2021 AMG Mercedes F1 Team

[Pyrone89]

Remember a upgrade doesnt have to involve lots of parts or massive changes. Remember Imola vs Bahrain W12? They lengthed the diffuser strake (small carbon piece lengthened by few cm) and suddenly it flew. Meanwhile at Imola RB had a whole load of new parts but it didnt bring them much. Only when RB started with the serrated diffuser and RB-friendly track layouts we saw RB challenging Mercedes on race pace again.

They do not have to make the car faster, just gain a few % in tyres would be enough. I cant help bet feel just reducing the tyre pressures would bring them back into contention.

Indeed, it is all very close

[Pyrone89]

My main concern is if Mercedes do have a long term strategy of improving the W12 later rather than sooner, they could leave it too late because nobody knows for definite how many races will go ahead because of the uncertain nature of the covid pandemic.

I believe that 8 races is the minimum needed to constitute a season from what I've read,

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/how-m ... 5/4983325/

"The minimum number of races needed for a season is eight, as set out under Article 5.4 of the sporting regulations."

I think the strategy Merc is currently following started with late changes to the W10, and is continuing with the W11, & W12. I believe the end goal is making next years car they best they can make it.

The aero rules are going to be very tight and simple next year. Who wins and who loses is going to come down to fine details on the underside of the car.

Imo to get every last ounce of DF out of the venturi tunnels and diffuser(s), is going to require a very stable car. The removal of all the complex vortex generators means it will be significantly harder to seal the floor going forward, so I think all teams will move towards cars with little or no rake.

However the move to 18" rims complicates the task of making an aero stable car. For a long time teams have relied on the high profile sidewalls of the 13" rims to Perform a lot of the work that would normally be done by the suspension.

The 18" rims mean teams are going to have to put in a lot more work into the suspension systems to keep the cars aerodynamically stable while still being able to ride the curbs etc.

I think Merc started thinking about this way back with the W10 when they experimented at the end of the season with bevel washers in the front suspension, as Hydraulically controlled heave springs will be banned.

I think they have continued to experiment with there suspension system in preparation for 2022. Evidence for this being how they went from being potentially the team that abused their tires the most in 2017/18 to the complete opposite end of the spectrum this season.

Imo the aero updates they bring to the W12 this season, will be enhancements that can be carried over to 2022, either directly or conceptually.

Another area I find interesting is the new intake plenum, and issues they have had with it. I've pondered more than once that this might be somehow related to the move to 10% ethanol next year. If memory serves more ethanol means they can run higher compression ratios.

I think this may indeed be close to the truth. Remember also Newey’s dislike for the new rules. Basically all his weapons will be gone (vortex generators, high rake etc.)

[dans79]

Remember also Newey’s dislike for the new rules.

That's not something new from him, he seems to dislike any kind of rule changes. I remember he got particular worked up about the high noses going away in 2014. If memory serves he said he thought it made the cars less safe. You would think someone that's been in the sport since the late 80's would accept that rule changes are constant in f1.

[Pyrone89]

Remember also Newey’s dislike for the new rules.

That's not something new from him, he seems to dislike any kind of rule changes. I remember he got particular worked up about the high noses going away in 2014. If memory serves he said he thought it made the cars less safe. You would think someone that's been in the sport since the late 80's would accept that rule changes are constant in f1.

I think he is not so much against rule changes perse, but against rules that limit aero development freedom and creativity.

[dans79]

Remember also Newey’s dislike for the new rules.

That's not something new from him, he seems to dislike any kind of rule changes. I remember he got particular worked up about the high noses going away in 2014. If memory serves he said he thought it made the cars less safe. You would think someone that's been in the sport since the late 80's would accept that rule changes are constant in f1.

I think he is not so much against rule changes perse, but against rules that limit aero development freedom and creativity.

That's something he has to get over though if he wants to limit teams budgets to equalize the playing field. Teams spend far more on aero development than they do anything else. I'd have to go searching to find it, But even though people complain about the PUs being to complex and expensive Prost said when he ran his own team they paid for for engines than teams do now. That kind of puts the complaining in perspective, considering his team has been defunct for 20 years.

