- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Scarbs again with detailed review, but essentially the ducts are hidden by the DRS and shots taken from Schumacher's car being recovered appear to confirm that the air is directed to the underside of the front wing.
2012 F1 Mechanics: designs and pieces that will win WDC & WCC
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 306 comments
- 30,596 views
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Christian Horner is making a really big deal out of Mercedes' front wing F-duct. He queried it in Australia, and Whiting ruled it legal. He appealed the verdict and threatened a formal protest, but the FIA maintained that it was still legal. He requested a clarification ahead of Sepang, and the FIA threw it out. Now he wants "more talk" about the rear wing, claiming that there is still no resolution and that it may still be illegal.
He's certainly making a big song and dance out of it. Does anyone else get the feeling that Red Bull might have something in their car that would make it very difficult - if not outright impossible - for them to introduce their own FWFD? Or that developing their own FWFD would push them beyond the limitations permitted by the Resource Restriction Agreement?
He's certainly making a big song and dance out of it. Does anyone else get the feeling that Red Bull might have something in their car that would make it very difficult - if not outright impossible - for them to introduce their own FWFD? Or that developing their own FWFD would push them beyond the limitations permitted by the Resource Restriction Agreement?
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,604
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
I can't think of any other reason to persist with his remarks.
What's the Resource Restriction Agreement? Is it the agreement they pulled out of at the end of last season that the teams agree not to spend too much money?
What's the Resource Restriction Agreement? Is it the agreement they pulled out of at the end of last season that the teams agree not to spend too much money?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Yeah, that's the RRA. But as they are no longer a part of FOTA, they are no longer bound by it, even if they say they will follow it in principle. I'd say Horner's crusade against the Mercedes rear wing has more to do with the design of the RB8 rather than the RRA.
The problem with the FWFD is that the air going in through the DRS vents needs to travel back through the car in the opposite direction to the car’s actual travel. I’m no expert, but I very much imagine that because of this, the channels the air follows from rear wing to front would need to be set out in a very exact way so as to let the air flow through the car in the most efficient way possible. Especially since the intended effect of the FWFD needs to be felt as soon as the DRS flap is opened.
This is a problem because it will no doubt be very difficult for the channels to reach the front wing without first passing through the survival cell. And the survival cell needs to be homologated; once it passes its crash tests, it cannot be changed. The FIA is unwilling to let changes through for any reasons other than safety, and they go over any plans for re-homologation very carefully so that teams cannot simply claim “it’s safer than the old version”, but include something that offers aerodynamic gain – if they find anything, they will reject it (a bit like Lotus’ reactive ride-height system, which was claimed to do one thing, but was actually intended for something else). This is why McLaren had the best F-duct in 2010: it was incorporated into the design of the survival cell, which made it the most efficient. Everyone else had to find a way around a survival cell that they could not change.
So, I’m willing to bet that Christian Horner so vehemently opposes the FWFD because it offers an excellent advantage, but Red Bull’s hands are tied either by a survival cell that they cannot modify, or something in the design of the car – maybe to do with that slot in the nose-step – that makes it very difficult to work in an FWFD. Possibly the kind of something that they don’t want to give up.
The problem with the FWFD is that the air going in through the DRS vents needs to travel back through the car in the opposite direction to the car’s actual travel. I’m no expert, but I very much imagine that because of this, the channels the air follows from rear wing to front would need to be set out in a very exact way so as to let the air flow through the car in the most efficient way possible. Especially since the intended effect of the FWFD needs to be felt as soon as the DRS flap is opened.
This is a problem because it will no doubt be very difficult for the channels to reach the front wing without first passing through the survival cell. And the survival cell needs to be homologated; once it passes its crash tests, it cannot be changed. The FIA is unwilling to let changes through for any reasons other than safety, and they go over any plans for re-homologation very carefully so that teams cannot simply claim “it’s safer than the old version”, but include something that offers aerodynamic gain – if they find anything, they will reject it (a bit like Lotus’ reactive ride-height system, which was claimed to do one thing, but was actually intended for something else). This is why McLaren had the best F-duct in 2010: it was incorporated into the design of the survival cell, which made it the most efficient. Everyone else had to find a way around a survival cell that they could not change.
