Mercedes W09 Speculation Thread

[mmred]

so you are trying to tell everyone its PU advantage that wins Merc every title for 4 years ? They must have had a hard time fighting off all the other Mercedes Powered cars with identical engines.

As for Ferrari's advantage in Monaco, Singapore and Hungary, I personally felt it was more down to Merc's longer wheel base that hurt their chances.

well, we dont know the previous years situation cause merc. had even too much pu adv. to even make an aero comparison, but this year they surely had aero problems ( obviously compared to ferrari and redbull not to everybody, and tenths not ethernities ) ad they won thanks to the pu, but this year there was an aero revolution , next year cars will be closer aerowise

as for the force india bs. i already replied, that s inconsistent... they dont have same maps and pus, they have client versions

lauda told they had an aero load disadv. and if monaco and sep. were probably also tracks in wich they could have problems due to wheel base, hun. not so much ( it is less a sharp corners track, it s just an aero track ) they also had problems in malesia in fast corners ( sometimes they could not put temperature in the rear tyres and temperatures come from aero load and suspensions, the low rake philosophy and lesser load created problems also on mid speed tracks that were more hard on tyres performance, because of tarmack or the turn drift )

still the overall best car, but definitely with flaws saved by the pu adv. ( and they are an year ahead to ferrari in that sector, the first pu behind, it s not little , as we know from admission that just one year llater ferrari has broken the 1khp barrier )

[NathanOlder]

You're fully entitled to you're opinion so we'll just leave this argument for another day.

[F1Krof]

I don't believe the problems lied dully on Aero.

For sure Monaco and probably Mexico were tough on the Merc's slow speed disadvantage. But the disadvantage were more to the inability to use to keep the tires in the correct working window.

Hungary they were not that far off. I believe in race they were faster than the Ferraris but couldn't overtake them (Hungary being a tough race to overtake).

Singapore, well the crashes aside, the temperature drooped and Hamilton remember was asked to slow and decrease the gap to Ricciardo since it was going to fast and the safety car was resetting the gap to null.

As far as Malaysia. There were no Aero problems at all. Simply the track was too hot and abrasive and they were overheating the tyres.

So your argument that Merc only won on power does not stand. The consensus is that Ferrari were merely 15 bhp behind the Merc.

[wesley123]

I'm 100% certain that Mercedes did not have a aero disadvantage as is being claimed. Their aero is way too complex to say that they have a disadvantage, the aero detail on their car is unequaled in F1 (or any other motorsports for that matter). This alone gives a very good suggestion that they know what they are doing, as with such detail you would simply lose the plot on what you are doing.
Also the cape that they introduced in Spain is unique on the field, and is uncharacteristic to do if you have a disadvantage.

Teams often are seen copying the good designs, in 2012-2013 everyone followed Red Bulls trend on the front wing, but this changed for 2014 where everyone went to Mercedes' design.

The Mercedes has been copied fairly heavily over the past few seasons, and you simply don't copy someone if their design sucks, because then it would be Mercedes copying from the rest.

As much as we can all agree that the Merc PU is the best, F1 still is an aero dominated formula. No matter how good your engine is, you wont win races unless your aero is good.

imo Mercs problems have largely been mechanical; They have had issues getting the tires to work, and didn't have a solution that consistently worked over the course of the season. Also, Merc has always struggled in Singapore, and no one seems to know why that is the one track they suck at.

[Vanja #66]

On this matter, I found this article from Mark Hughes very useful... Back to basics, basically

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ch-f1-2018

I wont say anything because it really should be read fully...

[mmred]

I don't believe the problems lied dully on Aero.

For sure Monaco and probably Mexico were tough on the Merc's slow speed disadvantage. But the disadvantage were more to the inability to use to keep the tires in the correct working window.

Hungary they were not that far off. I believe in race they were faster than the Ferraris but couldn't overtake them (Hungary being a tough race to overtake).

Singapore, well the crashes aside, the temperature drooped and Hamilton remember was asked to slow and decrease the gap to Ricciardo since it was going to fast and the safety car was resetting the gap to null.

As far as Malaysia. There were no Aero problems at all. Simply the track was too hot and abrasive and they were overheating the tyres.

