[Team] 2022 Car Launch and Testing Thread

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by wnut

All correct.

The interesting bit will come if Russell starts outqualifying Lewis and gets ahead in the points. Then where is Mercedes going to go? Lewis is not going to roll over and play "a Bottas" for Russell, it will get nasty, not even sure that Russell will be prepared to sacrifice wins for the cause.
Both these guys are fast and aggressive, neither of which I would attribute to Bottas.

Yup thats a possibility, but lets not forget Lewis went toe to toe with Max last year....in a Red Bull that was a match for the merc if not better...id suggest theres life in the old dog yet!

Ive no doubt George is a massive talent and would love him to win at some point, but i still think Lewis could have the upper hand between them this year.

Of course these things are cyclical, there is no doubt at some point that hamiltons star will wain and Russells will start to shine brighter....as you say, its how that is handled that will be the important thing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

In terms of consistecy over a race or season yes.

That could be down to race craft, not necessarily pace.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by gert

Bottas wasn't helped by only getting 1-year contracts.

That's also what Carlos Sainz said: it helped him enormously during his first year at McLaren to just know that he would be there next year.

entirely possible, but again, he had the opportunity to beat Lewis, take the number 1 off him and didnt. Thats not to say he didnt do a bad job, but last year when it counted, Bottas wasnt there (even after his future was secured).

Not blaming Bottas for 1 minute, but imagine if he was on the pace in the last race, Max wouldnt have been able to get free pit stops. Perez might not have been able to back lewis up etc etc etc.


Anyway, going slightly off topic here....back to car launches me thinks

[Sodemo]

George Russell recently commented that he thinks that overtaking could be tougher due to the relative lack of slipstream, which I for one am glad to hear. Whenever a car got within 3-4 car lengths on a straight it was basically a free pass due to the massive slingshot that a car behind got.

I recall some great slipstreaming battles at Hockenheim in the 90s where cars could be nose to tail on the straights but still struggle to get past. I think that's what they call a wheel to wheel "battle", perhaps something that is lost on today's drivers.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I recall some great slipstreaming battles at Hockenheim in the 90s where cars could be nose to tail on the straights but still struggle to get past. I think that's what they call a wheel to wheel "battle", perhaps something that is lost on today's drivers.

Amen brother. The new cars still have DRS though so there'll still be an element of "sitting duck" for the driver in front in DRS zones no doubt.

If the new cars perform as advertised, maybe DRS could be removed in the future (doubtful I know) and getting past someone else could go back to being something driven by guile, race craft, skill, commitment and talent - think that would be a shock for many.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Yup thats a possibility, but lets not forget Lewis went toe to toe with Max last year....in a Red Bull that was a match for the merc if not better...id suggest theres life in the old dog yet!

Most certainly not a better car and not even as good as the Merc in my opinion. Which team won the constructors championship for the umpteenth time?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Most certainly not a better car and not even as good as the Merc in my opinion. Which team won the constructors championship for the umpteenth time?

Winning the constructors in a tight fight doesn't necessarily mean it’s the best car, often it comes down to retirements and the performance of the second driver.

You’re entitled to your opinion though, even if I don’t agree with it

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Did Bottas lack pace? He has got 20 pole positions since his first F1 season in 2013. That's better than many drivers, including those who have won the WDC and who have been in F1 for longer.

Bottas was definitely quick enough when he was motivated enough. Had some great races and was often a match (or better) for Hamilton in qualifying, but was nowhere near his match in many races. It wasn't just a question of pace, as I've said before, he didn't have the same attributes as Hamilton, whether they be racecraft or particularly the ability to battle when the chips were down. Who knows what the situation will be with Russell? I hope he comes hard out of the blocks - I'm sure he'll want to and yes, it'll be very interesting indeed if he can get a couple of wins under his belt and put the pressure on Hamilton early on. A problem for Wolff and Mercedes? A problem most team managers would love to have.....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Bottas was definitely quick enough when he was motivated enough. Had some great races and was often a match (or better) for Hamilton in qualifying, but was nowhere near his match in many races. It wasn't just a question of pace, as I've said before, he didn't have the same attributes as Hamilton, whether they be racecraft or particularly the ability to battle when the chips were down. Who knows what the situation will be with Russell? I hope he comes hard out of the blocks - I'm sure he'll want to and yes, it'll be very interesting indeed if he can get a couple of wins under his belt and put the pressure on Hamilton early on. A problem for Wolff and Mercedes? A problem most team managers would love to have.....