So, I’m willing to bet that Christian Horner so vehemently opposes the FWFD because it offers an excellent advantage, but Red Bull’s hands are tied either by a survival cell that they cannot modify, or something in the design of the car – maybe to do with that slot in the nose-step – that makes it very difficult to work in an FWFD. Possibly the kind of something that they don’t want to give up.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Christian Horner is still going on about Mercedes' rear wing.
- 3,195
- tribolik
Of course if he can understand how it works he can boost the performance of the Red Bull in qualy... it seems this year the shoe is on the other foot...
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm just afraid he's going to be an absolute pain about it if he can't get it ruled illegal and if Mercedes feel no need to tell him how it works.
- 23,800
- Philippines
It's likely Red Bull's complex nose ducting doesn't allow for it, and the slim profile of the rear bodywork further limits development in this area.
-
But Horner is picking at this nit simply because Mercedes are hampering their efforts to win. Red Bull have the ability to beat McLaren over race distance, but only if they don't have to dice with the Mercedes cars over those first few laps before the Mercs chew their tires to ribbons.
-
But Horner is picking at this nit simply because Mercedes are hampering their efforts to win. Red Bull have the ability to beat McLaren over race distance, but only if they don't have to dice with the Mercedes cars over those first few laps before the Mercs chew their tires to ribbons.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The irony of all this is that an FWFD isn't going to fix the RB8's shortcomings. If Horner spent as much time and energy getting the RB8 up to the levels of performance the team want as he spends trying to get the FWFD banned/detailed, then he wouldn't need to worry about the FWFD at all. Based on the decisions the team is making, Red Bull is pretty much being run by Fry and Laurie rather than people who have won two drivers' and constructors' titles.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Just wanted to say it looks like Marussia isn't all that bad so far. It is ahead of the Caterham which was the first car introduced, and have nth degree more of testing than the Marussia. So perhaps the regular nose is better in some ways than the step nose. Or having a wind tunnel only shows how much it helps teams, which is common sense in motorsports.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
The Marussia is over a second slower than the Caterham in qualifying...I don't see how you can say its a better design in any respect other than the car is more reliable.
Certainly it helps making the car reliable first but reliability doesn't achieve decent results these days like it did 20 years ago.
Certainly it helps making the car reliable first but reliability doesn't achieve decent results these days like it did 20 years ago.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Well, for one - as you point out - it's more reliable. Which is important for the races, since there are no points on offer for qualifying.
And secondly, it looks like the gap between Caterham and the midfield is closer than it was last year. And the MR01 is closer to the Caterham than the MVR-02 was last year. So the MR01 is an improvement on last year's car as well.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
I still don't see how its "ahead" of the Caterham though. It only beats it on retirements by one and its slower. Sure in overall terms, Marussia have seemingly made a step forward..or rather, maintained their position. But I wouldn't really call it better, just ok.
I'm also not sure whether they have truly made an improvement over the previous year's car seeing as we have only been to two races so far with completely different charateristics. But they are still anything between 6 tenths to 1.5 seconds slower than Caterham which doesn't sound much different to last year. They gained 1 second in Malaysia qualifying but lost whole seconds in Australia. Granted, they hadn't even tested the car before Australia..but this is half the point - 2 races doesn't tell us a whole lot for accuracy.
Either way, the car is still slower than the Caterham. And HRT are still a danger if the same gambles that happened Malaysia happen again elsewhere (though even in that circumstance, HRT would have even beaten Caterham!).
As usual, its interesting to follow the bottom teams' progress. I still think it will be the usual order but I think HRT will struggle to beat Marussia again this year if Marussia truly have a more reliable car.
I'm also not sure whether they have truly made an improvement over the previous year's car seeing as we have only been to two races so far with completely different charateristics. But they are still anything between 6 tenths to 1.5 seconds slower than Caterham which doesn't sound much different to last year. They gained 1 second in Malaysia qualifying but lost whole seconds in Australia. Granted, they hadn't even tested the car before Australia..but this is half the point - 2 races doesn't tell us a whole lot for accuracy.
