Mercedes AMG F1 W04

[ForMuLaOne]

You are reading wrong correlations into results. Merc FOR SURE knows how to handle the mappings for their exhaust. They are just calculating on the edge. This is not very special but the fact that they struggle with race pace needs to be compensated. Maybe they need to open the throttle more because they have to fight against others a lot. But if you consider the gap in qualifiying between Rosberg and Raikkonen, maybe they should sacrifice this FULL second advantage over one lap and change it for a 0.4-0.5 faster average laptime during the race.

[kooleracer]

You are reading wrong correlations into results. Merc FOR SURE knows how to handle the mappings for their exhaust. They are just calculating on the edge. This is not very special but the fact that they struggle with race pace needs to be compensated. Maybe they need to open the throttle more because they have to fight against others a lot. But if you consider the gap in qualifiying between Rosberg and Raikkonen, maybe they should sacrifice this FULL second advantage over one lap and change it for a 0.4-0.5 faster average laptime during the race.

There is know such thing as exchanging quali pace for race pace. Offcourse things like rear wing etc. have an effect. But look at Red Bull the qualified well and were also fast in the race. So the trade off between quali and race setup isn't that huge. Look Kimi's quali lap wasnt good, so bad comparison. Vettel en Rosberg did close the perfect laps. And also don't you think that Merc would have sacrificed quali pace as you suggest if the would gain race pace? The team isn't crazy then know the race is the most important part of the weekend. It's not like Merc are hunting for Quali pace, the car is just fast thats a fact (quickest in all 3 sectors). The problem is when they need to add race fuel they need to add more then their competitors, at least I think that's the problem.

[turbof1]

I'M almost certain Merc has a fuel consumption issue. The need more fuel because there coanda exhaust needs more fuel to energize the coanda effect. The car is quick on low fuel because the extra 0.26KG the need for a single lap doesn't show in lap time. But if you need 0.26KG more fuel for 57 laps. That means you are carrying 15KG (MSC said that were 15KG heavier). Carbon Dev Racing calculated (forum user) that 1kg of fuel is worth about 0.09 of laptime.

1 lap 15KG extra fuel = = 0.0932 extra laptime * 15KG= 1.4 (1.398) Sec slower a lap. Nico Rosberg did 1.32.3 and Vettel did 1:32.5. So the RB9 and Merc W04 are really close on low fuel (no 15KG Fuel penalty).

So if you look at the average laptimes you can clearly see it back in laptimes. Nico also suggested they have a good car and that really true, a bad car can get pole. Rosberg was fastest in every single sector of this track. So the highspeed advantage is also no true Force India fast the fastest in the speedtrap but their race pace was still good. The car is really good but they need to sort out how they can rid of the extra fuel ballast during the race. Nico was fighting during most of the race so the better comparison is with Lewis both he and Vettel were driving the most part of the race in clean air. On the first couple of stints losses 1.2 and 1.6 average. On the first 2 stints Lewis losses 1.455 secs on average. If MSC was right that Merc is 15KG heavier this means that merc is loosing 1.398 a lap, thats pretty close to the 1.455 the lose on average during the first 2 stints. Stint 3 and 4 the Merc burns more fuel and the extra ballast is coming down. In stint 3 and 4 Lewis is getting faster and faster and the average lap loss decreases because the extra ballast penalty gets lower and lower. In stint 4 Lewis losses 0.1sec on average on a lap comparing to Vettel. Also the underfuelling in Malaysia is a sign that every drop extra hurts the Merc, that why they got in to trouble in Sepang. Ross gambled and thought they would use less because of change of rain. The Merc Also looks really heavy compared to other cars in the beginning of the race. Merc is doing something wrong with their coanda exhaust compared to FI and McLaren. The need more fuel compared to them. Or the need better engine maps that saves more fuel. Because i really don't think the tyres are the problem i really think the tire deg is an outcome of the heavier car the run the race compared to other.

Vettel - Hamilton
Av. Lap Time 1 1:42.508 1:43.803 -1.295

Av. Lap Time 2 1:41.595 1:43.210 -1.615

Av. Lap Time 3 1:40.826 1:41.271 -0.445

Av. Lap Time 4 1:39.830 1:39.939 -0.109

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vettel - Rosberg
Av. Lap Time 1 1:42.508 1:43.505 -0.997
Av. Lap Time 2 1:41.595 1:43.160 -1.565
Av. Lap Time 3 1:40.826 1:42.161 -1.335
Av. Lap Time 4 1:39.830 1:41.338 -1.508


http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p48 ... cf9995.jpg
renault chart. Merc engines need more fuel, plus that the W04 needs extra fuel compared to others like MSC said.

