fails on the fact that if it was 100% engine, Mclaren, Williams, Force India, Mercedes all would be Top 4 in the WCC standings. Don´t need to be a genius to understand this.

[PlatinumZealot]

I did not want to admit it myself last year, but Mercedes had a very good aerodynamic package. You could see all the little nuances; the curved front wings, the little bat wing under the nose, the forked control arms, the trapezoidal air intakes, ultra tight side pods, the monkey throne, fancy rear wing, fancy brake ducts... Everything you could see on a RedBull the Mercedes had it, with sugar on top. They have a fantastic chassis. No doubt all those chefs were really working in those two years leading up to these regs.

On another note... I really came here for the race simulation graphs. Who was doing it last year? Where is he?

No,
there is no way to judge their Aero and chassis package with such a big PU advantage. we can only judge Aero and chassis when all PU's performance are closer.

Obviously you are looking at merc aero/design features with rose tinted glasses (suggested by your profile pic) and not thinking laterally and definitely not analysing critically.
If Merc looked like Sauber you would still consider it to be the best aero package out there.

Williams had the exact same engine. The same for Force India and Mclaren. And I do believe that on some tracks Williams could have beaten them fair and square if their drivers were of a higher caliber.

[Chene_Mostert]

Just open minded, and considering that the possibility exist for other teams to get their PU's on the same level as Merc.
At the end of the day it is a technical item with design restrictions, If one team can get it to work others can also

Open minded? "considering"

you haven´t considered anything, you´ve already decided what your beliefs are.

"When I look at the lap time deltas that we have to Mercedes and I look at some of their speeds through the high-speed corners, that's pure aerodynamics," he said.

"They've got some significant advantages over us in pure aerodynamics. So yes, there's still a lot to be had in aero.

"Even comparing it to the teams that traditionally had good aerodynamics, like Red Bull, Mercedes are still significantly quicker. We've got a lot to learn from them.

- Andy Green

Now do we believe a guy on F1T or an engineer working for an F1 team that obviously have taken into account them running extra wing on the car at SOME tracks?

I´ll give you an example of when the engine is superior but the chassis, aero is not.
Williams BMW.

Well sectorOne
No need to get aggressive because I don't share the same fascination with Merc's godliness.
I'm sure I am entitled to my opinion and to debate points where I might have an alternate view?
I am willing to see how the season pans out, either way some will feel their comments were justified and some will be disappointed.
Fortunately I'm not a blinkered Merc follower so my odds are 4:1 in favour of not being disappointed.

[turbof1]

I did not want to admit it myself last year, but Mercedes had a very good aerodynamic package. You could see all the little nuances; the curved front wings, the little bat wing under the nose, the forked control arms, the trapezoidal air intakes, ultra tight side pods, the monkey throne, fancy rear wing, fancy brake ducts... Everything you could see on a RedBull the Mercedes had it, with sugar on top. They have a fantastic chassis. No doubt all those chefs were really working in those two years leading up to these regs.

On another note... I really came here for the race simulation graphs. Who was doing it last year? Where is he?

No,
there is no way to judge their Aero and chassis package with such a big PU advantage. we can only judge Aero and chassis when all PU's performance are closer.

Obviously you are looking at merc aero/design features with rose tinted glasses (suggested by your profile pic) and not thinking laterally and definitely not analysing critically.
If Merc looked like Sauber you would still consider it to be the best aero package out there.

Chene we already talked about this yesterday and in the past: He perhaps might make assumptions, but you are doing just the same. You are telling that there's no way of judging their aero and chassis package, but you are doing exactly that by saying it's all about their PU.

So we are at that moment again: I'm kindly asking you now to stop telling people they can't judge while you are yourself judging. If you don't agree with their arguments, then you'll have to bring counterfacts yourself.

There are some numbers circulating that Mercedes had around 60hp more then the competition, which equals around a second a lap. That's exactly what they had in advantage last year to red bull, which could indicate that if we take that second advantage away, that they have roughly equal chassis and aero performance. We don't know that for sure, but like SectorOne pointed out very nicely, Mercedes had a big advantage at both Singapore and Monaco, the circuits where PU power means the least and downforce the most.

There are other arguments in favor of this infact. Red Bull infact copied Mercedes their RW-endplates, meaning that Mercedes indeed had alteast some solutions which were better then Red Bull's.

[Juzh]

There are some numbers circulating that Mercedes had around 60hp more then the competition, which equals around a second a lap.

And then there's this thing called fuel consumption and weight. All in favour of guess who.

[f1316]

But, in fairness, the bmw engine didn't have nearly the advantage the Mercedes did last year- both in terms of pure power and ability to push lap after lap.

However you are right about the customer cars last year.

I did slightly wonder if Mercedes lucked into fixing their tyre wear problems last year. Their qualifying pace in 2013 was surely aided by the thing that hampered them in the race, I.e an aggressive tyre heating ability. Last year, Pirelli went consciously conservative in order to manage the increased torque, but that fact could have helped Mercedes.