Either way, the car is still slower than the Caterham. And HRT are still a danger if the same gambles that happened Malaysia happen again elsewhere (though even in that circumstance, HRT would have even beaten Caterham!).
As usual, its interesting to follow the bottom teams' progress. I still think it will be the usual order but I think HRT will struggle to beat Marussia again this year if Marussia truly have a more reliable car.
Last edited:
- 3,915
- California
- gdwest1
This DRS F-Duct thing will be legal until 2 or 3 other teams are using it. Then watch as the banhammer comes crashing down on Merc, and the 2 other teams.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Never once did I say the car had a better design, I only said that it probably helped to have certain design tools to make it better than last years. Not surprised that you've jumped to your own conclusion once again. Obviously reliability does achieve something, it is probably one of the lesser talked about key ingredients to F1. Aero package is always talked about and trumped upon, but when we look at last year alone and we see that Williams didn't have an aero issue more so a realiability issue one can not say it's not that big. Any series can be said to have better reliability than 1 or 2 decades ago, doesn't mean it has no factor to overall race and even season outcome.
Especially for rear to lower mid pack cars, such a thing is essential to being a step ahead of the other team. Sadly you've been proven wrong when we look at the standing thus far, Marussia are ahead because of reliability and a better aero design but more so the prior than that latter for sure. Quali only gets you a nice seat that much closer to those you intend to beat, it does not decide the race.
- 996
- Vancouver
- jcm-16
LMSCorvetteGT2
LMSCorvetteGT2
LMSCorvette, please re-read the bolded parts.
1st bolded point: Caterham has been -on average- 2 seconds faster in qualifying! Yes, Marussia are ahead in the Standings, but do you honestly think that they'll still be ahead in 18 races? By that logic, Charles Pic will finish ahead of Felipe Massa, because he's ahead right now! The Standings will change a lot in the next 18 races.
2nd bolded point: Maybe it is better.
3rd bolded point: Well, you did say that you thought the nose was a better design.
4th bolded point: Compare that to the 3rd bolded point. It makes you sound like a bit of a hypocrite. Compared to the fact that Marussia's 2 seconds slower then Caterham, you're claim is a bit hard to swallow.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
Jumping to conclusions? You implied the Marussia was a better design by referring to "perhaps the regular nose is better in some ways than the step nose". Nothing I said was out of order there.
I think its quite clear that Williams had more than a reliability problem last year because even when the car was reliable, it was slow. So I don't really see how thats a relevant example. A better example is HRT the past couple of seasons which despite having a slower car, has nicked better positions from Virgin/Marussia through superior reliability when it counted.
I quite agree that reliability is important, but as I said, it doesn't achieve the results it did in the past. Marussia can't rely just on reliability if they want the decent results - it just helps in their battle with Caterham and HRT.
Whatever, the point is that Marussia really isn't ahead of Caterham in any sense except in the WCC (with a 14th and 15th - hardly secure seeing as its the magic 13th that put Virgin behind last year) and currently by one on retirements/reliability.
- 996
- Vancouver
- jcm-16
"Never once did I say the car had a better design"
"Sadly you've been proven wrong when we look at the standing thus far, Marussia are ahead because of reliability and a better aero design"
- You point out that Marussia are ahead of Caterham in the the standings. You give two major reasons to why this is better (reliability and aero).
- You also say that you "Never once did I say the car had a better design".
I'm sorry, but do these two statements not contradict each other?
Ardius, I completely agree with what your saying. Very well explained 👍
"Sadly you've been proven wrong when we look at the standing thus far, Marussia are ahead because of reliability and a better aero design"
- You point out that Marussia are ahead of Caterham in the the standings. You give two major reasons to why this is better (reliability and aero).
- You also say that you "Never once did I say the car had a better design".
I'm sorry, but do these two statements not contradict each other?
Ardius, I completely agree with what your saying. Very well explained 👍
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Once again did you even bother to read, it becomes very annoying that you only half read my quotes and yet try to write me off like I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll even quote it here for you so you can FULLY READ IT. If you did read it you wouldn't be harping on my supposed saying of Marussia having a better aero design. I'm saying and you'll see that in the quote that I think the MR-01 is better than the MVR-02 that is what I mean by better aero. They have a better aero package than that of last year, probably due to being able to finally use a wind tunnel and not just 100% CFD.
