Mercedes AMG F1 W04

[henra]

And btw Q3 the track temp was 42 Celsius and on Sunday it was 42 celsius. So Merc was quickest when it was the hottest in Q3. So explain that me please. Same temp but quickest if Q3, if the car doesn´t like the heat how can it be fastest in the heat?

That does not necessarily have to be a contradiction: The optimum temperature window of the Tyres is said to be very narrow.
On one lap with a low fuel load high track temps could help you get into the window from below where other cars with a less aggresive Tyre heating behaviour might struggle to get the Tyres hot enough.
Running heavy over multiple laps, the same track temperture could easily get you out of the window on the high Temperature side of things.

One thing I was wondering is if we have any idea about the fuel tank design of the W04. Is it maybe particularly high or susceptible to sloshing or maybe not ideally placed close to the CG so that the balance or roll characteristic changes more significantly than others when the fuel load changes. Thereby exacerbating said higher fuel consumption and thus weight.

Regarding the fuel weight difference I have to admit that I'm struggling a bit with the purported 15kg or even 20kg.
We can probably safely assume that the Power differences between the different F1 Motors are not more than 10 to 20 HP.
A Fuel weight difference of 15kg would be almost a whopping 10%. That's really huge for IC engines of pretty similar era, design and construction.
In Road vehicle design it takes multiple engine generations to find 10% efficiency in an IC engine of comparable basic design. I would be surprised if such differences existed in F1.

[FoxHound]

The difference isn't in the engine itself. But in the mapping/coanda combination.

[Cocles]

One thing I was wondering is if we have any idea about the fuel tank design of the W04. Is it maybe particularly high or susceptible to sloshing or maybe not ideally placed close to the CG so that the balance or roll characteristic changes more significantly than others when the fuel load changes. Thereby exacerbating said higher fuel consumption and thus weight.

We might be able to extrapolate a little info from the development history. The W02 had this exact problem due to its short wheelbase. This was one of the notable features fixed with the W03 when they went back to a more standard wheelbase. The W04 then would have benefitted from this. The point being that we know MAMG has recently taken a hard look at their fuel cell.

[cherok1212]

Using Coanda means a shorter header pipe from engine to compensate for deflection of exhaust plume downward. Shorter header means inefficient exhaust cycle in engine. Collector is added to header to compensate for loss of horsepower with exhaust cycle inefficiancies. Longer header makes up for loss but adds heat to tires with closer proximity to tires. To make up for loss of horsepower due to inefficient exhaust cycle, fuel mixture is richened. To compensate for richer fuel more is added. This has indeed been a problem since Singapore but there is no obvious cure, hence my reference to "black magic". I think on same fuel MB is really close to the front but @ the beginning of races I do believe that HAM & ROS are heavier than their counterparts by a considerable amount giving a reasonable explanation to horrid 1st stints and competitive 3rd. Not an engineer but I consume every bit of info the Internet provides.

[mclaren_mircea]

What do you think, which of the top cars evolved and changed less from the begining of the test in February until now? Let't take all the top cars and analyse . On an italian website said that W04 changed to a little extend compared to rivals. On another said that was Lotus e21 and Mclaren mp4-28. AMUS said that Ferrari evolved to a lesser extent than the others. What are your opinions? Thanks

[Shakeman]

The carry over W04 parts will be forward of the driver as well as the improved frics suspension IMO. The rest will need to be new.

That's exactly what I meant when saying focussing on development that can be carried over. I doubt there's much else other than information gleaned from data collection and analysis of tyre performance.

I must admit to not fully knowing what a 2014 car will look like as I've read so many conflicting reports, other than less emphasis on aero and more on power and mechanical grip.

[beelsebob]

The carry over W04 parts will be forward of the driver as well as the improved frics suspension IMO. The rest will need to be new.

I can tell you – it won't – the new rules mandate low noses.

[Huntresa]

The carry over W04 parts will be forward of the driver as well as the improved frics suspension IMO. The rest will need to be new.

I can tell you – it won't – the new rules mandate low noses.

And shorter FWs

[JMN]

Riddle me this (in an effort to put the hypothesis of Mercedes carrying more fuel than the rest of the field to the test):
how come the Mercedes cars aren't god awful off the line if they're heavier than the rest of the field?

[WillerZ]

Riddle me this (in an effort to put the hypothesis of Mercedes carrying more fuel than the rest of the field to the test):
how come the Mercedes cars aren't god awful off the line if they're heavier than the rest of the field?

Because the run down to turn 1 is not long enough. It actually should help initially, because the extra weight towards the rear increases the load on the rear tyres and therefore increases the amount of force you can apply through them to the road. It remains an advantage until those with less fuel are no longer traction limited, at which point it becomes a disadvantage.

I'm not saying the theory is right; just that comparable (to other teams) starting performance should probably be expected in either case.

[GrizzleBoy]

More weight = More force acting downwards on the tyres during launch = More pressure on contact patch friction between tyre = More ability to handle torque under acceleration without slipping = More stable under acceleration regarding wheel spin = Driver can put their foot down a bit more?

Hopefully at least one part of that is correct lol.

[Mika1]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5_ESc7vIL4[/youtube]

my question (42:30), interesting answer by Scarbs.

[Juzh]

More weight = More force acting downwards on the tyres during launch = More pressure on contact patch friction between tyre = More ability to handle torque under acceleration without slipping = More stable under acceleration regarding wheel spin = Driver can put their foot down a bit more?

Hopefully at least one part of that is correct lol.

Dont think so. I can accelerate my 125cc gokart to 100kph 2 times faster than my road going car despite the car having 8 times the power, but only 6 times the weight. Less weight = better acceleration, no matter how you spin it. RC high performance cars can do 0-100 in 2s. More weight also means you have more mass to get off the line.

[GrizzleBoy]

I don't think you can make that kind of comparison without taking the power/weight ratios into account?

Then there's the fact that acceleration off the line in an F1 car is limited by traction.

The wheels can spin many times faster than the amount of grip the tyres can produce at that stage. So more weight should mean more pressure/friction on the contact patch and therefore more conversion of torque into grip (and therefore forward movement) rather than wheel spin.

Disclaimer: Armchair physics.

[Blanchimont]

Less weight = better acceleration, no matter how you spin it.

Not true!

Acceleration depends on the torque/power of the engine, tyre quality and dimension, road surface condition, center of gravity, weight of the car, wheelbase, wheels driven, aerodynamic downforce, aerodynamic resistance, speed, springs and dampers.

But only looking at weight isn't enough, just look at what the Bugatti Veyron is capable of.