Malaysia Grand Prix 2012, Kuala Lumpur - Race 2/20

[SKILL]

I seem to recall them being one of the more vocal about the double-decker diffusers in 2009 as well? And then their car was more awkward to get it fitted to...

I think it will be interesting at the next dry race with Merc, Ross Brawn admitted that they'd messed up the setup at Australia and at Malaysia they'd gone in a different direction, but who knows if that would've worked, one thing that might give a hint (or equally be nothing) is that it was the McLarens and Merc's that were suffering from losing temp in the tyres in the wet, if the Merc's were being overly hard on the tyres surely that wouldn't have happened?

I do think RBR must be most worried about McLaren, they have the definite edge in Q pace, and probably a smaller edge in race pace, along with arguably being the best at developing a car over the season for the past 3-4 seasons...

Ferrari though are in trouble, if they make up the deficit then kudos but I don't see it happening.

 

[utajoker]

both race edits are finaly up.

 

[englishpremier]

I'm of the opinion that Redbull can develop as fast or even out develop any other team on the grid. It's pretty much as viable as McLaren being the fastest to develop their cars.

I also don't think Red Bull are too concerned. They will know which areas of their car need improving and have upgrades planned.

 

[~Mike~]

I do think there's some truth in the 'they are trying hard to get it banned because it would be difficult for them to copy it' idea. That's usually the driver behind a team really pushing hard for things to be banned.

Seems that way. Complaints only seem to be coming from RBR, funny that. Rather hypocritical really.

I'm of the opinion that Redbull can develop as fast or even out develop any other team on the grid. It's pretty much as viable as McLaren being the fastest to develop their cars.

I also don't think Red Bull are too concerned. They will know which areas of their car need improving and have upgrades planned.

I'm not so sure they can develop the car as fast as McLaren or Ferrari. I reckon that RBR are very concerned with the car but we shall see, China should give us a better idea where the teams are performance wise.

 

[englishpremier]

It's a difficult one. The last few years McLaren and Ferrari have been well off the pace. 2009 in particular. Of course there are some exceptions.

When you are that far off the pace (1-2seconds) it is easier to make larger gains, than it is when you are the pace setter. For all teams the law of diminished returns applies, but more so the more "perfect" your car is.

Taking that into account, it is my opinion that previous years have flattered the speed at which Ferrari and McLaren develop their cars.

 

[Skeeter]

Yeah Prat 'Mr Integrity' Symonds talked about it in F1 Racing this month. As you progress the cost vs progress curve flattens. It's easier to make a big step if you start from a long way back than it is to make anywhere near the gains when you already have a good package. It will be easier for Ferrari to close the gap to RBR than for RBR to close the gap to McLaren, for example.

 

[ps3ud0]

the law of diminishing returns

ps3ud0

 

[FrankJH]

I doubt it's that as McLaren aren't that far ahead, especially in race pace.

Do we really know what McLaren's ultimate race pace is?

Im not convinced we do to be fair - Malaysia certainly wouldnt have shown it, and Melbourne was won while doing a lot of fuel saving and safety car / etc etc

(dont get me wrong, Im not saying it will be brilliant if/when we get to see their ultimate race pace - but we just dont know)

.... but who knows if that would've worked, one thing that might give a hint (or equally be nothing) is that it was the McLarens and Merc's that were suffering from losing temp in the tyres in the wet, if the Merc's were being overly hard on the tyres surely that wouldn't have happened?
.

I believe there are two different points here (but happy to be corrected)

1) I understand Merc dont over use the 1st "layer" of grip on their tyres , ie after quali their tyres look much like everyone elses, with no excessive wear.

Its the "normal" layer once this top layer is gone is being over worked in the dry and is where the car eats the rubber at a faster rate.

2) Merc and McLaren couldnt get their tyres upto working temps to start with in the wet race (and these would have mainly been brand new inters/full wets) so Im not sure its comparable with eating the dry's on an entirely dry track.

 

[visibleman]

Wouldn't the FIA legalising Mercedes F/W-duct open up other aero-regs to being exploited by secondary functions? Granted it happens already but this would suggest that it's AOK rather than being a grey area.

And slightly off topic, didn't want to create a new thread just for this - did the FIA ban the use of front-intakes (aka driver cooling intake) for stalling aero parts?

 

[Skeeter]

The F Duct was banned through 2 additions to the rules. They included 'driver movement' as a banned means of altering aero. Before it was just 'driver operated devices'. Its why F Ducts didn't use a flap to close the holes as that would be a device, it used the drivers hand or leg.

Secondly they banned the 'shark fins' meaning there was no way to feed air to the rear wing in that way.

The Merc system is clever because the only driver controlled moveable aero bit in it is in the one area that the regulations specify it is allowed (the DRS flap). Its not in a grey area to the letter of the rules. Its actually really clear.