Edid, found it:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/01/20 ... n-my-team/

Today, we’re between $15 and $17 million per engine. Engine manufacturers have therefore brought the costs down and for highly more complex engines

and then you have Mark Gallagher's ridiculous retort about the cosworth v8's.

[Pyrone89]

That's not something new from him, he seems to dislike any kind of rule changes. I remember he got particular worked up about the high noses going away in 2014. If memory serves he said he thought it made the cars less safe. You would think someone that's been in the sport since the late 80's would accept that rule changes are constant in f1.

I think he is not so much against rule changes perse, but against rules that limit aero development freedom and creativity.

That's something he has to get over though if he wants to limit teams budgets to equalize the playing field. Teams spend far more on aero development than they do anything else. I'd have to go searching to find it, But even though people complain about the PUs being to complex and expensive Prost said when he ran his own team they paid for for engines than teams do now. That kind of puts the complaining in perspective, considering his team has been defunct for 20 years.

Edid, found it:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/01/20 ... n-my-team/

Today, we’re between $15 and $17 million per engine. Engine manufacturers have therefore brought the costs down and for highly more complex engines

and then you have Mark Gallagher's ridiculous retort about the cosworth v8's.

But in the cost cap you dont need to limit development anymore. The cost cap does that.
They limit aero development now for making overtaking easier and prevent Mercedes-style dynasties with the sliding scale of aero time

[dans79]

But in the cost cap you dont need to limit development anymore. The cost cap does that.
They limit aero development now for making overtaking easier and prevent Mercedes-style dynasties with the sliding scale of aero time

The issue with the cost cap is that a significant chunk of field will always be well below it, when you look at everything that isn't covered by it. It realty only hinders the top 3 or 4 teams. Thus if you want to ensure teams that can't reach the cost cap have a better chance you have to make the rules tight and simple.

It's slightly off topic, but even with the sliding wind tunnel and cfd time allocation rules, smart teams can find workarounds. For example if you have the staff for it, you can use CFD and tunnel data to build empirical models based on the key metrics of several designs. This was done back in the 70's and 80' for yacht hull design with the Delft series. Instead of running ever design version through a series of tow tank tests, you could enter its key metrics into a really simple formula and get a fairly accurate idea of how good or bad it was. A lot of hull design software uses these studies as the core of their performance prediction algorithms.

It most likely wouldn't work for an entire car, but for individual components it probably would. I think a few of the tops teams have been doing this for years, as what designers/engineers do on their personal machines doesn't count against the teams tunnel and cfd allocation.

[Hammerfist]

Remember also Newey’s dislike for the new rules.

That's not something new from him, he seems to dislike any kind of rule changes. I remember he got particular worked up about the high noses going away in 2014. If memory serves he said he thought it made the cars less safe. You would think someone that's been in the sport since the late 80's would accept that rule changes are constant in f1.

Yeah remember 2014 he really hated those cars but they still had the best chassis that year imo. Down 100hp+ that year they still managed to win races because no other car could match them in the corners. The 2022 car will be good. I hope noone is getting fooled by the fact Newey doesn't like the new rules.

[bosyber]

But in the cost cap you dont need to limit development anymore. The cost cap does that.
They limit aero development now for making overtaking easier and prevent Mercedes-style dynasties with the sliding scale of aero time

The issue with the cost cap is that a significant chunk of field will always be well below it, when you look at everything that isn't covered by it. It realty only hinders the top 3 or 4 teams. Thus if you want to ensure teams that can't reach the cost cap have a better chance you have to make the rules tight and simple.

It's slightly off topic, but even with the sliding wind tunnel and cfd time allocation rules, smart teams can find workarounds. For example if you have the staff for it, you can use CFD and tunnel data to build empirical models based on the key metrics of several designs. This was done back in the 70's and 80' for yacht hull design with the Delft series. Instead of running ever design version through a series of tow tank tests, you could enter its key metrics into a really simple formula and get a fairly accurate idea of how good or bad it was. A lot of hull design software uses these studies as the core of their performance prediction algorithms.

It most likely wouldn't work for an entire car, but for individual components it probably would. I think a few of the tops teams have been doing this for years, as what designers/engineers do on their personal machines doesn't count against the teams tunnel and cfd allocation.