As in I never once said it has a better design then the Caterham like you two seem to be implying, I'm saying it had a better design than last years car that isn't a contradiction.
WOW, I'm not implying that, I'm just saying perhaps as in maybe, it might, possibly, an off chance. See what your saying that I'm implying is what is called an antonym of perhaps, you know like certaianly, surely, it is. See the difference? Well I hope you do cause having to explain where your wrong, but wishing to be oh so right is getting tiresome.
It's quite easy to see, Williams are using the same rear end package as they did last year. They had several transmission failures which is the center piece to that design. This year with the same set up (improved) it has so far worked like a charm. Also just stacking up the stats from this year to last year, Williams in the first two races had retirements due to gearbox/transmission failures. This year improved same rear-end shows a much different transition. I agree HRT is a good example, hell even a great example. Williams example was given to show that last year and this years car rear end wise are the same, yet one shows reliability now the other didn't which just goes to show that reliability is not something that was so important just two or more decades ago.
[/QUOTE]I quite agree that reliability is important, but as I said, it doesn't achieve the results it did in the past. Marussia can't rely just on reliability if they want the decent results - it just helps in their battle with Caterham and HRT.[/QUOTE]
Which is the point your missing, no one is expecting Marussia to be up there in the fray with McLaren, RBR, Ferrari, Merc GP and the top midteams, not even Marussia themselves. That wasn't the point that I was making nor PM. For the area they're fighting in which is low tier, reliability is probably one of the biggest factors going for them.
It doesn't matter, so what if they aren't out right faster than Caterham the fact still stands that at this very moment, they are doing a bit better of a job and this in effect is seen WCC wise. That simple, Tortoise and the Hare type situation in the first two races. Racing isn't about what ifs and technacalities, who is where at the end of the day is what matters. I'd hope that those who watch racing realize that.
Last edited:
- 996
- Vancouver
- jcm-16
[QUOTE="LMSCorvetteGT2]...A very large post, I'm not going to fully quote it...[/QUOTE]
meh. If you're unwilling to accept the possibility that you might be wrong, then it's hopeless to bother with this discussion. You've covered you're tracks, and I see what you meant to say; but I still think that you were being a hypocrite in that one post. If you can't admit that, then I'm not going to bother.
meh. If you're unwilling to accept the possibility that you might be wrong, then it's hopeless to bother with this discussion. You've covered you're tracks, and I see what you meant to say; but I still think that you were being a hypocrite in that one post. If you can't admit that, then I'm not going to bother.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Wow, seriously dude you're still trying to make me out to be a hypocrite. You know trying to flame someone is pretty rude. How can you understand what I meant but still say I'm a hypocrite? Obviously you don't understand what the word means or you don't understand what I mean, but you're just saying you did so you can feel right. It's a forum not a debate challenge every time you jump on. Grow up a bit kid, it's highly rude to try and make someone you don't know look bad.
Also you're not going to bother cause you have no evidence that proves what your saying. Thus you make that comment to save yourself some face, get over it.
- 996
- Vancouver
- jcm-16
LMSCorvetteGT2
Everyone is wrong sometimes. You made a contradicting statement. You re-wrote and explained what you meant, and I agreed with that. However, you originally made a mistake in your writing, and because of a small mistake, it made you look like a bit of a hypocrite. Clearly it's not what you meant to say, just a small error in your writing. I'm fine with this, everyone makes little mistakes like these sometimes.
What I'm not fine with is how defensive and personal you're getting with this. All you had to do was make another post explaining what you meant to write. You didn't need to be rude and defensive in the first place, a simple "My bad, I meant to say this ..." would have been enough.
That being said, this is the internet. A lot of people will never admit they're wrong. And some are just plain trolls. I wouldn't be too suprised if you continue to point out how I'm stupid and immature. I hope you're not one of those people.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I wasn't wrong if I forgot to add something, what was wrong was you to say I was a hypocrite, there is a big difference between that and contradiction in a definition and ethical sense. Basically when you say I'm a hypocrite in open forum, those who actually know the meaning see it as me being immoral, without ethical backing or virtue. When you say I contradict myself which you should have all along, that means that I made conflicting opposing statements. However, I did not, instead I forgot to add a portion believing that it was implied through my writing. I agree people are wrong at times, and I openly showed Ardius that he made a better example, I have no issue saying I'm wrong or otherwise and you can ask people that debate me on a regular basis in a respectful intellectual manner.
