2014 Spanish Grand Prix - Barcelona

[MercedesAMGSpy]

I'm wondering how the tyres will hold up. This is arguably the most punishing circuit concerning tyre wear, very abrasive. The tyres are harder, but still issues could arise.

There's always the tiny chance mercedes gets the set up wrong. Infact we've seen mercedes this year getting it wrong in the first 2 practice sessions, to get it right in the last one. If the setup isn't correct, tyre wear could be excessive, to the point it might not matter what your ultimate performance advantage is.

A wrong set-up won't be a big problem with a 2 sec gap. In FP2 in China Lewis said the car was terrible, still he was doing laps a lot of teams would like to do.

[turbof1]

I'm wondering how the tyres will hold up. This is arguably the most punishing circuit concerning tyre wear, very abrasive. The tyres are harder, but still issues could arise.

There's always the tiny chance mercedes gets the set up wrong. Infact we've seen mercedes this year getting it wrong in the first 2 practice sessions, to get it right in the last one. If the setup isn't correct, tyre wear could be excessive, to the point it might not matter what your ultimate performance advantage is.

A wrong set-up won't be a big problem with a 2 sec gap. In FP2 in China Lewis said the car was terrible, still he was doing laps a lot of teams would like to do.

Yes, but afterwards they improved the set up. Paddy Lowe said they actually took a small gamble because they couldn't get a dry run during FP3, but during the race tyre wear was better then expected.

[markn93]

I'm wondering how the tyres will hold up. This is arguably the most punishing circuit concerning tyre wear, very abrasive. The tyres are harder, but still issues could arise.

There's always the tiny chance mercedes gets the set up wrong. Infact we've seen mercedes this year getting it wrong in the first 2 practice sessions, to get it right in the last one. If the setup isn't correct, tyre wear could be excessive, to the point it might not matter what your ultimate performance advantage is.

A wrong set-up won't be a big problem with a 2 sec gap. In FP2 in China Lewis said the car was terrible, still he was doing laps a lot of teams would like to do.

Yes, but afterwards they improved the set up. Paddy Lowe said they actually took a small gamble because they couldn't get a dry run during FP3, but during the race tyre wear was better then expected.

Yup, bodes well. Shows they have a good understanding of where to go setup-wise with the car, even without a chance to test it.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

I'm wondering how the tyres will hold up. This is arguably the most punishing circuit concerning tyre wear, very abrasive. The tyres are harder, but still issues could arise.

There's always the tiny chance mercedes gets the set up wrong. Infact we've seen mercedes this year getting it wrong in the first 2 practice sessions, to get it right in the last one. If the setup isn't correct, tyre wear could be excessive, to the point it might not matter what your ultimate performance advantage is.

A wrong set-up won't be a big problem with a 2 sec gap. In FP2 in China Lewis said the car was terrible, still he was doing laps a lot of teams would like to do.

Yes, but afterwards they improved the set up. Paddy Lowe said they actually took a small gamble because they couldn't get a dry run during FP3, but during the race tyre wear was better then expected.

What I mean is that the gap is so big and comfortable, Lewis and Nico don't need a 100 percent perfect setup to beat the rest of the field. This will change when the competitors closed the gap ofc.

[Multi21]

Id think that Merc will try their best to come up with a setup that gives good race pace and tire deg as opposed to one lap pace seeing as their tire wear was so shocking there a year ago. They will still have plenty in hand over the competition for qualy if its dry saturday.

[raymondu999]

Id say Lewis and Fernando are more capable of getting 100% from a car that doesn't do what they want it to do. It may not do what they want it to do, but they will still extract 100% from it. Thats why Lewis was better than Jenson when the far wasn't performing. I put Vettel in Jensons type of driver. Only great when the car is great. And thats certainty what were seeing right now

I think your statement would be correct if you had said "are more capable of getting closer to 100%" - I don't believe any driver can get 100% if they're not happy with the car. Some will get 95% and some will get 98% though (arbitrary random figures I pulled out of thin air) which is what I think you're trying to say.

[NathanOlder]

Yeah , something along those lines. To be honest , not 1 driver has ever got 100% from a car over a lap. There is always a dozen small errors even in a qualifying lap. Around monaco, if you 10mm from the barrier , it just means you were 9mm from perfection

[Harsha]

Sorry for being a noob but what does a F1 chassis consists off?
How much a small damages like hairline cracks in chassis effects the car ?

[beelsebob]

Sorry for being a noob but what does a F1 chassis consists off?
How much a small damages like hairline cracks in chassis effects the car ?

The chassis is the monocoque, engine and gearbox bolted together. The monocoque is where cracks tend to be found, and it's made of layers of carbon fibre. As I understand it, most teams use a honeycomb layer sandwiched between two surface layers to get the required strength. A crack in it can lead to unwanted flexing in odd places and have all kinds of odd effects on handling.

[turbof1]

Sorry for being a noob but what does a F1 chassis consists off?
How much a small damages like hairline cracks in chassis effects the car ?