So your argument that Merc only won on power does not stand. The consensus is that Ferrari were merely 15 bhp behind the Merc.

i presented a deep analysis

if the tyre overheat is basically because they receive too much load from aero, but not enough too keep it from drifiting so the tyre accumulates heat in the lateral friction ... that means they had an aero problem ... an aero problem emphatizied but the stiff suspensions that increases the peaks and so the drifts in the load transitions

well of course after half race merc was faster: in hun. ferrari managed the race with vettel with a broken front suspension...

if merc did not succeed in havin performance in every load track (also when tyre is more stressed you solve it with aero load to avoid lateral friction so it becomes a load track even if the circuit map seems different ) is because they had not enough aero load and that s a limit not a feature, of course sometimes you trade it with something else, ( a little less drag ) sometimes that someting you seek somewhere else isnt as good as you tought it was ( and you have to change everything to compensate ) and the limit is bigger than the advantage ( the discussion is about this not something is 100% better, but something is overall better but compensed by pu )

yes they had enormous details but beware, it s not that you dont pay those details with drag, everytime you put a surface and impress a deviation you have a drag, so if other top cars didnt use all these details is because they had a better flux directed around the sidepods and under and over the diffuser and needed less bodywork to achieve that load ( this basically because more rake makes the car higher and because the mercedes nose had complex implications that altough estethically more clean it brought disadvantages in the flux under the nose and in deviating too much flux far from the sidepods that s why they put the cape and why tororosso with a similar solution was probably a disaster of a car.. new noses suck but are better aerowise )

for sure with increase in horsepower everyone adds more aero load so more surfaces will be a future solution for everybody, but merc could afford it because it had more horsepower already

the 15hp consensum is pretty laughable if you see monza, brazil, bottas in sochi, austria and attempts in barhein and so on but it doesnt matter, the fuel consumption advantage of around 10% is the FACTOR HERE
lets agree to disagree

[mmred]

On this matter, I found this article from Mark Hughes very useful... Back to basics, basically

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ch-f1-2018

I wont say anything because it really should be read fully...

it seems reasonable, ferrari doesnt need adv. just on load tracks so it tries to have a car more performant on faster ones and mercedes has to defend on load tracks
also ferrari did not optimize all the wheel base avaiable while mercedes overdid it and missed the rake philosophy

problem is next year will be a mercedes dominion, cause aero perfomance were already closing trough the season, if the suspensions tricks arent allowed anymore ( and so redbull cant recover or ferrari invent anything, but they suck there lately), it will become hard to beat the pu ( i know many disagree, but that s what we ve seen so far, it doesnt mean mercedes engineers are incompetent in the other fields, sometimes people can do better in other fields, they just have an ace in the pu from 4 years thats all , hope pu performance from 4 costructors will match to see better races anyway f1 in the meanwhile has been pretty boring )

[adrianjordan]

problem is nobody said you can win with a non top aero and suspension too
but these new rules drhamatically affected F1 toward a pu dominated one, with not the best aero ( Ferrari last year ) and not the best suspensions ( Redbull at least from mid season ) you still can win a season if the pu is so strong .. that s what happened last year

What is the definition of best aero?

The aero that wins

[Big Mangalhit]

Classic recipe for disaster, for Ferrari. Every time there are these rumors about "Big Gains" at Ferrari (visit the Ferrari thread), they suffer badly. Mercedes keeps the news internal in a very guarded manner. They neither speak about their strengths, nor their weaknesses. So, to believe in a a news piece from Italian media, is just worthless in my opinion.

That is quite true last years. 2016 was previewed as a strong Ferrari year and they sucked at the beginning. While 2017 was viewed as a disaster for Ferrari (predictions put them at best in 3rd, sometimes even in 4th after James Alison mid year departure during the regulations overhaul) and they did were very strong at the beginning.

But... if historical events are a sure way to predict the future no point in even having races this year. Just give the trophies to mercedes, they historically win overtime with this engine regulation.

I think more than Ferrari media hype, it is a case of F1 media hype. They need to sell us that we'll have competion this year. We'll probably hear a lot of great rumours coming from milton keys as well.

