2021 AMG Mercedes F1 Team

[DChemTech]

Ban DAS - from Redbull
Different engine mode Ban -- From Redbull
High rake -- Grant to Redbull

Seems all politics.

Ban flex rear wing - from Mercedes
Ban fast pit stops - from Mercedes
V6 hybrid engines - Grant to Mercedes

Seems at all.

Flexy rear wings have always being against the rules
V6 hybrid engines - also Renault, who powered Redbull at the time

Its a little bit more nuanced than that; all wings flex somewhat, non-flex wings are physically impossible. So, flexing was not banned, the tolerances for flexing were reduced while the season was already running. Hence, the goalposts for designers were moved mid-season, and some teams were more affected than others. But hey, theres a whole thread on that.

[flmkane]

Ban flex rear wing - from Mercedes
Ban fast pit stops - from Mercedes
V6 hybrid engines - Grant to Mercedes

Seems at all.

Flexy rear wings have always being against the rules
V6 hybrid engines - also Renault, who powered Redbull at the time

Its a little bit more nuanced than that; all wings flex somewhat, non-flex wings are physically impossible. So, flexing was not banned, the tolerances for flexing were reduced while the season was already running. Hence, the goalposts for designers were moved mid-season, and some teams were more affected than others. But hey, theres a whole thread on that.

Yeah um.. Carbon fiber can layed up so it can pass whatever the FIA test is, but flexes more than the test deflection under actual aero load.

This the rules address both the compliance testing and the race conditions. The rules may be a bit crappy but whenever racing conditions show a discrepancy with the rest, they change the test.

Red Bull pushes that particular aspect of the rules every single year and has been doing so since 2009. And many a time, the FIA has cracked down on them.

[flmkane]

Ban DAS - from Redbull
Different engine mode Ban -- From Redbull
High rake -- Grant to Redbull

Seems all politics.

Ban flex rear wing - from Mercedes
Ban fast pit stops - from Mercedes
V6 hybrid engines - Grant to Mercedes

That last line is a total fabrication. Renault point blank said they'd quit the sport unless there were V6 turbos. Remember that RBR was their works team back them.

So if anything, V6 turbos were also a grant to Renault

It's entirely Renaults fault that they were 100hp underpowered at first.

[Marty_Y]

Rumours say Russell is signed up, apparently.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/nico-rosb ... ll-rumour/

[PlatinumZealot]

RedBull had more in the tank at Zandvoort and Mercedes need another upgrade to compete for championship according to Lewis.



I say let's see how Monza goes. If they can't be at least level there then...

[rickybobbyf1]

RedBull had more in the tank at Zandvoort and Mercedes need another upgrade to compete for championship according to Lewis.



I say let's see how Monza goes. If they can't be at least level there then...

That’s tough luck, though. Merc already said there were no upgrades incoming. Guess that oil upgrade or whatever was a random rumor that I dreamt.

[DChemTech]

Flexy rear wings have always being against the rules
V6 hybrid engines - also Renault, who powered Redbull at the time

Its a little bit more nuanced than that; all wings flex somewhat, non-flex wings are physically impossible. So, flexing was not banned, the tolerances for flexing were reduced while the season was already running. Hence, the goalposts for designers were moved mid-season, and some teams were more affected than others. But hey, theres a whole thread on that.

Yeah um.. Carbon fiber can layed up so it can pass whatever the FIA test is, but flexes more than the test deflection under actual aero load.

This the rules address both the compliance testing and the race conditions. The rules may be a bit crappy but whenever racing conditions show a discrepancy with the rest, they change the test.

Red Bull pushes that particular aspect of the rules every single year and has been doing so since 2009. And many a time, the FIA has cracked down on them.

The rules described test conditions, but not translation to track conditions. And they still don't, there are still potential loopholes there.
Of course teams will design on the limits of the regulations. But you'd expect that if something is already an issue since 2009, the FIA would find some way to close the loophole pre-season. Or otherwise to take time for proper rules next season, and allow it for now like they did with DAS. But no, we got a poor patchwork fix that changed design criteria mid-season. And no matter how you spin it, that ended up hurting teams with regulations they could not anticipate when originally designing.

If there was nothing that was illegal to the rules as they were, I find it rather problematic that rules are being changed ad-hoc to make it illegal. And if something illegal was going on, they should just call it out and punish it instead of cover it up with a vague rulechange.

[Tvetovnato]

Hamilton is right about them needing upgrades. But the question is if that will solve the inherent weakness this year at the rear end. It almost feels like last year now but reversed. It just cannot compete with the RB there, provided that RB nails their setup. In order to win this championship now, they will need to operate flawlessly in the races with strategy and optimise the car fully all the time to have a chance. I’m not even convinced that Monza will treat them well this year.

[SiLo]

RedBull had more in the tank at Zandvoort and Mercedes need another upgrade to compete for championship according to Lewis.



I say let's see how Monza goes. If they can't be at least level there then...

Tbh, I think Hamilton missing FP2 was big considering how close they were at the front. Had Hamilton taken pole I would have expected him to win considering how hard it was to follow here. It's almost like another Monaco/Hungary.

I also think Mercedes messed up the strategy putting him onto the used mediums. They have made a lot of mistakes this year whilst under pressure, and really need to clean it up a bit.

