[Team] Mercedes: Will they ever dominate again?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

its really an exciting test for the logic of the budget cap system! can teams that once relied on money to dig their way out of problems now rely on, as Horner seems to be describing it, focus and efficiency?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...K5b2TXkS5.html

After Team Principal Toto Wolff stated that Mercedes need to be bold with future updates, amid questions over the squad’s ‘zero sidepod’ design, Trackside Engineering Director Andrew Shovlin opened up about what’s next.

“People have tended to use the word ‘concept’ when they mean the sidepod design, and Toto had said recently that we are looking at a revision that is going to come along in the next few races anyway,” said Shovlin.

“Given the gap to the front, of course we are going to look at bigger departures and more radical changes. But those changes take time to turn into a faster solution in the wind tunnel – you can’t do them overnight. There is quite a lot of development that you’ve got to do around any sort of big change in geometry in that area.

“Of course, we are looking at where we can improve the car, we are looking for potential to develop and you will see visible changes coming on the car over the next few races.”

I can't point to the text, but I thought I saw a comment attributed to Toto that was effectively "we can't develop two cars". I took that as meaning... They can either double down on the current minimal sidepod solution OR focus on something more like what the other teams are doing. They don't have the cash to do both. Or if they do try to do both, then something has to give and that is likely the effectiveness of one or both of those paths.

I think Mercedes may have already had some development of the current solution "in the works" so they probably should finish those and bring those forward and deliver those in near future. Then they would pivot all development to the revised solution and let the current (plus impending updates) continue "as is" until the new solution shows up. Moving back to traditional sidepods is no easy feat as they have to move a bunch of stuff around. All speculation on my part.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The sidepod design alone is far from the problem with Mercedes. They could literally change that overnight. It's the integration of that change into the whole design ethic of the car that's the issue. That's an unbelievably massive job and probably involves going back several seasons of steps.

indeed and in fairness i dont think anyone is discounting the level of difficulty or complexity involved.

but thats why we watch pro sports...to see the impossible become possible. for sure give them time (its only been one race and/or or a season and one race if you count last seasons journey into the wilderness) but you are kind of making it sound like we should be ok with them taking several seasons to correct the ship.

honestly, im not ok with that.

not saying there should be a rule change every season but perhaps there should be a rethink (within the cap rules of course) to either bring back a 2nd winter test session or the opportunity for a voluntary in-season test (if a team choses to spend their limited resources this way) to accelerate their rebuild process?

[morninggents]

What I can't understand is why Mercedes, knowing that their side pod design didn't work in 2022, turned up this year with just about the same design. What were they doing in the off season?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think Mercedes may have already had some development of the current solution "in the works" so they probably should finish those and bring those forward and deliver those in near future. Then they would pivot all development to the revised solution and let the current (plus impending updates) continue "as is" until the new solution shows up. Moving back to traditional sidepods is no easy feat as they have to move a bunch of stuff around. All speculation on my part.

but doesnt that sound a lot like having to run two development programs at the same time? for at least this early portion of the season?

[S griffin]

It's not ideal. That's why it's important to get the current problems on the car sorted ASAP, then they can concentrate on any upgrades they can make. Hopefully it won't be long till the Merc gets sorted

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but doesnt that sound a lot like having to run two development programs at the same time? for at least this early portion of the season?

I probably explained my thoughts poorly. If you have money you can run two programs.

1. develop the current car (even if you think it is a dead end) and only stop once the B spec is ready.
2. develop the B spec replacement

I think the current situation is...

1. Bring "in progress" developments for the current car to completion, but that in progress work should only be those items that are close to completion. Basically wrap up the low hanging fruit for the current car. Stuff that is fully (or near) fully baked and ready to go. Ideally that is as small as possible. With the cost of bring to the track being a deciding factor (least cost is best)

2. Shift all "new" development to the B spec.

So the level of double development should be small (as small as you can make it). I can imagine there are internal battles as to where to draw the line regarding #1 (where to cut the line on in progress items for the current car). Some might be more aggressive than others.

Also... it's worth pointing out that not only are teams doing in season development for the 2023 car, their budget for this year is also to design the 2024 car.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by morninggents

What I can't understand is why Mercedes, knowing that their side pod design didn't work in 2022, turned up this year with just about the same design. What were they doing in the off season?

