Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
n smikle wrote:Suppose it was 4 inches? 100mm is a nice round number. I think the engineers will make it 4 inches for that silly reason. lol
honestly speaking I was expecting 4 inches as well...but rereading Daves words about tire stiffness distribution it almost feels like Brawn are not really convinced about the step to be taken.
again the question is :what have we seen in testing? did they perhaps redistribute
the weight as necessary by adding weight,knowing they would have to compromise and struggle till they could bring the big update? They sure have tried this and must know weight for weight how much they will be able to gain by the redressed weightdistribution...they don´t know how this will help them in qualy speed but sure
for 20kg + fuelloads they must be quite well informed what the benefit will be.
I would have surely made a tradeoff calculation for leaning out the engine to save fuel and put this back as ballst into the car..sacrificing some engine power for those parts of the race where you are not in desperate power demand ... cheeky but..
autogyro wrote:You still think it is the fuel tank in the wrong place marcush?
I still find this idea of a forum member very interesting ,I have to admit.
But then has the Merc a time during the race where it is indeed as fast as the quickest (please not pacecarlaps...)?
there are now so many variables around with new tyre width,front and rear tyre stiffness not as one would like them ,aero balance ,that it seems almost impossible to see the real problem for us.we have to rmember that Brawns guys have moved all potential variables towards a compromise to counter the bad static wheight distribution (if we can believe RB in that this is the root course)..so what we have seen in the races is their makedo solutions troubles ...not their true problem,yes?
so rectifying their true prob would allow for less compromise in other areas certainly..
"It's not a new chassis per se, it's a chassis we used in testing," Brawn was quoted as saying by Reuters on Monday.
"The one he had got damaged during the first few races and we repaired it as best we could at the races. But now we are back at base we are going to re-introduce the test chassis and he will be using that in Barcelona."
lebesset wrote:first of all they are at the limit of what can be achieved with this chassis wheelbase wise
to my understanding they exploited everything possible with the original wheelbase ,I guess more than a little bit of caster trail reduction (front mounted steering rack)in terms of wheelbase was not possible without creating new wishbones etc.. so they had to resort to springs ,aero etc to find a workable compromise.
then they are going to have a longer wheelbase
this hints at not enough ballast available in the car to arrive at the desired static weight distribution + the factor of the Tank now not in the new CG anymore ,they decided to elongate the wheelbase.
now they are just going to solve the problem by going back to a previously used chassis
I´d think they have learned an awful lot again in the last months, and for sure MS car will be perfect in Barca.
I wonder if the wheelbase change is for nothing else than putting the tank into the correct position for their new weight distribution?
but we can clearly se that Schumachers new chassis will be indeed the old test chassis, so it is clear that the wheelbase change will be accomodated into the current monocoque.
brings back to me some concerns of forum members towards the Mercedes having possibly stiffness issues ..seems some of MS encounters in the first races beat the chassis up to a degree not possible to repair in the field satisfactory ...
did they not bring the spare tub to the races or did they simply not realise the damage was severe enough to compromise speed?
face the fact , if the truth was just that the tub was damaged they could have flown the other tub out and built it up overnight
somebody is being economical with the truth here , if you have seen the interviews with norbert he is being very defensive ...wonder who talked the mercedes main board into spending so much money for michael
something SMELLS
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
lebesset wrote:during the first few races is the quote
The quote is also, that Schumacher got closer to Rosberg by every race until China, when he "unexplainable" lost almost a second/lap to Rosberg, according to Brawn...
Too address the thread, in a logical manner im gonna split some of the topics down and try and explain them individually.
1] Old Tub = The W01-03 tub has probably suffered a delamination somewhere that cannot feasably be repaired to a satisfactory level of saftey. This could have been done in various ways, weight distrubution being wrong and making the chassis twist when the power goes down with the engine. The other thing that could have happened is that the stiffness of the chassis has been compromised in an accedent or incedent, the only one that comes to mind is the collision with Alonso at turn 1 of Austrailia as the prime one.
2] T-Car W01-01 = the test chassis has probably been with the team all along, but not built up, probably for the reason that there could be a known issue with that chassis that the team arnt letting on about.
3] Potential New Tub = If Mercedes have a know problem with 2 tubs, id probably expect that they will have 3 new tubs coming off the production line, one for both Nico and Michael, and a new T-Car tub as well. Thus to leave the W01-02 as the R&D tub for the test rig or for backup if one of the new tub or tubs gets wrecked. If they had one made up, the fact there was volcanic ash above Europe at the time means that it wouldnt have been easy to get it out to China.
4] Changes To Tub = If there is weight distrubution issues, and a lenghtening of the chassis, this cannot be done easily as the homologations rules are tight. However, under saftey issues i can see how it can be done. However, the suspension points cannot be changed, unless there is a saftey issue, and this will have to be tested and independantyly verified.
Personally, i think teams should only be allowed to produce no more than 7 chassis for every 2 year period, thus meaning that they have to develop a car and philosiphy for 2 seasons. If it so happens that 4 chassis get trashed, so be it. Basically it would mean that Mercedes would have to have developed the BGP001 for one more year, the only new cars we would have had this year would have been the Lotus, Virgin and Hispania; the teams from last year would have had to carry their designs over for this year, meaning they would have had to use last years fuel tanks for this year. The only thing i realise for this to happen is that we have stable rules for a period of time of say 3 years of a minimum. Id like to see this on cost grounds and to see how far that a design can be pushed over a 24 month period.
I think the engineers will make it 4 inches for that silly reason. lol