[F1NAC]

They have made a lot of mistakes this year whilst under pressure, and really need to clean it up a bit.

I think this is maybe the weakest link that is now being exposed in the team, when it is tight battle.

Before they always had a margin in front so there was no need for risky strategies. When there was no challenge (with Rosberg in team) they used pretty much same strategies with both drivers.

[flmkane]

Its a little bit more nuanced than that; all wings flex somewhat, non-flex wings are physically impossible. So, flexing was not banned, the tolerances for flexing were reduced while the season was already running. Hence, the goalposts for designers were moved mid-season, and some teams were more affected than others. But hey, theres a whole thread on that.

Yeah um.. Carbon fiber can layed up so it can pass whatever the FIA test is, but flexes more than the test deflection under actual aero load.

This the rules address both the compliance testing and the race conditions. The rules may be a bit crappy but whenever racing conditions show a discrepancy with the rest, they change the test.

Red Bull pushes that particular aspect of the rules every single year and has been doing so since 2009. And many a time, the FIA has cracked down on them.

The rules described test conditions, but not translation to track conditions. And they still don't, there are still potential loopholes there.
Of course teams will design on the limits of the regulations. But you'd expect that if something is already an issue since 2009, the FIA would find some way to close the loophole pre-season. Or otherwise to take time for proper rules next season, and allow it for now like they did with DAS. But no, we got a poor patchwork fix that changed design criteria mid-season. And no matter how you spin it, that ended up hurting teams with regulations they could not anticipate when originally designing.

If there was nothing that was illegal to the rules as they were, I find it rather problematic that rules are being changed ad-hoc to make it illegal. And if something illegal was going on, they should just call it out and punish it instead of cover it up with a vague rulechange.

Yo what? Why are you trying to tell me what the rules are when you've never read the rules?

"3.9.9 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion"

Referring to my prior post I did mention that the rules are crap but they are in their current form specifically because of Red Bull.

A lot of what you're saying would have been valid ten years ago but now the rules, specifically section 3.9 are written very different

[adrianjordan]

We've heard many times from British drivers how the home fans give them a little extra boost. Maybe Max had that today. Compare Perez and Bottas and it's pretty much neck and neck on pace.

We have some of Lewis' strongest circuits coming up. The season is far from over!! Plus Max still has a likely PU penalty to get out of the way.

[214270]

I think Merc should be taking a good look at GAS. He has to be disgruntled at RB and he seems very fast, Sat and Sun. I think we can now agree there’s something up with the RB car which favours VER to the detriment of whoever is in that 2nd seat.

He’s stylish & looks the part in a similar mould to HAM, so should be a sponsors delight and would be great as a replacement when he retires. Random thoughts…

[DChemTech]

Yo what? Why are you trying to tell me what the rules are when you've never read the rules?

"3.9.9 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion"

Referring to my prior post I did mention that the rules are crap but they are in their current form specifically because of Red Bull.

A lot of what you're saying would have been valid ten years ago but now the rules, specifically section 3.9 are written very different

Yes, I have read those rules. The problem is that the rule you quote above does not give any bearing about how to interpret the rules on track. You will always see some deflection - and the above just specifies qualitatively that it cannot be too much. But what is too much? This is not information that designers can take into account in any way.

And yes, the FIA can change the goalposts mid-season but it doesn't mean they should; ad-hoc changes based on qualitative observations of 'too much movement' are very poor practice. You are basically forcing designers to adhere to design criteria that they were not aware of when they were designing. Just imagine you'd be asked to design a bridge deck which 'fits well'. What does that mean? 10mm tolerance? 1mm? If the FIA wanted to limit flexing on the track, they should have provided quantitative rules for flexing on the track, upfront. Then, if RB is doing something illegal, they can punish accordingly. Imposing new rules/tolerances mid season inherently affects some teams more than others, and a neutral sporting body should aim to avoid that.

edit, for clarification: Although I am an RB fan, I do think that if RB were really doing something that was illegal according to the rules (As they were starting the season), they should have been punished for it outright - the rules are there for a reason. I also would not be bothered if, say, RB had a big advantage of their wings in 2020, and that would have inspired a rulechange for 2021 by which RB is affected much more than other teams. Bad luck, but they can take it into account for their 2021 design (just like everyone now had to take floor changes into account). It's specifically the mid-season changes that I find problematic, even though FIA states they can do so.

[basti313]

I think Merc should be taking a good look at GAS. He has to be disgruntled at RB and he seems very fast, Sat and Sun. I think we can now agree there’s something up with the RB car which favours VER to the detriment of whoever is in that 2nd seat.

He’s stylish & looks the part in a similar mould to HAM, so should be a sponsors delight and would be great as a replacement when he retires. Random thoughts…

And why? With Nick and George Merc has two promising drivers. While last year we were concerned about the output of the Merc young driver program, this looks like the best on the grid at the moment.
Merc rather has an issue of distributing talents just like RedBull. Aston is currently strongly underperforming and has its own driver selection. Williams is no parking place necessarily, obviously McLaren is not at all. If they do not secure a deal with Sauber, they do have more talents than seats.

On the other hand...Albon and Gasly were very similar when they were at AT. Now Albon is underperforming every second race in DTM....I do not know if anyone of the second RB lineup is a good go for Merc.