Working on an alternative design, if the current side pod design didn't work?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I probably explained my thoughts poorly. If you have money you can run two programs.

1. develop the current car (even if you think it is a dead end) and only stop once the B spec is ready.
2. develop the B spec replacement

I think the current situation is...

1. Bring "in progress" developments for the current car to completion, but that in progress work should only be those items that are close to completion. Basically wrap up the low hanging fruit for the current car. Stuff that is fully (or near) fully baked and ready to go. Ideally that is as small as possible. With the cost of bring to the track being a deciding factor (least cost is best)

2. Shift all "new" development to the B spec.

So the level of double development should be small (as small as you can make it). I can imagine there are internal battles as to where to draw the line regarding #1 (where to cut the line on in progress items for the current car). Some might be more aggressive than others.

Also... it's worth pointing out that not only are teams doing in season development for the 2023 car, their budget for this year is also to design the 2024 car.

Richard

The problem with your assumptions is that you can't shift to a B spec until you fully understand why the A spec isn't ultimately competitive. That's where they are lost.

They were lost in 2022, which is why the 2023 doesn't do what they expected, and hence why they are still lost in 2023.

I spoke to an aero designer friend of mine. He told me he's designed 142 floors and 2 have been built.

They need to go back to the start of the 2022 spec, from 2020/21, and start again, which I am sure is what they're doing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The problem with your assumptions is that you can't shift to a B spec until you fully understand why the A spec isn't ultimately competitive. That's where they are lost.

They were lost in 2022, which is why the 2023 doesn't do what they expected, and hence why they are still lost in 2023.

I spoke to an aero designer friend of mine. He told me he's designed 142 floors and 2 have been built.

They need to go back to the start of the 2022 spec, from 2020/21, and start again, which I am sure is what they're doing.

I get your point, but don't fully agree. More specifically, why would they need to understand why their alternative solution doesn't work to understand the solution(s) others are using. I think the better answer is they need to understand what the other teams are doing (why their solutions work) before they try to replicate those solutions and build their own version of it.

Now, if I were to argue for your point, I would say that if they are unable to understand why their current solution doesn't work, then they might be so lost as to not be able to also understand why other teams solutions work.

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I get your point, but don't fully agree. More specifically, why would they need to understand why their alternative solution doesn't work to understand the solution(s) others are using. I think the better answer is they need to understand what the other teams are doing (why their solutions work) before they try to replicate those solutions and build their own version of it.

Now, if I were to argue for your point, I would say that if they are unable to understand why their current solution doesn't work, then they might be so lost as to not be able to also understand why other teams solutions work.

Richard

That's what I was trying to explain. They can't fully understand why other concepts work until they work out why theirs doesn't. The days of cherry-picking what you see on other cars and that bringing big gains are well passed. You have to see the package holistically. That's why the package works.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I get your point, but don't fully agree. More specifically, why would they need to understand why their alternative solution doesn't work to understand the solution(s) others are using. I think the better answer is they need to understand what the other teams are doing (why their solutions work) before they try to replicate those solutions and build their own version of it.

Yes, and the way to do that is to put that type of design into CFD and wind tunnel.

Originally Posted by peebee2

That's what I was trying to explain. They can't fully understand why other concepts work until they work out why theirs doesn't.

I don't understand, that doesn't make sense.

They can understand how the other concepts work by putting them in CFD and wind tunnel, no?

If their current design doesn't work that well because there are no large sidepods to manage the airflow (particularly front tyre wakes), leading to huge inconsistencies of flow in yaw and at different car speeds, then no amount of fiddling is going to make it work until they... you know, put large sidepods on it to manage the airflow!

Not saying this low speed lock up "smoke visualisation" (credit: B Sport) is gospel, far from it, but it's certainly not encouraging to see the low energy dirty air off front tyres being drawn into the beam wing area instead of directed outboard like on the Red Bull and the other wide sidepod cars.


https://youtu.be/bTtNC4ayOa4?t=252

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Yes, and the way to do that is to put that type of design into CFD and wind tunnel.

Conceptually yes. I expect in practice it is not that simple. If it were so easy to do, then everyone would already have done so (caught up). I think it remains complex for two reasons

1. These cars are complex systems. Even if just looking at aero and nothing else, I expect teams can be on a path of self education by reverse engineering. But the teams who are leading with the ideas did this in the opposite direction. They probably had an aero concept and then implemented it. My point being that probably continue to have a more superior understanding of "why" their solution work. BUT (and this supports your argument), at some point the lightbulb will go off over someone's head and they are likely to truly understand why the other guys solution works.