The rules say that a driver controlled device or driver movement cannot adjust aero except for within a defined area which is where the DRS flap sits. Movement of the flap is allowed to alter aero, which is exactly what the Merc system does.

To the letter of the rules the Merc system is perfectly legal. Red Bull are arguing its against the 'spirit' of the rules. The FIA cannot decide that it is suddenly illegal under the current rules, they would have to ammend the rules to include something that bans it.

They could include something that states that DRS movement can only affect aero on the rear wing. Or maybe that rear wing end plates need to be solid and cannot be hollow. Something like that.

 

[LizardKing]

I've got an ex colleague who now works for Red Bull Racing, think i might have to have a catch up.

I also don't think Red Bull are too concerned. They will know which areas of their car need improving and have upgrades planned.

Probably coincidence but i usually see 10-20 of the Red Bull guys out and about on there lunch breaks, of late i've seen very few, you can only assume they are beavering away instead going for a walk

 

[visibleman]

Thanks Skeeter.
Another quick question - What about using front intake(s) in the nose to stall/blow the front-wing (similar to THIS), which i believe was the original rumor around Merc's duct; is that legal/illegal?

 

[arknor]

Thanks Skeeter.
Another quick question - What about using front intake(s) in the nose to stall/blow the front-wing (similar to THIS), which i believe was the original rumor around Merc's duct; is that legal/illegal?

all the air that stalls fthe front wing apparently comes from the rear.

theres been photos of the car without the sidepods on and without the carbon fibre cover behind the nosecone that show a hosepipe looking thing snaking the whole length of the car

 

[Duke]

Just spotted some pics of the Merc wings on Scarbs blog - http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/mercedes-drs-duct-how-it-links-to-the-front-wing/

Also http://www.formula1.com/wi/sutton/2011/d12aus3467.jpg

 

[arknor]

as you can see a pipe runs down each side of the car underneath the side pod , around or inside the drivers cell and into the nosecone

and theres 2 slots on each side of the front wing underneath that im sure everyone has saw before

 

[Skeeter]

Thanks Skeeter.
Another quick question - What about using front intake(s) in the nose to stall/blow the front-wing (similar to THIS), which i believe was the original rumor around Merc's duct; is that legal/illegal?

Using a hole at the front to channel air to the front wing is legal too. Its just of questionable use as it cannot be adjusted so is always blowing, which makes it a bit pointless.

The benefit of stalling a wing is being able to do it when you want. Doing it all the time is just the same as running lower downforce.

 

[sunama]

I'm still not understanding why there is so much fuss about the Merc wing.
The Merc wing has helped net the Merc team a grand total of 1 point from 4 starts.
There speed in qualifying has been "okay", nothing stellar.
Their race pace has been average (same as last year), nothing stellar.

So tell me, why all the excitement about Merc's innovation? What have I missed?

The car I would be looking at more closely would be the McLaren.

 

[Duke]

I'm still not understanding why there is so much fuss about the Merc wing.
The Merc wing has helped net the Merc team a grand total of 1 point from 4 starts.
There speed in qualifying has been "okay", nothing stellar.
Their race pace has been average (same as last year), nothing stellar.

So tell me, why all the excitement about Merc's innovation? What have I missed?

The car I would be looking at more closely would be the McLaren.

This is true to some extend, especially as the gains are quite small compared to say the double diffuser in 2009. On the flip side though Merc (and Renault) should have scored more points and have been unlucky and we've not seen it on some quick tracks like China, Silverstone, etc so they may gain a little more there.

 

[JonnyGLC]

I'm still not understanding why there is so much fuss about the Merc wing.
The Merc wing has helped net the Merc team a grand total of 1 point from 4 starts.
There speed in qualifying has been "okay", nothing stellar.
Their race pace has been average (same as last year), nothing stellar.

So tell me, why all the excitement about Merc's innovation? What have I missed?

The car I would be looking at more closely would be the McLaren.

The issue is that the wing gives the Mercedes such an advantage in qualifying. Looking at its race performance, do you honestly believe that the car would be qualifying on the second row of the grid, two races on the trot, without that front wing? It's massively flattering the car.

From teams such as RBR/Lotus' point of view, having either of the Mercedes qualifying and starting in front of them in the race means that they're going to get held up behind them until they can pass. With that comes lost potential for race wins and McLaren running off into the distance... Which is what I want

 

[arknor]

I'm still not understanding why there is so much fuss about the Merc wing.
The Merc wing has helped net the Merc team a grand total of 1 point from 4 starts.
There speed in qualifying has been "okay", nothing stellar.
Their race pace has been average (same as last year), nothing stellar.

So tell me, why all the excitement about Merc's innovation? What have I missed?

The car I would be looking at more closely would be the McLaren.

we havent really saw the pace of the mercedes in a race yet

in aus msc had a gearbox failure
in malaysia he got taken out and ended up struggling to get heat into the tyres like button did

RBR care because its another car between them and mclaren on the starting grid