[Big Mangalhit]

I'm 100% certain that Mercedes did not have a aero disadvantage as is being claimed. Their aero is way too complex to say that they have a disadvantage, the aero detail on their car is unequaled in F1 (or any other motorsports for that matter). This alone gives a very good suggestion that they know what they are doing, as with such detail you would simply lose the plot on what you are doing.
Also the cape that they introduced in Spain is unique on the field, and is uncharacteristic to do if you have a disadvantage.

Teams often are seen copying the good designs, in 2012-2013 everyone followed Red Bulls trend on the front wing, but this changed for 2014 where everyone went to Mercedes' design.

The Mercedes has been copied fairly heavily over the past few seasons, and you simply don't copy someone if their design sucks, because then it would be Mercedes copying from the rest.

As much as we can all agree that the Merc PU is the best, F1 still is an aero dominated formula. No matter how good your engine is, you wont win races unless your aero is good.

imo Mercs problems have largely been mechanical; They have had issues getting the tires to work, and didn't have a solution that consistently worked over the course of the season. Also, Merc has always struggled in Singapore, and no one seems to know why that is the one track they suck at.

Yes but to be fair the Ferrari was also quite copied. RB copied first they're 2015 sidepod philosophy and this year they just completely copied their sidepod turning vane.

As which had the best aero, I think it's just a very weird question. It's like asking which one has the best front part, or nose or whatever. It's hard to separate Aero from suspension and engine. A better suspension can make your aero more stable, a better engine can allow you more AoA, a better aero can make you put more aggressive throttle, and deliver better drivability out of slow corners (remember when Renault engine struggled with corners in early 2015).
This concepts are just too interconnected to be analysed separately especially with our "data". So I guess we can only know which car was better overall... and it was hands down the Mercedes. The almost 150pts difference can't be attributed solely to driver differences/mistakes.

[f1316]

I'm 100% certain that Mercedes did not have a aero disadvantage as is being claimed. Their aero is way too complex to say that they have a disadvantage, the aero detail on their car is unequaled in F1 (or any other motorsports for that matter). This alone gives a very good suggestion that they know what they are doing, as with such detail you would simply lose the plot on what you are doing.
Also the cape that they introduced in Spain is unique on the field, and is uncharacteristic to do if you have a disadvantage.

Teams often are seen copying the good designs, in 2012-2013 everyone followed Red Bulls trend on the front wing, but this changed for 2014 where everyone went to Mercedes' design.

The Mercedes has been copied fairly heavily over the past few seasons, and you simply don't copy someone if their design sucks, because then it would be Mercedes copying from the rest.

As much as we can all agree that the Merc PU is the best, F1 still is an aero dominated formula. No matter how good your engine is, you wont win races unless your aero is good.

imo Mercs problems have largely been mechanical; They have had issues getting the tires to work, and didn't have a solution that consistently worked over the course of the season. Also, Merc has always struggled in Singapore, and no one seems to know why that is the one track they suck at.

Yes but to be fair the Ferrari was also quite copied. RB copied first they're 2015 sidepod philosophy and this year they just completely copied their sidepod turning vane.

As which had the best aero, I think it's just a very weird question. It's like asking which one has the best front part, or nose or whatever. It's hard to separate Aero from suspension and engine. A better suspension can make your aero more stable, a better engine can allow you more AoA, a better aero can make you put more aggressive throttle, and deliver better drivability out of slow corners (remember when Renault engine struggled with corners in early 2015).
This concepts are just too interconnected to be analysed separately especially with our "data". So I guess we can only know which car was better overall... and it was hands down the Mercedes. The almost 150pts difference can't be attributed solely to driver differences/mistakes.

Absolutely spot on.

[De Jokke]

interview with Toto:

https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/merced ... n-preview/

is it me or doesn't he seem that confident?

[dimitarvv]

interview with Toto:

https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/merced ... n-preview/

is it me or doesn't he seem that confident?

It’s like he’s just trying not to laugh.

[digitalrurouni]

I gotta say I like how Merc is using social media to reach out to its fans. Those videos are great. I gotta say Toto is a great team boss and seems like a fun guy to work with. Of course that could be his persona on screen and could be a total meanie in real life. But I say bring on the new season and bring on the W09!!!

[roon]

interview with Toto:

https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/merced ... n-preview/

is it me or doesn't he seem that confident?

It’s like he’s just trying not to laugh.

Because he just got finished hanging that poster in the background.