will schumachers new chassis be different ?

[lebesset]

when the 2010 mercedes was designed , michael schumacer was not on the horizon , in fact who could have forseen events ?

don't know if anyone else remembers it , but sometime pre season ross brawn said something like ....we didn't design enough adjustment into the suspension for michael .... unfortunately I didn't pay much attention at the time

I think that we all realise that in his dominant days michael had a car specifically designed for him as well as all the other things in his favour

could it be that the new schumacher chassis will produce a dramatic change in his fortunes ?

wouldn't surprise me one little bit ; not a schuey fan personally , but I just can't wait !!!

[WhiteBlue]

I read on AMuS that from Barcelona the W01 will have more wheel base due to moving the suspension further forward. I thought that you need to move the fixing points on the chassis and that this wasn't possible with an existing monocoque but some people wrote here on F1technical that it can be done. Probably they change only the geometry of the suspension. So I assume the new chassis will be the same homologation as the old one.

[autogyro]

I read on AMuS that from Barcelona the W01 will have more wheel base due to moving the suspension further forward. I thought that you need to move the fixing points on the chassis and that this wasn't possible with an existing monocoque but some people wrote here on F1technical that it can be done. Probably they change only the geometry of the suspension. So I assume the new chassis will be the same homologation as the old one.

As a side issue (sorry) does anyone think that changes such as this were the cause of the TR front suspension failure?

[WhiteBlue]

I read on AMuS that from Barcelona the W01 will have more wheel base due to moving the suspension further forward. I thought that you need to move the fixing points on the chassis and that this wasn't possible with an existing monocoque but some people wrote here on F1technical that it can be done. Probably they change only the geometry of the suspension. So I assume the new chassis will be the same homologation as the old one.

As a side issue (sorry) does anyone think that changes such as this were the cause of the TR front suspension failure?

Nope, they said that the design of the wheel carrier was a new one they experimented with.

[autogyro]

Yes but why? Was it to increase the wheelbase through geometry changes?

[marcush.]

I read on AMuS that from Barcelona the W01 will have more wheel base due to moving the suspension further forward. I thought that you need to move the fixing points on the chassis and that this wasn't possible with an existing monocoque but some people wrote here on F1technical that it can be done. Probably they change only the geometry of the suspension. So I assume the new chassis will be the same homologation as the old one.

ah come on WB ...it is simple triangles those wishbones..of course you can
move the position of the upright almost infinitly without having to change the tub.
Of course ,moving front wheels backwards is normally not on because of regulation (feet behind front axle),but for the rest?
You will of course have different angularity in toelinks as it seems unlikely that it is possible/feasible to move the steeringrack forward .And of course the forward angularity of the pushrod will change ,as the rocker and springing system will have to remain where they are...so maybe a little redisign on the upright/brackets to accomodate this.
More head scratching with the flowfields changes I guess ...especially with the drooping nose this will now be tantalisingly close to the front wheels in side view and i could imagine that it is already starting to chocke or influence the flow entering between the wheels..causing convergence....on the other hand downstream the flow will be better as the drivers butt is moving away from the front axle..so after all we might see the raised nose in Barca?

[marcush.]

I read on AMuS that from Barcelona the W01 will have more wheel base due to moving the suspension further forward. I thought that you need to move the fixing points on the chassis and that this wasn't possible with an existing monocoque but some people wrote here on F1technical that it can be done. Probably they change only the geometry of the suspension. So I assume the new chassis will be the same homologation as the old one.

As a side issue (sorry) does anyone think that changes such as this were the cause of the TR front suspension failure?

looking at the parts of the TR failure anbnd the Petrov incident ,where the pushrod gave up because of sideloads imposed by rubbing on the monocoque ,after nobody realised that Petrovs setup was not inside the design limits of the car...i would almost be sure it was something that did not fit with the experimental parts..why else should both Uprights explode in the same moment..quite interesting to use a brittle material for a dynamically stressed as an upright..

