Why you should not write off MB-AMG Petronas | Page 3 | FerrariChat
Buy

Why you should not write off MB-AMG Petronas

Discussion in 'F1' started by Ferraripilot, Nov 29, 2012.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Page 3 of 6
  1. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #51 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    Interesting post, but it creates an interesting but obvious question: If every team designed a car for which they saw the flaws before hand then every team should be a championship team, right? Or at the very least every top team would be capable of making their cars fundamental issues go away and at least be able to fight for the championship. That is simply not the case.


    Do you believe Ferrari would have designed F2012 with the exhaust arrangement it had if they knew it was fundamentally flawed? Thankfully for Ferrari's sake that's all the car had working against it.

    And Red Bull at the beginning of the season, do you believe their EBD system would have been designed as it was given its thankfully not-too horrible fundamental issues which caused it to behave differently at every track?

    Then of course there's all the cars of the past which were designed by massive names such as Newey which were utter dogs with huge unrepairable fundamental issues.

    Comparing W01 to W02 cannot really be done as W02 was a clean sheet design. It had some good characteristics and it did what it needed to do, which was to in essence be a test bed for W03. W03 did its job in winning a race and being very very fast at a couple races this year where they actually should have won (Monaco). The car was unfortunately horribly unreliable for Michael at the first half of the season when it actually was on occasion competitive. Then MB hit a wall with what they could do due to the front wing and DDRS.

    You state this is not fact, but it indeed is. W03s DDRS system being the flaw of the car with regards to its hampered development is indeed fact. Confirmed by a German article the other day and by Brawn last week on Autosport stating DDRS ruined what they could do to their front wing, which was in essence nothing. When MB did finally deduce the tire situation for W03, they had to run a higher ride height with less rake simply so they could run DDRS along with making the tires last, they could not have both and they made the decision to keep DDRS on the car as it just wasn't worth it to dig that deep into a car when a new car is already being designed.

    Then their EBD was bolted on which they had laying in the rafters for some time (didn't know this until very recently), but they could never take full advantage of the system, why? DDRS specifically at the front end of the car. Remember, the front wing system was always acting passively even if rear DRS was not open, this created a brick wall in terms of front end design. Had W03 been leading the WCC at the time, I'm sure Bell and Costa would have ditched DDRS post Monaco, crash tested a different nose cone, new front wing, altered front suspension geometry, EBD, higher rear ride height. In other words, they would have fought. But being where they were it made little sense.
     
  2. TifosiUSA

    TifosiUSA F1 Veteran

    Nov 18, 2007
    8,468
    Kansas City, MO
    Full Name:
    DJ
    #52 TifosiUSA, Nov 30, 2012
    I actually don't think it was but the FIA made them alter it, which in turn ****ed it all up.
     
  3. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #53 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    They're all like giant high end computer and software companies these days. So saying that working for Google, Apple, or Microsoft in a think tank making $300k/year is any different from one another is just bananas. All these companies have created a culture so 'working' for them is probably a term which must be used very lightly, and I see little difference for those engineers cracking out car bits. My hat is really off to the guys working the giant autoclaves and actually assembling the bits, that must indeed be a painstakingly difficult job.
     
  4. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #54 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    I thought they allowed F2012 to blow the brake ducts, but in testing it just didn't work.
     
  5. TifosiUSA

    TifosiUSA F1 Veteran

    Nov 18, 2007
    8,468
    Kansas City, MO
    Full Name:
    DJ
    #55 TifosiUSA, Nov 30, 2012
    I can't remember honestly. I remember them hacking it all up but I thought that was because the FIA tightened the parameters.

    ALSO, rumor has it that Ferrari had, like Lotus, the suspension ride height deal implemented and when that was rule illegal it screwed the car all up since it was primarily designed around that. Can't prove it though.
     
  6. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #56 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    Too soon to say about WDC ranks but I have no doubt that he will win at least one race.
     
  7. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #57 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    That's the most likely case. As I remember they had to redesign the exhausts preseason because they didn't fit the rules.
     
  8. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #58 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    Ferrari didn't have it initially but immediately began development when they heard Lotus had it. How deep Ferrari got with it is unknown but I know Lotus had it first.
     
