Mercedes W17

[matteosc]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage. In the case of a excessively worn plank or of a underweight car, there is definitely an advantage. In the case of the front wing closing slowly, apparently there is not. Not sure about how this determination was made.

Does 0.1mm of extra DRS flap opening give an advantage?

Yes, it does.

[matteosc]

Would requiring hydraulic pressure to force the wing closed not leave them open to it failing in the straight mode, which is if I am not mistaken forbidden and any failure must see the wing default to cornering mode ?

It requires pressure to open but because it us hydraulic it also gives resistance to close unless they is a valving to release the fluid (like a mechanic's jack).

I don't buy the excuse that it was a failure though. That's too simple for it to happen to Mercedes. What are they going to say the put too much fluid in the accumulator? Lol.

I think this Loophole exists and Mercedes are quenching the coals before a full fire breaks out.

What would the loophole be? They said that it was a malfunctioning and it was made absolutely clear that there are only 2 fixed position, which are (surprise) fixed. There is no loophole, unless for loophole you mean clearly violating the rules, both in spirit and written form, and hoping that no one realises or protests.

[Lasssept]

Florent Gooden

[Lasssept]

[PlatinumZealot]

Would requiring hydraulic pressure to force the wing closed not leave them open to it failing in the straight mode, which is if I am not mistaken forbidden and any failure must see the wing default to cornering mode ?

It requires pressure to open but because it us hydraulic it also gives resistance to close unless they is a valving to release the fluid (like a mechanic's jack).

I don't buy the excuse that it was a failure though. That's too simple for it to happen to Mercedes. What are they going to say the put too much fluid in the accumulator? Lol.

I think this Loophole exists and Mercedes are quenching the coals before a full fire breaks out.

What would the loophole be? They said that it was a malfunctioning and it was made absolutely clear that there are only 2 fixed position, which are (surprise) fixed. There is no loophole, unless for loophole you mean clearly violating the rules, both in spirit and written form, and hoping that no one realises or protests.

See my thread in the aerodynamics sectionbof the Forum.

[AR3-GP]

[madmiky_1]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEigYtWXUAE ... name=large

That patch on the floor suggests me a strategy to measure something related to the ground. Maybe an ultrasound RX-TX technology to detect distances?

[Y-250.A]

[PlatinumZealot]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEigYtWXUAE ... name=large

Interesting. Didn't expect such a wide central section. They retaining some learning from the ground effect era or this width is regulated?

[erikejw]

What's up with Mercedes tardy starts?

The other Mercedes engines users don't have the same problems.

Gearing?
Weight distribution?

[matteosc]

What's up with Mercedes tardy starts?

The other Mercedes engines users don't have the same problems.

Gearing?
Weight distribution?

Gearing would be the most obvious, since they have different gear ratios. But it could be also an unintended consequence of the way they run their PUs.

[PlatinumZealot]

What's up with Mercedes tardy starts?

The other Mercedes engines users don't have the same problems.

Gearing?
Weight distribution?

They had crappy starts in some years. Especially when FIA changed to manually operated clutch releases. They will figure out the right settings soon enough.

If I had to guess it is too much torque too early. It's an easy problem to fix. I don't see it being an issue even after Miami.

[Stu]

What's up with Mercedes tardy starts?

The other Mercedes engines users don't have the same problems.

Gearing?
Weight distribution?

They had crappy starts in some years. Especially when FIA changed to manually operated clutch releases. They will figure out the right settings soon enough.

If I had to guess it is too much torque too early. It's an easy problem to fix. I don't see it being an issue even after Miami.

I see it as being a combination of things related to both PU and gearing. As we know the start is done purely on ICE power, so starting power is purely dependent upon the revs chosen, ideally the rev range available/used would provide sufficient torque to ALMOST break traction from a standing start. The gearing becomes important as too long a gear requires more torque to create this, but also requires the ICE to be in the correct place in the rev range to stay in the rev range where suitable torque is created for long enough so as not to run out of revs (requiring a gear change likely to drop the car out of the ideal rev range). Ideally the start gear should get the car ‘nicely’ into the range where the MGU-K can be used before second gear is required. All gears other than first should be intended to operate with the torque combination of both ICE & MGU-K. I cannot think of any instances other than a standing start where the ICE is expected to operate solely (by design), at all times other than the standing start they should be considering the PU as a whole as regards output.