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Hmmm

The Wheelbase and Balance issue is somthing Brawn put down to Bridgestone not "having the balls to go with a softer sidewall".

Brawn admitted he over compensated and now they need to re engineer.
How is it that he got this wrong but no other team have?

[autogyro]

Hmmm

The Wheelbase and Balance issue is somthing Brawn put down to Bridgestone not "having the balls to go with a softer sidewall".

Brawn admitted he over compensated and now they need to re engineer.
How is it that he got this wrong but no other team have?

This is why I was asking about the TR failure.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The TR failure was more to do with a super stiff setup I feel.
The moment he went to brake the weight tranfer shattered the front suspension wheel mounts.
Shoot me if I have it wrong....

I think Brawn was intimating that He felt the narrower front tyre would have given less front end grip, so his design team went about designing the car with this in mind. So this redesign hopes to correct it while also adding an F-duct(Merc interpretation anyway) and new diffuser with redesigned rear.

Could be some upgrade if their sums add up [-o<

[marcush.]

Hmmm

The Wheelbase and Balance issue is somthing Brawn put down to Bridgestone not "having the balls to go with a softer sidewall".

Brawn admitted he over compensated and now they need to re engineer.
How is it that he got this wrong but no other team have?

to me the question is not how they did get this wrong ,assuming the others got it right ,but who knows for sure?
What we do know is RedBull ,Ferrari and Macs and possibly Renault COULD adjust for the discrepancies ,whereas Mercedes could not .

For Ferrari ,Renault and Macs ,they learned an awful lot last year with wrong wheight distribution due to KERS accomodation AND less Ballast to move. so first
these teams have surely pushed the bounderies of creating lightweight components further than anyone else to compensate for kers.
And of course they learned just how bad things can go when you are stuck with the WD out far enough that you are not going to be able to get it into the ballpark.
So all these will have made the biggest effort to keep their options with regard to weight distribution for 2010.
For RB ... sorry i have to say this is Newey genius or pure luck .
for Merc it seems almost like they struggled already last year with this (not working all four corners as they should) and resorting to setup instead of putting the car right (to save recources?).Maybe they realized only in this years testing just how much they lost the plot in the middle of last year..

[WhiteBlue]

Hmmm

The Wheelbase and Balance issue is somthing Brawn put down to Bridgestone not "having the balls to go with a softer sidewall".

EvilTwin, could you get me a source for that talk by Brawn?

Funny, when I saw the tyre profile of the 2010 front tyre versus the 2009 tyre the first thing that I predicted was the increase in sidewall stiffness.

viewtopic.php?p=142506#p142506

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Marcush

This is still a fast car in Rosbergs hands. Even with these issues Mercedes were 0.4 off Red Bull in Shanghai and nearly evens with Ferrari.
Yes its quali pace, but pace nevertheless.

My feelings is they already know what their problems are. It will be total specualtion until we see exactly what Mercedes have achieved.

Interestingly on another website JAonF1 a poster of some repute has said Mercedes intentionally have not added any big updates on the car so as to concentrate on this "B spec" version. So this again points to Mercedes knowing they were well behind and saving time with developing a dud, they went the whole hog and went B spec.

[marcush.]

If we could agree on a TD ..I ´d almost believe we could come up with a half decent F1 team..

I wonder how ideas and views are thrown around in F1 teams to extract the key points
is this happening randomly or is there a big exchange within the team about the issues...with 400 something employees i wonder how many good ideas make it to the board...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

WB I couldnt tell you either way as tyres really are a "black magic".

I do know Brawn wasnt happy when he got to try the new tyres.
He mentioned the tyre walls were either too soft or too hard from the spec they gave the teams mid year.

Sounds a bit sour really as others havent moaned, but if as Marcush suggests the Merc hasnt the level of adjustments to be made as the other teams, then you can sort of see why...