Look at the chart The races the W03 was competitive where the race with less fuel consumption and less fuel throttle. It's no coincidence that China and Monaco were good races for Merc. 2 totally different tracks low speed and high speed the only thing they got in common is fuel consumption and full throttle this means less fuel less, extra balast and stress for tyres. If you look at SPA last year. That was a horrible race 60sec behind winner. If you look 1 weekend later at Monza. Less Fuel and more competitive.

-SPA MSC 1.5 of pole 3.15L fuel per Lap 72% full throthle and 7KM track.
-Next weekend at Monza 72 full throthle 5.7KM and 2.5L per lap, the Merc was only 0.5 Sec of pole.
So SPA is the worst track for Merc.

-more fuel
-longest track ( effect of extra fuel bigger, plus high speed corners with heavier car).

I can't believe that its the setup, with cleaver guys like costa,bell, willis etc. There is more then enough knowledge how to set a car up. It's simply the extra weight that, puts more stress in the tyres.

If the new Merc V6 engine is on par with the Renault of Ferrari V6. The W05 will be a real contender. The guys have builled 2 quick cars (W03/W04), the W05 should be faster again. Without extra fuel i really think Merc will be far more competitive in the race's. Merc should really concentrate on being on pole in Monaco because that is a race they can win this year. No mistakes in Q3 and they should win the race. Hope the bring some updates for Spain and still the quickest on a single lap because the next race will be Monaco. Also Canada and Singapore will be good if i'am correct. But Singapore i'm not so sure because of devolpement the car could be slower as others devolp beter during the year. I really can't see Mercedes challenge for race wins if the fuel issue isn't sorted. No car setup will disguise 13-15KG of extra fuel i'am a afraid.

You got a +1 for that mighty post from me. Great calculations.

The only thing bothering me here is the assumption that it's the exhaust (note: you mentioned they need more fuel to energize the coanda effect, which is wrong. More fuel burned would mean a higher energized exhaust plume; the only thing energizing the coanda effect itself is airflow) that burns more fuel then others. I tend not to agree with that; mclaren has the same engine and the exhaust setup should not make that difference. The only thing, engine related, that could differentiate the amount of fuel burnt, is the engine map. But that too seems not so plausible, because mercedes would have full access to mclaren's engine maps.

Either way, if it's the engine map, then they are stuck with it. They are only allowed to change the maps in the first 4 races.

[beelsebob]

I'M almost certain Merc has a fuel consumption issue. The need more fuel because there coanda exhaust needs more fuel to energize the coanda effect. The car is quick on low fuel because the extra 0.26KG the need for a single lap doesn't show in lap time. But if you need 0.26KG more fuel for 57 laps. That means you are carrying 15KG (MSC said that were 15KG heavier). Carbon Dev Racing calculated (forum user) that 1kg of fuel is worth about 0.09 of laptime.

1 lap 15KG extra fuel = = 0.0932 extra laptime * 15KG= 1.4 (1.398) Sec slower a lap. Nico Rosberg did 1.32.3 and Vettel did 1:32.5. So the RB9 and Merc W04 are really close on low fuel (no 15KG Fuel penalty).

So if you look at the average laptimes you can clearly see it back in laptimes. Nico also suggested they have a good car and that really true, a bad car can get pole. Rosberg was fastest in every single sector of this track. So the highspeed advantage is also no true Force India fast the fastest in the speedtrap but their race pace was still good. The car is really good but they need to sort out how they can rid of the extra fuel ballast during the race. Nico was fighting during most of the race so the better comparison is with Lewis both he and Vettel were driving the most part of the race in clean air. On the first couple of stints losses 1.2 and 1.6 average. On the first 2 stints Lewis losses 1.455 secs on average. If MSC was right that Merc is 15KG heavier this means that merc is loosing 1.398 a lap, thats pretty close to the 1.455 the lose on average during the first 2 stints. Stint 3 and 4 the Merc burns more fuel and the extra ballast is coming down. In stint 3 and 4 Lewis is getting faster and faster and the average lap loss decreases because the extra ballast penalty gets lower and lower. In stint 4 Lewis losses 0.1sec on average on a lap comparing to Vettel. Also the underfuelling in Malaysia is a sign that every drop extra hurts the Merc, that why they got in to trouble in Sepang. Ross gambled and thought they would use less because of change of rain. The Merc Also looks really heavy compared to other cars in the beginning of the race. Merc is doing something wrong with their coanda exhaust compared to FI and McLaren. The need more fuel compared to them. Or the need better engine maps that saves more fuel. Because i really don't think the tyres are the problem i really think the tire deg is an outcome of the heavier car the run the race compared to other.