Yeah, a bit of topic (maybe more in place at the 2021-> 2022 rules, but a great post nevertheless.

[pursue_one's]

According to Motorsport Italy, Brackley want to verify some aerodynamic data, because discrepancies are emerging between the simulation and the track.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... e/6623784/

[Marty_Y]

At least Mercedes don't have any grid penalties yet, so that's progress from last week.

[atanatizante]

...

Presumably, Petronas/Mercedes haven't used their one change yet - we'd have probably heard about it by now.

That`s what is rumoured to be done when Allison was speaking about a let`s say “small” upgrade from the PU…
But it`ll be interesting to hear had it`s a fuel or just an oil upgrade for the fact that the latter give ICE manufacturers a bigger advantage than fuel gives (aka more energy density hence a higher HP output needed just for short times in Q3 and few times when overtaking take place).

From Monza 2020 onwards ICE maps are the same both in qualy and the race and they`ve realized that the big gains in this particular area are coming from running ICE on a higher mode, thus longer and harder. Harder means that ICE could run at higher temps and that`s the role of a new engine oil. At Baku, it`s said that with the introduction of a new spec oil Honda was able to run some 8-10 degrees Celsius higher thus ICE could run at Bahrein levels (Mattia Binotto just confirmed it) but for longer. Officially, with the introduction of the new engine oil Mobil 1 said they were ventured on the, I quote: “The cosmetics industry (which) offers many unique naturally-derived components”.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... e/6621339/

Professionally speaking I don`t buy it and I think it`s just a smokescreen aimed to mislead and guide the R&D on the wrong path ...

Now there`s another twist in this story, something that people with less chemical background could easily get through: biofuel used in F1 fuels! There is an article on Motorsport.com which said that” Horner and Wolff back delay of new F1 biofuel planned for 2022”:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/horn ... 2/4932134/

Why so? Coz this biofuel has many disadvantages. To start with ICE has worse performance-wise. Then the viscosity index hence lubrification is running lower. Thus, means ICE must run less in anger together with some reliability concerns. Then another headache comes from the combustion chamber, block alloy&stuff and detonation. Practically means a new ICE must be designed from scratch. For this year is just 5.75% biofuel but next year must be 10% and due to cost cap policy, the best route is to develop new oils which should ensure at least 2 important properties: 1. To have a higher viscosity index to compensate for biofuel`s effect; 2. To have a higher HTHS “High-Temperature High Share” parameter, just to ensure that ICE could run longer at the highest mode in races.

And finally, the big rumour is that the 2021 ICE was in fact just the 2020 engine with a new plenum (something they will develop further as Ferrari was acknowledged is worth doing) and they were choosing this route opting to spend more time and money for the 2022 PU which is more important both for it has to double the amount of biofuel but most of all it has to be frozen for the next 3 years … and not to mention the cost cap policy …

[mkay]

According to Motorsport Italy, Brackley want to verify some aerodynamic data, because discrepancies are emerging between the simulation and the track.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... e/6623784/

Confirmed by Hamilton post-FP2 (The Race).

[zibby43]

According to Motorsport Italy, Brackley want to verify some aerodynamic data, because discrepancies are emerging between the simulation and the track.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... e/6623784/

Confirmed by Hamilton post-FP2 (The Race).

Yeah, if he’s saying the sim setup didn’t work in FP1, then that’s a correlation issue. And it helps explain why Merc have been nowhere so many times to start the weekend, and why they go backward sometimes between FP2 and FP3.

If they get that sorted, that could be a huge boon for them on top of next race’s upgrade.

[Marty_Y]

According to Motorsport Italy, Brackley want to verify some aerodynamic data, because discrepancies are emerging between the simulation and the track.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... e/6623784/

Confirmed by Hamilton post-FP2 (The Race).

Yeah, if he’s saying the sim setup didn’t work in FP1, then that’s a correlation issue. And it helps explain why Merc have been nowhere so many times to start the weekend, and why they go backward sometimes between FP2 and FP3.

If they get that sorted, that could be a huge boon for them on top of next race’s upgrade.

They need to get it sorted out, because next race they only have one free practice session to get the set up right before parc ferme and sprint qualification race.