The chassis is the monocoque, engine and gearbox bolted together. The monocoque is where cracks tend to be found, and it's made of layers of carbon fibre. As I understand it, most teams use a honeycomb layer sandwiched between two surface layers to get the required strength. A crack in it can lead to unwanted flexing in odd places and have all kinds of odd effects on handling.

If I'm correct they try to find the cracks through sonic waves. As you basicilly said, cracks lead to a loss of stifness, making the car react less predictable and ultimately hurting driver's confidence.

That being said, cracks can be very difficult to find. Like in Vettel's case where they change the chassis while suspecting but not able to confirm cracks.

[Kiril Varbanov]

If I'm correct they try to find the cracks through sonic waves.

Yes, ultrasonic flaw detection. It's a slow manual process, it does require quite some time, and some teams just build a new one (chassis). The usual material fatigue certainly applies, but with Red Bull the build quality is governed on a different level, especially ever since RB7 and their partnership with Leica.

[iotar__]

Sorry for being a noob but what does a F1 chassis consists off?
How much a small damages like hairline cracks in chassis effects the car ?

The chassis is the monocoque, engine and gearbox bolted together. The monocoque is where cracks tend to be found, and it's made of layers of carbon fibre. As I understand it, most teams use a honeycomb layer sandwiched between two surface layers to get the required strength. A crack in it can lead to unwanted flexing in odd places and have all kinds of odd effects on handling.

Or has negligible effect or no effect at all.
Routine "structural integrity" check and routine chassis change. It can mean something and it can mean nothing that's why it's so useful. Using Red Bull 2010 as an example: change of chassis was planned in advance (cracks or no cracks, reliability rather than performance) and they didn't even try to make a connection - just put two occurrences together, Webber winning races\ch. change, connections were made (up) by themselves. Now it looks like a repeat, but this time they announce it before any defects are detected. Wouldn't it be sensible to talk about it after discovering them and not before?

There was no straightforward explanation tying chassis with any measurable (time) performance deficiencies. 1. There were none visible (deficiencies), except (maybe) Monaco race pace. 2. No quotes from technical staff about the connection except Newey's "it played with Vettel's senses" whatever that means. 3. No complaints from the driver about balance (again except Monaco race). Later patched-up chassis in question was given to Webber AFAIR.

[mnmracer]

Id say Lewis and Fernando are more capable of getting 100% from a car that doesn't do what they want it to do. It may not do what they want it to do, but they will still extract 100% from it. Thats why Lewis was better than Jenson when the far wasn't performing. I put Vettel in Jensons type of driver. Only great when the car is great. And thats certainty what were seeing right now

So far, whenever his car was working, Vettel got more out of it than Ricciardo, with the exception of China, and even Lewis and Alonso had days where they were beaten by their team-mates. I'm not sure what you think you're seeing, but I'm curious to hear.

[NathanOlder]

Id say Lewis and Fernando are more capable of getting 100% from a car that doesn't do what they want it to do. It may not do what they want it to do, but they will still extract 100% from it. Thats why Lewis was better than Jenson when the far wasn't performing. I put Vettel in Jensons type of driver. Only great when the car is great. And thats certainty what were seeing right now

So far, whenever his car was working, Vettel got more out of it than Ricciardo, with the exception of China, and even Lewis and Alonso had days where they were beaten by their team-mates. I'm not sure what you think you're seeing, but I'm curious to hear.

I , along with everyone else is seeing aveage drives from a man in a car thats not the fastest. Id say Fernando or Lewis would have outscored Vettel in that car so far this season.
Have we had a definate answer to why Vettel was slow in Bahrain? Not what he said , but something official from the team?

[mnmracer]

Id say Lewis and Fernando are more capable of getting 100% from a car that doesn't do what they want it to do. It may not do what they want it to do, but they will still extract 100% from it. Thats why Lewis was better than Jenson when the far wasn't performing. I put Vettel in Jensons type of driver. Only great when the car is great. And thats certainty what were seeing right now

So far, whenever his car was working, Vettel got more out of it than Ricciardo, with the exception of China, and even Lewis and Alonso had days where they were beaten by their team-mates. I'm not sure what you think you're seeing, but I'm curious to hear.

I , along with everyone else is seeing aveage drives from a man in a car thats not the fastest. Id say Fernando or Lewis would have outscored Vettel in that car so far this season.
Have we had a definate answer to why Vettel was slow in Bahrain? Not what he said , but something official from the team?

Like I said, I am interested in seeing that substantiated. We've seen in Bahrain that if Alonso's car isn't working probably, he's also suddenly half a second slower than Kimi. I'm not sure what basis you have to say than that Alonso would score big in a non-functioning car, when it's clear not even he can.

Fact is that Vettel was 7 tenths faster than Ricciardo in Q1.
Fact is that Vettel had build a 6.5 second gap to Ricciardo during the race prior to MGU-K harvesting problems.