Very well reasoned – if I could +10 a single post, it would be this one.

I wonder slightly if Merc have got bitten by the frozen engine mappings rule. It may well be that they simply did not have their engine map sorted at the time they were frozen (they were way behind on the exhaust blowing at the time), and hence are having to use a massively non-optimal setup.

It may also be that they know very well that that's their issue, and how to address it, and as a result were able to tell Lewis "look, we know we have a second a lap on average in the bag when we get to change the engines in 2014".

[kooleracer]

The only thing bothering me here is the assumption that it's the exhaust (note: you mentioned they need more fuel to energize the coanda effect, which is wrong. More fuel burned would mean a higher energized exhaust plume; the only thing energizing the coanda effect itself is airflow) that burns more fuel then others. I tend not to agree with that; mclaren has the same engine and the exhaust setup should not make that difference. The only thing, engine related, that could differentiate the amount of fuel burnt, is the engine map. But that too seems not so plausible, because mercedes would have full access to mclaren's engine maps.

Either way, if it's the engine map, then they are stuck with it. They are only allowed to change the maps in the first 4 races.

How do you know that Merc has full access to McLaren engine maps? I really don't think a devolpement area that important is shared with other teams. Or do you know for a fact that Merc has access?

more info about Coanda: http://topsportracing.com/formula-1coan ... omparison/

[dans79]

This is the step that doesn't work for me. Longer gears are something you use when the car can accelerate quite happily, and doesn't need to be in the ideal rev range. I.e. when the car does not have a lot of drag. You don't compensate for lots of drag with long gears – in fact, you compensate with short gears.

Like I said, we are talking small numbers here, not massive changes. Additionally, I'm not saying ever gear is long, maybe only one or two. The set up is very dependent on the engine power, and the layout of each track.

for example take a look at this blog.
http://f1framework.blogspot.com/2013/02 ... g-lap.html

I went to school to learn how to solve problems like this (actually writing the software), and you would be amazed, that under the right circumstances doing something completely non intuitive can have positive outcomes.

[muhammadtalha-13]

I TOTALLY agree with KOOLERACER 's fuel consumption theory because in Malaysia when they were under-fuelled, they were competitive right from the start and keeping up with Redbulls but had to save fuel in the end.

[MSC07-JCGX]

I'M almost certain Merc has a fuel consumption issue. The need more fuel because there coanda exhaust needs more fuel to energize the coanda effect. The car is quick on low fuel because the extra 0.26KG the need for a single lap doesn't show in lap time. But if you need 0.26KG more fuel for 57 laps. That means you are carrying 15KG (MSC said that were 15KG heavier). Carbon Dev Racing calculated (forum user) that 1kg of fuel is worth about 0.09 of laptime.

1 lap 15KG extra fuel = = 0.0932 extra laptime * 15KG= 1.4 (1.398) Sec slower a lap. Nico Rosberg did 1.32.3 and Vettel did 1:32.5. So the RB9 and Merc W04 are really close on low fuel (no 15KG Fuel penalty).

So if you look at the average laptimes you can clearly see it back in laptimes. Nico also suggested they have a good car and that really true, a bad car can get pole. Rosberg was fastest in every single sector of this track. So the highspeed advantage is also no true Force India fast the fastest in the speedtrap but their race pace was still good. The car is really good but they need to sort out how they can rid of the extra fuel ballast during the race. Nico was fighting during most of the race so the better comparison is with Lewis both he and Vettel were driving the most part of the race in clean air. On the first couple of stints losses 1.2 and 1.6 average. On the first 2 stints Lewis losses 1.455 secs on average. If MSC was right that Merc is 15KG heavier this means that merc is loosing 1.398 a lap, thats pretty close to the 1.455 the lose on average during the first 2 stints. Stint 3 and 4 the Merc burns more fuel and the extra ballast is coming down. In stint 3 and 4 Lewis is getting faster and faster and the average lap loss decreases because the extra ballast penalty gets lower and lower. In stint 4 Lewis losses 0.1sec on average on a lap comparing to Vettel. Also the underfuelling in Malaysia is a sign that every drop extra hurts the Merc, that why they got in to trouble in Sepang. Ross gambled and thought they would use less because of change of rain. The Merc Also looks really heavy compared to other cars in the beginning of the race. Merc is doing something wrong with their coanda exhaust compared to FI and McLaren. The need more fuel compared to them. Or the need better engine maps that saves more fuel. Because i really don't think the tyres are the problem i really think the tire deg is an outcome of the heavier car the run the race compared to other.

