F1technical.net

fwgx wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 07:33

restless wrote:I find it hard to believe that all the difference between Mercedes and FI/Williams is due to chassis only.

So in 2009 the reason the Brawn was faster than the FI and the McLaren was because it was turning it's engine up when the others couldn't?

Chassis is a huge part of things, plus Merc have the fastest driver over one lap.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

2009 and 2017 are not the same thing. 2009 engines were no where as complicated as the power units of today. Engine maps play a much bigger role these days than they did back then.

Could the Mercedes engine modes be optimised for a long wheel base car only? If your car has a shorter wheelbase then the engine modes are not ideal for extracting all it's power out of corners, etc. Power delivery is too aggressive for a short wheelbase car for example. What are the Williams and FI wheelbase for 2017?

GhostF1 wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 07:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKZ3N_09HM

Not all who are the same are equal..

Yeah, they don't have a better chassis, better tire wear, better drive out of corners as a result, faster through the rest of the lap that isn't a straight and didn't have slipstream then DRS down most of the straight.

If he had more actual power then it's because Mercedes were willing to use more laps under higher engine modes or Stroll was using more power to defend around the rest of the lap while bottas saved up some more juice to use on the main straight for a pass.

You can't say car A passes car B, therefore car A has more power. Two cars with exactly the same engine mode, exactly the same power, exactly the same tire life and exactly the same electrical usage... one can still pass the other down a straight due to slipstreaming and DRS so I have no idea what you think this video is showing.

[quote=drunkf1fan]........Also lets not forget that Mercedes have the same performance gap to Williams during the race as in Q3, at a time they can't use such a mode(it uses more fuel than you could ever use per lap in a race... if you want to finish the race). The gap between Merc and their customers is 99.8% down to everything but the engine.[/quote]

here's the simple question ......

is it true that the fuel rate limit of 100 kg/hr only applies to the race and so does not apply in qualifying ??

restless wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 07:24

I find it hard to believe that all the difference between Mercedes and FI/Williams is due to chassis only.

Ahem. RedBull, Renault, Toro Rosso.. Cough cough.. Same gap or more.

JonoNic wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 09:54

Could the Mercedes engine modes be optimised for a long wheel base car only? If your car has a shorter wheelbase then the engine modes are not ideal for extracting all it's power out of corners, etc. Power delivery is too aggressive for a short wheelbase car for example. What are the Williams and FI wheelbase for 2017?

I'm guessing the wheel base has more to do with the car's aero philosophy than power delivery.

JonoNic wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 09:54

Could the Mercedes engine modes be optimised for a long wheel base car only? If your car has a shorter wheelbase then the engine modes are not ideal for extracting all it's power out of corners, etc. Power delivery is too aggressive for a short wheelbase car for example. What are the Williams and FI wheelbase for 2017?

I think you are reading too much into the wheel base there... The wheel bases are not that different as far as the engine is concerned. I think Force india is second longest anf the williams is quite short.

Weight transfer under accelration for these cars (1.5g?) during acceleration doesnt even register for the chassis when compared to the same under braking and cornering.. So doubt that wheel base is significant between the cars when it comes to accerating down the straight.

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 13:26

JonoNic wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 09:54

Could the Mercedes engine modes be optimised for a long wheel base car only? If your car has a shorter wheelbase then the engine modes are not ideal for extracting all it's power out of corners, etc. Power delivery is too aggressive for a short wheelbase car for example. What are the Williams and FI wheelbase for 2017?

I think you are reading too much into the wheel base there... The wheel bases are not that different as far as the engine is concerned. I think Force india is second longest anf the williams is quite short.

Weight transfer under accelration for these cars (1.5g?) during acceleration doesnt even register for the chassis when compared to the same under braking and cornering.. So doubt that wheel base is significant between the cars when it comes to accerating down the straight.

The WB numbers

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 10:57

drunkf1fan wrote:........Also lets not forget that Mercedes have the same performance gap to Williams during the race as in Q3, at a time they can't use such a mode(it uses more fuel than you could ever use per lap in a race... if you want to finish the race). The gap between Merc and their customers is 99.8% down to everything but the engine.

here's the simple question ......

is it true that the fuel rate limit of 100 kg/hr only applies to the race and so does not apply in qualifying ??