2. It is unlikely it is any single trick that makes specific cars quick. What is the saying.. There may not be one thing that gives you a second, but there might be ten things that give you a 1/10th? I expect quick teams have a number of small items that contribute to their speed and much of this may remain invisible. So closing the gap may require replication of more than one trick (or your own tricks that provide speed as well).

But at the end of the day, I expect #1 is the easiest to figure out (which is your point) and #2 maybe harder, but also all "tricks" are not equal. Maybe the the aero is the biggest contributor (or not).

This is a good discussion.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The problem with your assumptions is that you can't shift to a B spec until you fully understand why the A spec isn't ultimately competitive. That's where they are lost.

They were lost in 2022, which is why the 2023 doesn't do what they expected, and hence why they are still lost in 2023.

I spoke to an aero designer friend of mine. He told me he's designed 142 floors and 2 have been built.

They need to go back to the start of the 2022 spec, from 2020/21, and start again, which I am sure is what they're doing.

I dont agree that this is necessarily true.

It may be correct that they dont fully understand why the correlation between wind tunnel data and issues with porpoising came up and why the actual travel never properly matched the computerized data extensions, meaning the '22 car never matched the projections but there is other observable data and correlation in what others were doing and have done.

If Racing point can copy a Mercedes and make it work then Mercedes can copy a red Bull and get it to a point where it is a better competitor than the present car.

The real issue is not in the radiators, it is in the floor and the flow of air around the car that is affecting grip and balance relating to entry and to mid corner pivoting. The car is fast (aerodynamically) in a straight line. So the principles relating to straight line dynamics are valid.

What is not happening is that the levels of grip that should be coming from the floor and wings in cornering speed are not happening. The car had to run with more wing last year to get better cornering performance meaning more drag.

This why it was slower on the straight last year.
When the change happened in the rules to lift the car it helped solve problems for a lot of teams, which indicates a failing in the regulators understanding of the effects of the original ride height and the issues relating to the concept they were trying to create.

There was enough evidence from the late 70's and early 80s that the porpoising issues were going to be a problem if there was not a properly defined counter and understanding of the remedy when the regulations were formed.

Leaving the concept and reforming the existing car to have more in common with RBR and AMR in concept, even using the existing monocoque and suspension should bring the team up to a better challenge.
Aston Martin use the entire drive train and rear suspension on their car so the two cars are not that far apart.

The issues are around what is happening to the airflow around the centre of the car and the underfloor that are compromising speed in corners.
They got on top of it last year to make am improvement and can do so again.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

There was enough evidence from the late 70's and early 80s that the porpoising issues were going to be a problem if there was not a properly defined counter and understanding of the remedy when the regulations were formed.

do we blame the rules makers for that or place fault with the teams themselves for lacking the sort of historical/institutional knowledge built into their decision making processes that could have prevented repeating past errors?

RB have Newey and thus an access to a level of knowledge and experience other teams dont have. and not for the first time. ideas like the blown diffusor which were new and undeveloped on the MP4-18 finding new life years later and with a different team in his RB7 or the reintroduction of a pull rod suspension system in the RB5 and not abandoning it but still being able to overcome their early season deficiency to those teams running the double diffusor concept and basically ending up with the fastest car by the end of the 2009 season.

probably im buying too much into the cult of Newey but for sure we have seen his cars bounce back within the space of one to two seasons. you need the right personnel and organization to do it and Merc dont seem to have that right?

maybe the loss of Lauda or if we give credence to Ham's assertions that the team just have not listened to him for the past year and a half...and if their issue is organizational then they probably do need to go back to a time 20/21 where they were still strong as peebee2 suggests because unless they understand why they have been getting so many thing wrong then they very much continue to run the risk of making those same mistakes over again?

but i do think this process should be completed faster and cheaper then it was originally because they have the benefit of hindsight, have that much more data collected, have a better idea of what went wrong and what pathways not to go down?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Conceptually yes. I expect in practice it is not that simple. If it were so easy to do, then everyone would already have done so (caught up).

The suggestion wasn't to catch up. It was as to whether wide, downwashing sidepods (7 of the teams) or wide, inwashing sidepods (Ferrari, HAAS) are a good idea. 9 out of 10 teams have decided they are a good idea.

