because in testing they are going to change out a major componant for one already well used, seems highly unlikely
At least one of them lasted just over 1 GP (which is usually 60 - 70 laps plus another 9 - 10 at least for quali)
While not impossible - its highly unlikely the BBC would have said that either / both only lasted 89 laps when it was in fact a well used one from previous tests.
They actually will, knowing how and when parts fail is pretty crucial to being able to see it coming next time.
They'd want to compare two engines maybe one old one new, to check power loss, lap speed, efficiency. They'd want to know if say an engine fails is it worth taking the hit and taking a new gearbox or does an old gearbox work fine with it.
More to the point, where does it say that Merc had a gearbox failure after 89 laps or that both lasted only 89 laps? As far as I can tell, it's simply not what happened.
All I can see is that the gearbox failed on day 2 after 89 laps, it could have gone for the same 6 days the engine did before that. Then then ran 103 laps or something on the third day, and found a problem before the first test started on day 4. So the second gearbox seemed at least to do 103 laps. They also afaik only said they found a problem which caused other problems in the car, I haven't seen them specifically say it failed. They are new cars, the same way they take hours to replace an engine where in 3 months it will take them probably less than half the time, bits get fitted incorrectly at the start of a season in testing in a rush, that is no surprise either.
So one gearbox failed after absolutely no idea how many miles, only after 89 laps ON THE DAY, which isn't relevant as that gearbox could have been 100 or 400 laps old for all we know. The second one we presume failed, but could have been any problem, and we really don't know much about it.
The only thing I can tell from looking up various info, is neither failed specifically after 89 laps, and I have no idea in the slightest where that info came from.
Yet the W05 is by no means without flaws. Just consider the litany of problems the team endured throughout the third and final test of the winter: persistent overheating on Day One when the team had to abandon their attempt to run a Melbourne race specification, a spin for Hamilton and a gearbox failure on Day Two, an eight-hour overnight engine change that curtailed their Day Three running, and nearly four hours of track time lost on Day Four due to another gearbox complication. If any of those problems are repeated in Australia, their speed advantage will count for naught.
From skysports, so overheating isn't exclusive to Renault, as I've pointed out before, Merc and Ferrari brought extended cooling versions of their cars for hotter climates. Red Bull just seem to be ignoring this idea completely.
Secondly, the second gearbox problem isn't described as a failure, and came after a new engine was put in. We don't know what kind of failure it was, and the 89 laps thing is seemingly made up from somewhere.
post on another forum
mclaren_mircea wrote:Review of the Mercedes problems
1-9: FW failure
2-9: Gearbox issue
3-9: Electric issues
4-9: Brake by wire
5-9 : "small problems" (they didn't tell the nature of it)
6-9: Hydraulic failure
7-9 : Gearbox
8-9: Engine issues
9-9 - Gearbox + oil leak
If you say that that is normal during the testing time, that 90% of your running days you report a technical problem, or that you saw this situation on a Mercedes car in the last year's winter testing, or in actuality if that is similar with other team's problems (except the Renault powered cars), than I can say that you can continue to ignore the reality
If you say this year winter testing is comparable with past years winter testing and you continue ignoring these are new cars that need to be tested and need to find the weak points, then I can say that you can continue to ignore the reality
:mrgreen:
That list means nothing by itself. How do you know those parts break before they were expected to break? How do you know they didn´t have 120% of their expected lifespam?
You know they´ve break, but you don´t know if the team was pushing the limits to see what was the first part breaking, or how many mileage had done those parts that broke
A list of problems, someone's rather silly take on it, and a great response. Merc have confirmed(over all the tests) several problems, but we have no idea why the failures of if they tried to induce the failure to some degree. As important as having a working car, is knowing when you won't have a working car soon. Take a 10 place grid penalty for a new gearbox(not sure what it is this year actually) or engine or fail midway through a race, where you might not win but might get say 4th or something starting from the back. That is a key decision, and knowing roughly how the gearbox starts to give feedback as it approaches failure, or any other part, and knowing when to replace it will be crucial in a season of unreliability.
Ferrari have had a gearbox failure, and I'd bet on most teams having some issues with most parts of the car.