The fuel flow rate applies at all times during an event. So that includes all practices as well as qualifying.

Tommy Cookers wrote:

drunkf1fan wrote:........Also lets not forget that Mercedes have the same performance gap to Williams during the race as in Q3, at a time they can't use such a mode(it uses more fuel than you could ever use per lap in a race... if you want to finish the race). The gap between Merc and their customers is 99.8% down to everything but the engine.

here's the simple question ......

is it true that the fuel rate limit of 100 kg/hr only applies to the race and so does not apply in qualifying ??

My understanding is that as this from the technical regulations that cover the engine (I.e. regardless of time of use) that the same rules apply at all times.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Team Renault is right there with FI and Williams in Q, considering the lacking Renault PU, their chassis must be right there with Ferrari/Mercedes AND Redbull. Obviously they are not as good as Redbull.

Also Force India’s performance in the race is just as good and sometimes even better than their Q position would suggest. In contrary, Mercedes is far slower on Sunday than in Q3. Some can be a result of the chassis’ tyre wear (FI less wear, Merc more wear).

Another thing Mercedes pu failures are almost always showing up with the factory team, not wih customers.

Looking at these findings, i just cannot believe it is all chassis and no pu differences. Mercedes AMG team must be pushing harder and even if customers have a Q3 or high power mode, it is not so extreme as the factory team can push it.

It looks like Mercedes allows a period of qualification mode at the start of the race. When the Mercedes is out in front, they usually pull a good gap at the start. I'm not so sure the other customer teams do so on the opening laps. Just my guess.

wuzak wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 14:09

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 10:57

drunkf1fan wrote:........Also lets not forget that Mercedes have the same performance gap to Williams during the race as in Q3, at a time they can't use such a mode(it uses more fuel than you could ever use per lap in a race... if you want to finish the race). The gap between Merc and their customers is 99.8% down to everything but the engine.

here's the simple question ......

is it true that the fuel rate limit of 100 kg/hr only applies to the race and so does not apply in qualifying ??

The fuel flow rate applies at all times during an event. So that includes all practices as well as qualifying.

What they don't have in qualifying is the 100 Kg for the whole race distance limit, which at most tracks limits the amount they can go full whack in the race if they want to finish. Of course that's assuming they put the whole 100 Kg in, I believe some teams don't?

edit: if they didnt have the 100 Kg/hr limit we'd have absolute monster 1500 Hp qualy modes again.

dren wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 18:31

It looks like Mercedes allows a period of qualification mode at the start of the race. When the Mercedes is out in front, they usually pull a good gap at the start. I'm not so sure the other customer teams do so on the opening laps. Just my guess.

I don't think so as if you watched Ted's notebook after Malaysia, Mercedes said they deploy all of their electric power during the start and the lap if they can. I think that was stated in the recent pitwall strategy video as well.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2017, 18:16

Team Renault is right there with FI and Williams in Q, considering the lacking Renault PU, their chassis must be right there with Ferrari/Mercedes AND Redbull. Obviously they are not as good as Redbull.

Also Force India’s performance in the race is just as good and sometimes even better than their Q position would suggest. In contrary, Mercedes is far slower on Sunday than in Q3. Some can be a result of the chassis’ tyre wear (FI less wear, Merc more wear).

Another thing Mercedes pu failures are almost always showing up with the factory team, not wih customers.

Looking at these findings, i just cannot believe it is all chassis and no pu differences. Mercedes AMG team must be pushing harder and even if customers have a Q3 or high power mode, it is not so extreme as the factory team can push it.

I don't think anybody is saying that there's no effect from the PU. It's just that the chassis has a larger role to play in the overall picture. No point in having the most powerful unit of you can't put all that power efficiently through the tyres on the road and through the corners with the car balanced out. And as you've stated yourself, Merc has all their tyre issue to deal with, thus the performance hit on Sundays. Case in point: you saw last year, Williams regularly topped the speed charts and I think Bottas broke the record in Baku but then the rest of the track came up where chassis was the deciding factor .