2018 Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team

[Phil]

I seriously don't understand, what is the solution to break the Mercedes' dominance. People fail to understand that, their strength is not engine!

Their strength is obviously part of many factors, also including a strong driver in Hamilton but also the engine. To how much, is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't bet against it being a significant factor.

Analysis of Melbourne showed that Ferrari were gaining on the straights and losing in the corners. The simple conclusion would be that Ferrari have a strong(er) engine and weaker car. A more realistic conclusion of that, is that it's not just about engine performance. It's just as much about fuel efficiency.

Post winter-testing, there was a strong belief that Ferrari's race simulation was compromised by a necessity to conserve fuel. Since then, there have been various reports that indeed Mercedes have probably the most efficient engine coupled with perhaps the most powerful one too. This allows them a significant advantage on a few fronts: They can utilize that by starting with less fuel, or at the same fuel can retain more power longer. Or both, at the same time. Either is significant. Less fuel offers an advantage that the car is lighter which has a positive effect on cornering speed, acceleration but also tire wear. From all reports by Ferrari and RedBull, this advantage in fuel efficiency isn't insignificant.

Coming to Melbourne which is in the top 3 of most fuel heavy circuits, all indications are that Ferrari chose to run a low(er) downforce set-up to minimize drag and minimize fuel consumption. This compromised their cornering speed, which fits the qualifying analysis perfectly of the Ferrari gaining on the straights but losing significantly in the corners.

So yes, a lot succeeds and falls on the engine. To how much extent that engine is responsible for the teams success is anyone's guess, but it is a major contribution. No doubt the car/chassis/aero is good too, but without having the ability to compare these different teams with the same engine, it's impossible to say how much the other factors contribute and perform against one another.

[ferkan]

I seriously don't understand, what is the solution to break the Mercedes' dominance. People fail to understand that, their strength is not engine!

Their strength is obviously part of many factors, also including a strong driver in Hamilton but also the engine. To how much, is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't bet against it being a significant factor.

Analysis of Melbourne showed that Ferrari were gaining on the straights and losing in the corners. The simple conclusion would be that Ferrari have a strong(er) engine and weaker car. A more realistic conclusion of that, is that it's not just about engine performance. It's just as much about fuel efficiency.

Post winter-testing, there was a strong belief that Ferrari's race simulation was compromised by a necessity to conserve fuel. Since then, there have been various reports that indeed Mercedes have probably the most efficient engine coupled with perhaps the most powerful one too. This allows them a significant advantage on a few fronts: They can utilize that by starting with less fuel, or at the same fuel can retain more power longer. Or both, at the same time. Either is significant. Less fuel offers an advantage that the car is lighter which has a positive effect on cornering speed, acceleration but also tire wear. From all reports by Ferrari and RedBull, this advantage in fuel efficiency isn't insignificant.

Coming to Melbourne which is in the top 3 of most fuel heavy circuits, all indications are that Ferrari chose to run a low(er) downforce set-up to minimize drag and minimize fuel consumption. This compromised their cornering speed, which fits the qualifying analysis perfectly of the Ferrari gaining on the straights but losing significantly in the corners.

So yes, a lot succeeds and falls on the engine. To how much extent that engine is responsible for the teams success is anyone's guess, but it is a major contribution. No doubt the car/chassis/aero is good too, but without having the ability to compare these different teams with the same engine, it's impossible to say how much the other factors contribute and perform against one another.

Only problem is, I don't see Ferrari really running less wing in Australia compared to Mercedes (nor did HAAS). I think they trimmed FW slightly to balance it out since diffuser or floor is not working as it should (RW itself has rather steep AOA).

I think AMUS reported fuel saving duo to Ferrari's pace in Barcelona testing being so far behind the Mercedes as explanation for its pace. But in the end, the more powerful your engine is the more efficient it is. And, since everyone plays with same amount of fuel, it also means more powerful engine is less thirsty one.

Last year Ferrari might have had ton of downforce, but apparently car itself was quite draggy (according to Binotto himself), which would definitely influence fuel consumption. So far, judging by Merc onboards, Merc customer car and Ferrari customer cars, I would say there is very little between two engines.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

So yes, a lot succeeds and falls on the engine. To how much extent that engine is responsible for the teams success is anyone's guess, but it is a major contribution. No doubt the car/chassis/aero is good too, but without having the ability to compare these different teams with the same engine, it's impossible to say how much the other factors contribute and perform against one another.

I don't think you got the point that I am making. The engine, is just the output of the work those people at Mercedes are capable of and delivering. Without the strength that they have, it's not possible to sustain the kind of dominance that they have maintained.

http://nonf1.com/2014/09/Cyril_Abitebou ... gines.html
This is a quote from Cyril Abiteboul, on 2014-09-24. I couldn't get the autosport link, that I had earlier posted elsewhere.

"There is a rule of diminishing returns, i.e. after some time Mercedes with all their investment and development physically reaches the limit of the possibilities, and then we will be able to catch them,"

This is the fifth year running and there is no sign of anyone catching Mercedes on the PU part.

The reality is, regardless of what rules are to brought in to reign the Mercedes, the chances are, they are the ones who would beat everyone else to bring another piece of mastery. That is why I am saying, engine is not the strength, it's the people who are relentlessly bringing performance. Tokens or no tokens (we forgot already about tokens!). I hope I made my point clear.

[dans79]

So is this not a problem with the cars rather than the track? If you live on a farm you get a 4X4 not a Ferrari and it does the job you want.

The cars have evolved over the last quarter century because they had to, to remain competitive. The issue is the tracks have not. All the tracks have evolved in the past because of the cars. They added chicanes for example to slow them down, but non of them have seen major revision in a really long time.