  9. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #59 Fast_ian, Nov 30, 2012
    I know you have an inside guy there, and I certainly don't claim to have any more understanding of their DDRS than what's already been published. [Scarbs did a good analysis IIRC].

    However, with due respect, the majority of the above is BS IMO.

    - Why would a trick gizmo that can only be used for a tiny portion of a racing lap have any influence upon front (or rear) suspension geometry?

    - Same applies to ride height & rake etc; They can't possibly have optimized their design to only work in the DRS zone.

    - They're all pretty much constantly doing different front (& rear) wings - No big deal. And wings aren't crash tested.

    - Worst case they *may* have had to do a new nose and submit that for testing. Again, no big deal. But I don't see any reasons why it would really be necessary.

    - New wing sideplates; Ross could give that to the kid who makes coffee in the design office. A couple of flat pieces of carbon of the appropriate size, done job. The famous "hole" is now gone - No more DDRS.

    - Any plastic piping is now unused; Maybe it would have been a PITA to rip it all out, but so what - Just leave it all there. No need to redesign engine covers or anything - "Abandoned in place" is I believe the term.

    - The contentious one; That it was somehow working at the front when it wasn't meant to. A real quick fix for that would be a piece of duct tape over the holes! Or, cut the pipes back out of the way.

    I'm sorry if I sound a little facetious here, but it's all excuses that don't really add up to me, sorry, ;)

    Again, I certainly don't claim to know what went wrong, but they definitely went backward as the season went on - Never a good sign.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  10. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #60 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    MB began development of the DDRS and the PASSIVE DRS (which W03 had in the nose constantly operating) prior to Japan 2011 where they tested it for the first time. This was a massive undertaking developing such a fiddly system which really doesn't yield much, perhaps their CFD and win tunnel modeling showed more potential? who knows

    W03s front suspenion heave function was specific to the aggressiveness of the passive front end DRS system, which in turn caused them unforseen tire issues most of the time. If you recall at Melbourne, Michael was specifically stating on the radio how aggressive the system became when the full system was in effect. The suspension mainly at the front as I understand it was specific for this system.

    As I stated before, W03 is a 17 layer cake of complexity and that's just what they didn't need. They need W04 to be a simple, clean, and most importantly fast car without any wizardry under the carbon. Mclaren and Lotus got it really right with their cars IMO this year. W03 was brilliant.......when it worked at the beginning of the season. But the planets had to align.
     
  11. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #61 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    Facetious Ian.
    I like it.

    While it might be a stretch to blame all its ills on the DDRS, today's machines are systems, designed as an entity, and to make one bit function (particularly one that works on bothe ends) many other pieces have to have complementary designs.
     
  12. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #62 Fast_ian, Nov 30, 2012
    :) Been thinking about requesting a name change - You may have nailed it - Thanks!

    Understood. But *if* it was, as is being claimed, the root of their ills I fail to see why they couldn't simply get rid of it as described above. I just don't buy that the entire car would disintegrate without it. Or that it was somehow impossible to "disable".

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  13. jav

    jav Formula Junior

    Apr 9, 2007
    508
    Massachusetts
    Full Name:
    John
    #63 jav, Nov 30, 2012
    True, but a departure from your premise. You explained why their was hope for this team, and I, why not. Yes- every team does their best to start with a great car and then see how succesful they were (or weren't). This team has started reasonably well every year but has failed to improve (develop relative to peers) each and every season- even in their 2009 championship year. I have asserted that their main failing is abysmal in season development- to which I have seen no viable evidence of correction. Hence I feel your hope is misplaced.


    Lots of presumptions there-

    1) you used the term "evolve" which requires the comparisons you say can't be done.

    2) W02 :
    A) did NOT do what it needed to do (which the team stated was to improve on the 4th place finish of flawed W01)
    B) it was NOT desinged as a test bed for W03 anymore than any team relies on lessoned learned from previous cars short comings

    3) what I said was.. it is NOT a fact that DDRS was "THE" flaw... their were many others and I listed some. Or would you assert that DDRS contributed to reliability issue and not underhanging brakes from the onset?


    Undertstand- I was a fan once too. I had hope and wanted to beleive as you do. I've seen enough to know better and I suspect sooner or later, you will too.
     