Vettel - Hamilton
Av. Lap Time 1 1:42.508 1:43.803 -1.295

Av. Lap Time 2 1:41.595 1:43.210 -1.615

Av. Lap Time 3 1:40.826 1:41.271 -0.445

Av. Lap Time 4 1:39.830 1:39.939 -0.109

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vettel - Rosberg
Av. Lap Time 1 1:42.508 1:43.505 -0.997
Av. Lap Time 2 1:41.595 1:43.160 -1.565
Av. Lap Time 3 1:40.826 1:42.161 -1.335
Av. Lap Time 4 1:39.830 1:41.338 -1.508


http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p48 ... cf9995.jpg
renault chart. Merc engines need more fuel, plus that the W04 needs extra fuel compared to others like MSC said.

Look at the chart The races the W03 was competitive where the race with less fuel consumption and less fuel throttle. It's no coincidence that China and Monaco were good races for Merc. 2 totally different tracks low speed and high speed the only thing they got in common is fuel consumption and full throttle this means less fuel less, extra balast and stress for tyres. If you look at SPA last year. That was a horrible race 60sec behind winner. If you look 1 weekend later at Monza. Less Fuel and more competitive.

-SPA MSC 1.5 of pole 3.15L fuel per Lap 72% full throthle and 7KM track.
-Next weekend at Monza 72 full throthle 5.7KM and 2.5L per lap, the Merc was only 0.5 Sec of pole.
So SPA is the worst track for Merc.

-more fuel
-longest track ( effect of extra fuel bigger, plus high speed corners with heavier car).

I can't believe that its the setup, with cleaver guys like costa,bell, willis etc. There is more then enough knowledge how to set a car up. It's simply the extra weight that, puts more stress in the tyres.

If the new Merc V6 engine is on par with the Renault of Ferrari V6. The W05 will be a real contender. The guys have builled 2 quick cars (W03/W04), the W05 should be faster again. Without extra fuel i really think Merc will be far more competitive in the race's. Merc should really concentrate on being on pole in Monaco because that is a race they can win this year. No mistakes in Q3 and they should win the race. Hope the bring some updates for Spain and still the quickest on a single lap because the next race will be Monaco. Also Canada and Singapore will be good if i'am correct. But Singapore i'm not so sure because of devolpement the car could be slower as others devolp beter during the year. I really can't see Mercedes challenge for race wins if the fuel issue isn't sorted. No car setup will disguise 13-15KG of extra fuel i'am a afraid.

looking back to 2011 in spa MSC tyre stratergy was prime prime option, merc should start on the harder compound at races that uses more fuel once the car is lighter and on the softer compound they'll gain back the time since the car is clearly quick. more fuel onboard affecting tyre wear and having to pit earlier than the others, same as last year were they had to do one more stop than the rest of the teams. Thats why at interlagos they switched back to the older exhaust because it uses less fuel and it wasnt heating the tyres up as bad, but they lost rear downforce with this.

[turbof1]

How do you know that Merc has full access to McLaren engine maps? I really don't think a devolpement area that important is shared with other teams. Or do you know for a fact that Merc has access?

more info about Coanda: http://topsportracing.com/formula-1coan ... omparison/

Last year at the YDT (the one at paul ricard) infact used the mclaren engine map to test out their first coanda exhaust concept.
Of course Mercedes has access to the maps; the team, unlike mclaren, is NOT seperate from the engine suplier. The maps are made together with the engine suplier. Such information automatically gets shared between them. There's absolutely nothing mclaren can do against that, and they know that very well.

I checked that article interesting, but does not explain 15kg of extra fuel:

But that also means that when you start more fuel must be put into the tank. Around three percent. The car with Coanda loses out in the initial phase to a lap time car without Coanda. Except the aerodynamics are able to compensate by being more downforce.