[Big Tea]

So is this not a problem with the cars rather than the track? If you live on a farm you get a 4X4 not a Ferrari and it does the job you want.

The cars have evolved over the last quarter century because they had to, to remain competitive. The issue is the tracks have not. All the tracks have evolved in the past because of the cars. They added chicanes for example to slow them down, but non of them have seen major revision in a really long time.

I follow that, I also appreciate why they do not change the rules to make it a 1litr 400kg car about half the size, but that is what is required for these tracks. We can not blame the track so much, because the way I see it I can not remember a single track alteration that has not made the track worse. I also agree that if left as they were they would be undrivable by modern cars.

I am also the first to admit I do not have a solution.

[De Jokke]

All this testing, no probs.
And when it matters, gearbox

[djones]

Has Mercedes recently (since 2017) changed their strategy team?

It seems they make some horrific, race losing decisions quite a lot of the time now and they never used to.

Or was is that pre 2017 they had such an advantage the strategy didn't really matter.

[SparkyAMG]

Has Mercedes recently (since 2017) changed their strategy team?

It seems they make some horrific, race losing decisions quite a lot of the time now and they never used to.

Or was is that pre 2017 they had such an advantage the strategy didn't really matter.

They've been making terrible race strategy decisions for years... it's nothing new unfortunately.

[marvin78]

They can manage that if they are more dominant. The car gives it back. But if they are only a little bit stronger than the rest, their strategy (which seems to be based only on computers and not on what human eyes can see) falls apart sometimes. But I think, like last year, after spain, they will be dominant enough to cover that weakness again.

[Phil]

It seems they make some horrific, race losing decisions quite a lot of the time now and they never used to.

I think that is coming down on Mercedes a bit too hard.

Strategic gambles mostly benefit the bold. In Australia, Ferrari gambled high with Vettel and that gamble only succeeded because the VSC happened in the right time. Had the VSC not occured, Vettel would have pitted and come out quite a bit behind Kimi in 3rd. Mercedes had to play it safe with the leading car, they had to react to Kimi's early pitstop and they made a slight error with miscalculating the necessary VSC gap by the smallest of margins.

In Bahrain, it's similar. Ferrari gambled again. While Ferrari was the leading car and with most to lose, when they pitted Vettel early and saw Mercedes pitting Bottas for medium tires behind, it put them in a difficult position. It was either run faster on a two-stop and hope that what ever gap Bottas might drive out, that they would have enough time and pace to retake the lead. Option 2 was to get to the end on softs and attempt the same one-stop strategy on the worse/riskier tire. In the end, this was their best chance - their only chance of getting that win. They gambled again, at the risk of perhaps reaching the cliff and pit again and finish 3rd behind Lewis. But they somehow made it work - Vettel drove brilliantly and Bottas/Mercedes a bit too hesitant about applying pressure on Vettel earlier in that stint. Perhaps Mercedes themselves had a slightly higher tire usage on even the harder tires and was careful not to overpush the tires. Other teams seemed to have similar problems who also ran the mediums but changed them after 20 laps.

All in all, I'd say they've been pretty solid. They should have won Melbourne with Hamilton and they perhaps could have won Bahrain with Bottas had they been a little bit more aggressive - but on the other hand, this year, there are only 3 PUs allowed. Perhaps playing it a little too conservative may prove to be the best thing further down the line when other teams battle reliability issues. Or not. We will see.

[TAG]

The good thing about Mercedes is that they'll only make a mistake once. The problem is that there's 1000 ways of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and Mercedes seems to be going down the checklist to make sure they make them all.

It's been their biggest failing with Hamilton really, they've got a guy that can do what 99% of drivers can't. And they consistently play it safe with him.

Like I said, they won't make the same type of mistake again. 993 more ways to go.

[PhillipM]

I think their biggest mistake was that they just assumed the Ferrari couldn't make that distance on the tyres instead of playing 'what if'.
With the pace in that Merc and Hamilton closing up fast they should have had Bottas pushing on the mediums to bring Vettel's pace up and make *sure* that Ferrari had to stop again - if it meant Botta had to turn down and fuel save/nurse tyres to get to the end it wouldn't have mattered - Vettel would have had to come past Hamilton who had plenty left in hand.

Silly mistakes, it's almost like Mclaren started doing in their later years with Hamilton - no wonder he was so annoyed, he already left one team because of stuff like this...

[Unc1eM0nty]

Hindsight is a marvelous thing

Australia, safety car or VSC is a throw of the dice, nothing more nothing less, when this happens some teams get lucky and some loose out.

In Bahrain Toto said he was 90% sure they had the race in the bag, Ferrari gambled and won but make no mistake is was a gamble, 39 laps on a set of soft tires and they just, just scraped home, if the tires had given up a lap or two earlier they would have lost.

Could Mercedes have pushed harder to put pressure on Vettel, yes certainly, but what if Vettel came in for a new set of SS 15 laps from home and reeled Bottas in because he'd used up all the life in his tires ? then we would be saying they messed up, is easy to be wise after the event.

If Ferrari gambled like this again over 10 races I pretty sure they would loose more than they win. Their decision wasn't by choice - they were forced into it, that's what happens when you have two closely matched teams and long may it continue because it was a great race.

[PhillipM]

Could Mercedes have pushed harder to put pressure on Vettel, yes certainly, but what if Vettel came in for a new set of SS 15 laps from home and reeled Bottas in because he'd used up all the life in his tires ?

Hamilton would have been in the way.

[Unc1eM0nty]

Could Mercedes have pushed harder to put pressure on Vettel, yes certainly, but what if Vettel came in for a new set of SS 15 laps from home and reeled Bottas in because he'd used up all the life in his tires ?

Hamilton would have been in the way.

Easy meat though on fresher faster tires