Mercedes GP MGP W01

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Just had a friend try tell me that it is not possible to shut down a cylinder.
ie save fuel or save engine etc

[djones]

Ah.

I would guess they could easily do it, but arnt allowed to send data back to the car so couldn't anyway.

There is already enough stuff on the steering wheel to consider putting something to that level on it as well.

[ringo]

FRONT END CHANGES AT BAHRAIN


1.The nose cone winglets were moved lower on the nose tip
2.The side nose spoilers are now absent
3.The nose cone tip hole is now enlarged to improve nose housed electronics .
4.Spoilers are added
5.Nose fins are added

don't forget the wing supports. They are broader at the top.
now

before

[autogyro]

We have suggestions that the front wing is high DF and drag and yet others wanting to move ballast further to the rear of the car.
I cannot see the sense in this unless out of desperation and yet it seems that hints from the team support it.
It would seem that the car is not transfering the right forces onto the front tyre contact patches. The result is excesive understeer and lifting of the inside front wheel.
This still makes me think that the spring rates are to stiff, making it almost impossible to balance the aero and mechanical set up away from oversteer.
Unfortunately it is impossible to fit softer springs unless there is a way to maintain the same ride height ie very low from 'full fuel heavy' to 'nearly empty fuel light'. The car would either be way to high when light (no DF), or touching the ground when heavy. The default spring height on the Red Bull shows the pre adjusted range of ride height needed for soft springs to be used.

[autogyro]

Looks like the wing supports have been beefed up to prevent that high DF wing from bending from the force.
I suspect the car has a brilliantly balanced aero package and probably more DF than the others potentialy.
Without a well controlled ride height level with softer springs though, it will not get enough from the underside of the car, or leave enough adjustment to cure the oversteer.

Of course it is far more likely that I am totaly wrong but then I do not need a job so it matters not.

[ringo]

It was beefed up to screen the underside of the nose. Air was migrating there from the sides. It's an attempt to drop the pressure there, which would have been remedied had they had a normal nose.
About the hard suspension setups, you all are saying that Merc cannot find a way around using this setup because of how the car is built?

[autogyro]

It was beefed up to screen the underside of the nose. Air was migrating there from the sides. It's an attempt to drop the pressure there, which would have been remedied had they had a normal nose.
About the hard suspension setups, you all are saying that Merc cannot find a way around using this setup because of how the car is built?

To be completely honest ringo and as you should know. I for one have no idea if I am anywhere near correct.
Ross Brawn is a genius and the guys working for him are brilliant engineers.
On this site we can but guess in most cases.
The problem does look like it is going to take some time to sort though.

[PlatinumZealot]

Changing the nose might not totally fix the weight balance I think. The nose is soooo light. Who knows maybe they made the stuff in the back too light. Or as said before the wheel base is just to small. Another small wheelbase car, the Renault seem to be suffering from similar problems too.

Maybe it's just the limit of balance with this years regulations. Maybe the inherent placements of the parts that make up the car is just going to give you under-steer if you have a small wheelbase.

[marcush.]

My honest opinion is:

They have already removed all ballast available from the front

look at the car ,how high is the CG on the front ,if you got no ballast installed ?
it is above(!9 wheel axis height or near that height .

at he rear we do have a very very low CG ,even lower than last year because the ballast placement has moved to the rear.

presto ,the axis around the car is rolling under cornering ,especially on turn in
is steeply inclining towards the front .
So what can you do with high leverage of forces due to the high CG in the front? you need an ARB ? no .you transfer too much weight from inside to outside wheel ..lifting inside wheel(!)
you need more stiffness -install stiffer springs.
the car is jumping an bouncing over kerbs as a result.

so you will need more DF to stick the car to the ground at higher speeds just to get better front end grip as the load variations ,not the absolute df levels will break the front end loose ..sending you into understeer..

the key to me clearly is make the front lighter ,not the nosecone ,the complete front to have a possibility to put back ballast low down in the splitter .

just my 2 cent

ah ,and before I forget:

Brawn and Button admitted that the rear of the Brawn was heavily compromised last year with the engine crankshaft hight different to the honda and the need for transfer gears and and lots of compromise to adapt all parts ...so heavy parts added not really as low as possible ...in the rear ..Brawn has in fact lowered rear
end CG height dramatically from last year with more ballast to the rear plus all the work completed they could not do last year because they had this engine swap
so late.. so the cars characteristic in terms of CG height front to rear may have
changed from rising front to rear to falling front to rear....

[Afterburner]

Maybe mercedes is paying the price of a short chassis...

[JohnsonEvilTwin]

Well I do think you guys(Autogyro, Marcush and ringo) have all touched on the issues facing Mercedes and the MGP001.

The problem I have to understand is which issue would you sort out first?
Obviously we are speculating that these are issues but we can only go by what we see and suspect and read.
As there is a balance issue that needs resolving and no more weight to move rearwards I would say they should start(or have started) there.(shuey could diet, but he looks fit as a fiddle to me )
The stiffness is definatley an issue too, as you can see the Merc cock its front unloaded tyre(the only one to my knowledge)through that particular low speed turn(barcalona test).
They would not run it so stiff all things being equal. So I think as someone pointed out they are compensating for some particular issue with stiffness.

Then there is aero, apparently Schumacher has said that brackley is working flat out to get more aero. "We cant have a new car, but the boys are working hard in the wind tunnel" are his exact words. How much frontal aero will help in terms of balance is debatable.

And as Afterburn has just mentioned the Shorter wheel base only excaserbates a balance problem. Long wheel base would definatley go some way to helping with the issues they are having IMO

[autogyro]

The way I am beginning to see things, is that it all depends on which teams look solely at aero to solve their problems with 'tunnel vision' and which attempt to focus on the fundamental problems.
Throwing aero parts at the car has IMO become such an accepted way to patch up problems that most of the other engineering disciplines have been relegated to history almost.
No wonder the FIA has such a huge task reducing DF.
It is time F1 addressed this issue before time runs out.
Having said that, who the hell am I to criticize Ross Brawn.

[dren]

The car needs aero improvements for straight line speed, as well as weight distribution for handling. The suspension set-ups may be improved if these two issues are improved. The corner exit speeds should be higher if the car will handle better through them, also improving on straight line speed.

1. you can redesign components to save weight, allowing for ballast in other areas
2. you can repackage parts to change the weight distribution, and aerodynamic improvemnts
3. redesign shell for aero improvements
4. introduce snorkel if it is worth the lap time improvement

[marcush.]

The way I am beginning to see things, is that it all depends on which teams look solely at aero to solve their problems with 'tunnel vision' and which attempt to focus on the fundamental problems.
Throwing aero parts at the car has IMO become such an accepted way to patch up problems that most of the other engineering disciplines have been relegated to history almost.
No wonder the FIA has such a huge task reducing DF.
It is time F1 addressed this issue before time runs out.
Having said that, who the hell am I to criticize Ross Brawn.

+1
exactly my view .
but to hell with my respect for RB and LB ...I think they are compensating covering the design flaw for now with aero and will release a stretched W01 very soon with
all new flap actuation ,new steering rack and the whole shebang to shed weight as much as possible .
Last year they had not the need for it really as they had no Kers and their distribution was ok ,at least at the start of the season..maybe the trend was apparent already later in the year 2009 with updates shedding weight at the rear ??? just a thought..

[horse]

maybe the trend was apparent already later in the year 2009 with updates shedding weight at the rear ??? just a thought..

If they'd picked up on it then marcush, I doubt it would be a problem for this car. I think, as was mentioned earlier, they have miscalculated the performance of the new front tyres and have not allowed enough margin to compensate.