Of course that does not mean Mercedes are 'wrong', nor that Mercedes shouldn't pursue a different approach. The W13 was working quite well and scored pole and won a race, after all.

[chillibowl]

Question about Hamilton's pace?

after his stop and going onto the mediums, he seemed to be on a charge but that charge really just ended once he caught up to his team mate who was on the hards.

i suppose he may have just taken it easy in order to nurse those mediums to the end, but could he have taken the fight to Alonso had he not settled in?

obviously the are all way behind the RB's, but in terms of long run/race pace how far back is the Merc from the AM?

could be closer then we think?

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Question about Hamilton's pace?

after his stop and going onto the mediums, he seemed to be on a charge but that charge really just ended once he caught up to his team mate who was on the hards.

i suppose he may have just taken it easy in order to nurse those mediums to the end, but could he have taken the fight to Alonso had he not settled in?

obviously the are all way behind the RB's, but in terms of long run/race pace how far back is the Merc from the AM?

could be closer then we think?

Mercedes are firmly best of the rest of the rest.
Or is it best of the best of the rest?

Call it Formula 1.75

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Question about Hamilton's pace?

after his stop and going onto the mediums, he seemed to be on a charge but that charge really just ended once he caught up to his team mate who was on the hards.

i suppose he may have just taken it easy in order to nurse those mediums to the end, but could he have taken the fight to Alonso had he not settled in?

obviously the are all way behind the RB's, but in terms of long run/race pace how far back is the Merc from the AM?

could be closer then we think?

There was some talk that apparently Hamilton wanted the team to tell George to let him through. True or not I dont know.

Regarding the difference between to two cars, AM and Merc.
The engine, gearbox/rear suspension is the same. So the material differences are all in the front of the car and aero.
Mercedes had changed their approach to dealing with the problems and set up.
They had been possibly fixated on an approach that centered on what they thought was their alternative but acknowledging that it wasn't the right approach, or a rabbit hole, has brought a broader approach which may be actually maximizing what they do already have and any changes that occur are done within the broader regime for understanding the aero conflict.

If that is so the car may not need such a radical reset and some well considered development may bring it to a direct challenger or better than AM.

From the race results it looks like Ferrari are behind Mercedes but that may be the nature of the circuit and issues with Ferrari on the hard compound, which is something that is manifesting for the team.

[PhilipR]

Seems Mercedes has lost their strength of tire wear from last year.
They were slow but consistent on tires allowing them to be strong at the end of races
Now they seem to have lost that as well

Still early days and development between merc, Am and Scuderia will be interesting
No chances to catch RB tho unless something major happens

Remember 1998 when Mclaren had a large advantage but steadily Ferrari caught up and made a championship out of it? I am afraid this is no longer possible under current cost cap regulations. Seasonal advantages will most likely be kept

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I spoke to an aero designer friend of mine. He told me he's designed 142 floors and 2 have been built.
.

What’s a floor cost to make? 500k pounds/euros/dollars?
142 to be made for 2 cars, there goes the whole salary cap..

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

What’s a floor cost to make? 500k pounds/euros/dollars?
142 to be made for 2 cars, there goes the whole salary cap..

Actually not a massive cost, not that you’d be able to try so many.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If Racing point can copy a Mercedes and make it work then Mercedes can copy a red Bull and get it to a point where it is a better competitor than the present car.

Racing Point didn’t do that though, they’re not called Tracing Point for nothing!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

There was some talk that apparently Hamilton wanted the team to tell George to let him through. True or not I dont know.

there was but nothing bad as far as i can tell. George was focused on keeping a gap to Alonso to cover the 5s penalty which Alonso had already served and George was not aware...which provided a moment of levity when the team told him.

post race, Ham said that George had the right strategy and in-race neither seemed interested in making an issue out of it.

all things considered, the team mates seem to work well together...so far at least.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

What’s a floor cost to make? 500k pounds/euros/dollars?
142 to be made for 2 cars, there goes the whole salary cap..

Those 142 floors exist in the virtual realm, there are probably only slight tweaks between each iteration.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Those 142 floors exist in the virtual realm, there are probably only slight tweaks between each iteration.

The point was that you can’t just copy something from another car, like the sidepods etc. The integration into your total package is much more important than that.