Markus Neumann Probably the Suspension Geometry
I think you can, front and rear is balance rather then pure downforce.I think it's too simplistic to speak of downforce in general. You'd at least have to take front and rear as well as high- and low-speed downforce into account. Lotus was insanely fast through T3 in Catalunya, which is all about aero (and that turn is also the one that attacks the left front the most, which was the limiting factor in the race, and yet Lotus did the best job of preserving it), whereas Mercedes was best in the last sector, where aero really isn't that important. Similar with Ferrari and Red Bull. Plus, downforce is a two-edged knife: too much, and you kill the tyres, too little and you get wheelspin/don't get them up to temperature, which destroys them even more.
And besides, if it really was so simple, then why wouldn't RB and Merc just drive with less wing? Better tyre wear and more straight line speed - what's not to like?
Well, the two are connected because for example if you don't have enough rear downforce all the front downforce in the world won't help you because you'll just get terrible oversteer. Especially the Mercs of the last years had that problem.I think you can, front and rear is balance rather then pure downforce.
Is there any evidence for this? Over the last years, downforce was always the weakest point of the car and Hamilton also pointed out at the start of the year that it still had less than the McLaren of last year. Where is all that alleged downforce supposed to have come from?The fact that Mercedes was best in last sector doesn´t detract from the fact it´s got loads of downforce. It´s just in the DNA of the car/setup.
It´s just like Newey says, there´s a direct link between downforce and tire life and it´s not so easy to simply turn have lower AoA on the wings and think the problem is solved.
If it was they would have done it already.
Exactly. But you don´t simply remove front wing so you have very poor downforce front and rear because that would be even worse then having a slightly stronger rear end and work around it.Well, the two are connected because for example if you don't have enough rear downforce all the front downforce in the world won't help you because you'll just get terrible oversteer. Especially the Mercs of the last years had that problem.
Evidence for what? That it got loads of downforce and yet have great mechanical grip?Is there any evidence for this? Over the last years, downforce was always the weakest point of the car and Hamilton also pointed out at the start of the year that it still had less than the McLaren of last year. Where is all that alleged downforce supposed to have come from?
But it´s not that easy to simply remove downforce and think the problem is solved.Yes, that's what I said >.< If too much downforce was the cause of their tyre problems, they would just take it off the car.
That´s gearing philosophy then anything really.It's not very hard to do and even provides some benefits in terms of straight-line speed
Call Red Bull and Mercedes tomorrow and tell them they got it all wrong.Ergo, pure downforce is not the cause of their problems.
As i said, they and Mercedes have extra luggage but it doesn´t retract from the original point.Amusing anecdote on the side: When Kubica was testing in Mercedes' simulator, they asked him if he knew what the cause of Lotus great tyre management was (since he had driven the car's predecessors). He told them that Lotus themselves probably don't even know and it's more likely that it's just been part of the car's DNA that hasn't changed over the years.
No i´ve been saying for three straight posts now that it´s not that easy...So you're saying that RB and Mercedes are currently working to get downforce off their car?
Seems like there´s two jobs available at Red Bull.the two outfits are arguing that it is not fair that the tire supplier's 2013 products seem to be penalizing the best cars. Indeed, while in the past high downforce tended to minimize tire wear, the opposite phenomenon is apparently occurring now, and according to Red Bull and Mercedes that also poses a safety risk. Correspondent Michael Schmidt said: "Adrian Newey has made the direct link between downforce and wear." World Champion Sebastian Vettel confirmed: "The better the car, the worse shape you're in."
Boullier thinks that Red Bull have designed their car in a way which ”is all based on the aero.” ”This is why, when the tyres start to be an important part of the car and the car performance, they may struggle.”
Yea it´s been like that since downforce was invented.Is there some kind of rule that says the car with the most downforce needs to be the best car?
If you look at Past years from the New Regulation the More downforce car was the best car.Is there some kind of rule that says the car with the most downforce needs to be the best car?
During the pre-race show on NBCSports yesterday, Matchett was saying the Mercedes wasn't getting the rear tires to flex the sidewall enough through the corners causing the tire to stay more on the inside shoulder rather than rolling onto the larger contact patch in the middle of the tire.
fastest != bestYea it´s been like that since downforce was invented.
the only think that have stopped it before has been reliability. Not once has tires like this existed.
In 99.9% of F1 history where Aerodynamics has been present the car with the most downforce has won the championships.fastest != best
And what I meant is that just because it's been like this in the past doesn't meant that there is some kind of norm that dictates that it would be unfair if this was no longer the case.
Speaking to Autosport he said “There have been concerns from some of the teams that the changes will favour one team or another, but we don’t think that will be the case,”
“These changes are being made for Pirelli, not for anyone else. We need to get the balance right.
“We didn’t want to over-react, because by doing that we could then be helping certain teams.”
When asked if the changes would allow a team like Red Bull to dominate he said “We would hope not. But of course we always face that risk.”
“People will say it is pressure from Red Bull, but there has not been excessive pressure from them,”
“In fairness to Christian Horner [team principal], a lot more has been said in the media this week than what they have told me.”
https://twitter.com/PaulHembery/status/334249291742863360From Canada changes to be made to bring back 2 to 3 stops. Some structural changes combining elements 2012 and 2013 products.
After reading today's news about the Pirelli and some interesting comments form Paul Hembery. I really think Mercedes has build a fast car but the car is to fast for the tyres.
Its sound strange but: "We're looking at compounds and structure, and the idea is obviously to get back to our two/three stop strategies," Hembery said. "What you've got at the moment is a combination of the cars are really going hard - much harder than we had anticipated, big steps forward in performance - together with a structure that pushes very heavily the compounds. It's a very aggressive structure in the corners and you're pushing the compounds beyond the limits. ESPN F1 interview.
So the quali pace of Merc shows that car is quick but at same time Merc during quali takes the tyres beyond there limit. The tyres can cope with that for 1 lap with less fuel. But doing the same with heavy fuel means abusing the tyres with the result of overheating issues. I never thought i was going to say this, but Mercedes have to build slower car. The STR with Riccardio was 1.1 sec of lewis during qualifying but ended 2 places higher then Lewis. This proves that slower cars put less stress in the tyres with the result of less abuse during the race.
If it only worked like that. Almost magic...The designers were given the job of designing a car which will be the fastest over a race legnth with the tyres they had already tested and knew what they were like. mercedes and redbull haven't achieved the design spec I don't understand why they are moaning?