Just roughly guessing that standard amount of fuel is 160kg for a full race, 3% would be 4.8kg. Not even near 15kg. It is also the same handicap everybody else has. If fuel consumption is the problem, it is not coanda-exhaust related.

[dans79]

Just roughly guessing that standard amount of fuel is 160kg for a full race, 3% would be 4.8kg. Not even near 15kg. It is also the same handicap everybody else has. If fuel consumption is the problem, it is not coanda-exhaust related.

The theory is:

1. Mercedes engines use more fuel in general than Renault ones.
2. MGP's Conda exhaust isn't as efficient as say Mclaren's so they carry more fuel than Mclaren.
3. MGP's cooling isn't the best so they run richer ratios and thus need to carry more fuel.

So i think the 15KG is compared to the best on the grid, not just Conda vs non Conda. If memory serves is was rumored that Mclaren ran about 10 kilos more fuel than RBR last year.

[turbof1]

I can agree with all 3 points, although I doubt point 2 would be making a relevant difference because Mercedes was developing their coanda exhaust from midseason last year all the way to wintertesting. By now efficiency should be near the mclaren one.

The other 2 points aren't coanda related. Yes Renault engines are a bit more economical, and Mercedes always had cooling issues. Maybe if you count all those things up you could get to 15kg difference.

[kooleracer]

"Got chatting to a mercedes guy based in brackley this morn on the train (i noticed his id that he had round his neck) who appreciated i was quite knowledgeable on formula 1 and when talking about the disaster that was the mercedes austin gp he revealed some interesting info about the weekend and what mercedes were upto. Apparently the new coanda exhausts are producing significantly more rear downforce on the car but are also significantly more fuel hungary meaning that whilst the benifits are clear to see in qualifying the penalty during the race is also very heavy to the extent that schumacher(with coanda) had to start the race with 23 KG more fuel than rosberg(non coanda) Other teams have also found the coandas thirsty but have had 6+ months to work on solutions to bring fuel consumption back to nearly conventional exhausts levels. Mercedes reckon schumachers car had at least 18-20KG more fuel in it than the cars around him which in terms of laptime was a penalty of 6-8 tenths per lap in the early stages which is why he was such a sitting duck in the early stages of the race, infact he told me that it was lap 10 before schumacher did a lap where he never had to leave the racing line which with the dust offline to added to his problems. Another interesting thing he told me was that their was no real requirement to stop michael for the 2nd time and that the hard tyres he had would have easily got him to the end but with both drivers having no hope of points they decided to do a back to back with both cars as rosberg had just put on a new set of mediums and was in clear air so they wanted to see if the coandas gained enough laptime back on schumachers car compared to rosberg even though he had harder tyres and more fuel on board" (posted by Siskue2005, on 19th of november 2012).

Post like this, and Schumacher comment that Merc was 10-15KG heavier then other cars, convince me that they still have this problem. Also the pace of the first stint of Merc througout this year (excecpt malaysia) is really poor. Loosing 1.2-5s on per LAP on the first stint. Plus the fact then when they were underfueled in Malaysia, their pace was on par with the Red Bull for the biggest part in the race. That can't be a coincidence. This also shows that the car can be quick in quali and during the race. Rosberg was fastest in Q1 and Q2 (Q3 was rain affected) and still the race pace was good.

[turbof1]

It was certainly not only fuel holding Rosberg back at Bahrain, clearly struggling with the tyres. How much of the 1.3 seconds would go to tyre issues and to fuel is everybody's guess, but judging that when temperatures dropped right at the moment Hamilton suddenly found pace, makes me believe the bigger issue was getting the tyres into the window.

I can absolutely believe that at that point they had to put in so much extra fuel. But that was then. We are several months further now; surely they would have reduced the bulk of the deficit towards the other teams by now?

[dans79]

I can absolutely believe that at that point they had to put in so much extra fuel. But that was then. We are several months further now; surely they would have reduced the bulk of the deficit towards the other teams by now?

The other teams aren't standing still though, they are making their cars more efficient all the time. I'm sure they are into the point of diminishing returns, but it's still progress that Merc must make up.

[beelsebob]

It was certainly not only fuel holding Rosberg back at Bahrain, clearly struggling with the tyres. How much of the 1.3 seconds would go to tyre issues and to fuel is everybody's guess

Running a car 15kg heavier than the competition will certainly cause increased tyre wear. The tyre issues are almost certainly merely an effect of the fuel usage.