  14. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #64 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    Might I suggest Faust Ian as well?

    Disintegrate may be just the word. Think of the car as an integrated system. Changing the DDRS would in fact dis-integrate it.
     
  15. TifosiUSA

    TifosiUSA F1 Veteran

    Nov 18, 2007
    8,468
    Kansas City, MO
    Full Name:
    DJ
    #65 TifosiUSA, Nov 30, 2012
    MB failed this year not because of the DDRS but because they stopped developing the damn car to "understand the tires" which they utterly failed at doing.

    I think Marussia got a better grip on the tires than MB.
     
  16. kraftwerk

    kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

    May 12, 2007
    26,826
    England North West
    Full Name:
    Steve
    #66 kraftwerk, Nov 30, 2012
    Krautrock Ian I like it..;)

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3YA_jR6qn0[/ame]
     
  17. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    49,818
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    #67 tifosi12, Nov 30, 2012
    Agreed on most. "Garagistes" is not really fitting the definition anymore for the reasons you point out.

    But it is much quicker to type than "independant teams using a car manufacturer's engine".

    As for MB: There is no chance in hell the corporate suits will ever give Brawn the freedom he needs. They're way too German for that. Brackley might succeed if they had a pot of gold and no ties to Stuttgart, but that's not the reality.

    Brawn GT: WDC and WCC
    MB year 1: 4th
    MB year 2: 4th
    MB year 3: 5th

    Anybody see a trend?
     
  18. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #68 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    Funny post!


    So all of Audi's Lemans success was because they were too German? And Porsche's racing success? Still too German? They have boards too.

    I don't think it's getting through to many that Daimler doesn't have to fund the MB F1 team very much, it's literally a drop in the corporate bucket at roughly $70m anum. MB as a team have sponsors coming out of their ears so this is not a corporate money gamble and the 'suits' have little to do with anything in this game. Brawn can do what he wants with the team, Haug is simply the go between as I understand it. Or Haug is the 'reporter' if you like. As I've said before, other teams have far more ugly looming figureheads than Daimler's board.
     
  19. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #69 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    Garagiste is a state of mind. An attitude.
     
  20. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,940
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #70 Ferraripilot, Nov 30, 2012
    MB fully understood the tires pretty quick. Just to make the tires place nice and essentially heat altogether they had to make terrible ride height and aero adjustments which ruined a lot of performance.

    In Melbourne/Malaysia and some other early venues, the car was very fast and had competitive aero with anyone on the field, but the issue was the suspension system operated the tires in a much more broad heat range than the tires were capable of working at. The Pireppi tires had a + - 20c temp range, miss it and they don't work at all or they fall off quickly. MB made it work but they had to lose a lot of performance in doing so.
     
  21. jav

    jav Formula Junior

    Apr 9, 2007
    508
    Massachusetts
    Full Name:
    John
    #71 jav, Nov 30, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012
    Anyone that doesn't see a trend, let me make it a little clearer:

    MB year 1: 4th *** WCC points 214 & Points away from 3rd place= 182

    MB year 2: 4th ** WCC points 165 & Points away from 3rd place= 210

    MB year 3: 5th * WCC points 142 & Points away from 3rd place= 236
     
  22. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #72 Fast_ian, Nov 30, 2012
    I therefore postulate that they didn't understand the tires........ And I thought the company line was the DDRS was the reason for the "weird" ride height & rake angles..... ;)

    Their car didn't work with the tires it seems. They may have "understood" them, but that's a world away from making 'em work - Which many of the others did as the season wore on.

    They just went backwards, regardless of any understanding. :(

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  23. TifosiUSA

    TifosiUSA F1 Veteran

    Nov 18, 2007
    8,468
    Kansas City, MO
    Full Name:
    DJ
    #73 TifosiUSA, Nov 30, 2012
    +1
     
  24. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #74 Fast_ian, Nov 30, 2012
    "FaustIan" How about that? ;)

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    It's impossible to define exactly, but some are and some aren't. Some "big" teams are garagistes, some small ones, not so much.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  25. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,693
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    #75 VIZSLA, Nov 30, 2012
    Looks like we've settled it.
    ;)
     
Page 3 of 6

Share This Page