Uh I'm pretty sure that me explaining what I meant to you since you didn't understand the implication was me explaining. I take it personally because you calling any person a hypocrite is attacking the person and not the post. Ask PM or any past or current mod and they frown upon this. How was I rude? I didn't call you idiot or moron or any bad names, and I surely didn't call you a hypocrite as you did to me. So what is this double standard you've imposed where ironically I'm the rude one yet you attacked me...
The point is I did explain it, you wanted to keep going and call me a hypocrite. You said you understood what I truly meant yet still thought of me as a hypocrite???
I see a kid that is barely of age to chat here, trying to be more mature then he seems to be. You seem to be trying to pick a fight and you went about it wrongly. This of course is my opinion so don't take this out of context. I do think though that you want command any respect from anyone if you're going to outright attack the user instead of the user's post.
And now we come to you lecturing me and giving me a guilt trip. I just showed you that I admitted that I've said to be wrong before and did so to an extent with ardius in this exact thread. Would you like me to collect proof from the couple thousand posts I've made in my time here? Yes I did say you were immature, never did I say you were stupid and I'd like evidence that shows I did word for word.
Point is I told you what I meant it wasn't a contradiction and most definitely not me being a hypocrite by any stretch of the mind. Instead it was a lapse or absence of a complete thought at most.
- 996
- Vancouver
- jcm-16
LMSCorvetteGT2
Sorry, at my age, the word hypocrite is used very lightly. It wasn't meant as a huge insult of moral values, I only meant that you typed out two contradicting thoughts. I do know what it means, I just forgot that most people don't use it in a more casual manner. I didn't mean to offend you personally. I'll avoid using that word on the internet to avoid causing confusion.
I still think that those earlier statements contradict, but I'll avoid using that word.
I suppose that's one thing about the internet, don't try to imply anything. It doesn't work. I now understand what you were trying to imply, and that's all good
Also, I saw the Red Bull RB7 today at the Vancouver International Auto Show (plastic tires of course, the rest might have been a fake, but it looked very real). It was part of the Infinity section, due to their sponsership agreements. They had a little sign explaining it. I'll sum up what it said:
"Red Bull won the 2011 championship with the RB7. Infinity are partners with Red Bull. On display is the RB8, their 2012 contender."
I ask myself, where's the step-nose, why is their an exhaust-blown diffuser? Oh wait, Infintity doesn't even know the difference between the RB7 and the RB8.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Sorry, at my age, the word hypocrite is used very lightly. It wasn't meant as a huge insult of moral values, I only meant that you typed out two contradicting thoughts. I do know what it means, I just forgot that most people don't use it in a more casual manner. I didn't mean to offend you personally. I'll avoid using that word on the internet to avoid causing confusion.
I still think that those earlier statements contradict, but I'll avoid using that word.
I suppose that's one thing about the internet, don't try to imply anything. It doesn't work. I now understand what you were trying to imply, and that's all good
Thanks and it's good, and I'm sure we'll move on. I just wanted to give praise to Marussia is all. I may retract the praise by the end of the season though, but for now not a bad openning to their season. I was wrong about sticking up for HRT though for the moment.
Also, I saw the Red Bull RB7 today at the Vancouver International Auto Show (plastic tires of course, the rest might have been a fake, but it looked very real). It was part of the Infinity section, due to their sponsership agreements. They had a little sign explaining it. I'll sum up what it said:
"Red Bull won the 2011 championship with the RB7. Infinity are partners with Red Bull. On display is the RB8, their 2012 contender."
I ask myself, where's the step-nose, why is their an exhaust-blown diffuser? Oh wait, Infintity doesn't even know the difference between the RB7 and the RB8.
Are you sure it isn't a show car? Merc GP had a show last year that looked like the MGP-W01 and not the MGP-W02.
Similar threads