It was a problem for Wolff and Mercedes in 2016, with Hamilton and Rosberg, so I don't think it is a problem most team managers would love to have.

[Aysedasi]

Yes, that was a 'problem' in that Merc had two drivers, both of whom wanted to win and one of them probably would. A problem familiar to Ron Dennis and others down the years. I'd still take that 'problem' over the problem most team managers have that one or both of their drivers is unlikely to win. I'd rather dominate and kick them both hard in the butt the first time that their desire to win costs the team WCC points. I guess it depends on the 'terms' that George has signed up to, impliedly or otherwise. Personally (and obviously) I think it was time to move Valteri on, although I (just as obviously) understand why Lewis wouldn't be so happy about losing a teammate that he had the measure of most race weekends. George is an unknown (and I accept a largely untested) quantity right now but I can see no reason why he should fear a battle with Lewis (unless it's a contractually limited battle).

Anyhow, I've derailed the thread, so I'll shut up......

[bathurst77]

I think the "let george race" crowd are getting a little ahead of themselves

on one side of the garage you have a 7 time wdc (shoulda been 8?) with more wins than anyone in history and still at his very best.

on the other side you have a talented young guy who has done very well in a backmarker team with only a couple of years experience and his first season in a top team. This is THE TEXT BOOK DEFINITION of a #2 driver.

I would expect he is to be told that its his job to help Lewis win the 8th, back him up and defend his rear wing, and if Lewis cant win any races then he can have a crack. Get as many points as he can but not at Lewis expense) other than that, learn all he can and be ready to take over when elvis leaves the building.

apologies for typos cantfind my specs

[Tourer]

Soooo - back on topic of the thread, been a lot of coverage of the porpoising seen at Barcelona. This article in Autosport is attempting to add more possible upcoming drama due to porpoising.

Personally, I'll be really surprised if any of the teams have porpoising issues (OK, I'll rename it "bouncy bouncy" or bb for short) come the first race - they now have a fair bit of data from Spain, have pretty damn fine simulation software, a shed-ton of engineers and to me, the bb issue is unlikely to be a factor (except maybe at uneven, undulating surface circuits).

Seems to me that the media johnnies are talking it up as they don't really have anything else to jump on - or am I missing something?

[Greem]

Perhaps missing a little, yes.

A couple of team engineers (and I do not recall which teams, nor who said this. I blame age) have openly said that neither their wind tunnel runs nor CFD simulations predicted that the problem would either exist, or be as serious as it is.

This may be because the simulations weren't programmed for it, so the predicted behaviour was ever-so-slightly different; additionally although a lovely laminar flow wind tunnel is great and has the wheels turning, it doesn't necessarily move the floor under the car and even if it does, the surface isn't the same as the immovable object that a tarmac track presents. The coefficient of friction would be different for starters, so the contact with the rolling road will not match that of a track surface.

I genuinely think that a lot of people have been a tad surprised, even though they knew it was a possibility.

Hopefully a solution can be found that is (a) not bank-breaking and (b) equitably applied.

[Tourer]

Wind tunnel models also typically use solid wheels/tyres (not inflatable rubber) for consistency so that may have disguised the bb effect somewhat.

Agree with all that Greem - although with real-world data now loaded up, the boffins have more to work with than previously when relying on CFD and tunnel data only.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

This may be because the simulations weren't programmed for it, so the predicted behaviour was ever-so-slightly different;

I expect this is it. I am not an aerodynamicists, but it seems all testing I have ever seen in publications are scale models on rolling floor wind tunnels, but the cars are generally locked into position and they are probably using load cells to measure a static downforce and drag value. Same goes with CFD modeling. I expect they do have to do testing to see how the car behaves in different attitudes (various ride height, roll, pitch, front wheel steering angles, etc.). But still all in a static condition.

But what about dynamic behavior? I can imagine they have done testing of dynamic behavior of wings (to see effects of bending, flutter, etc.) but again they are probably locking the wing in place and then measuring multi-axis forces. Full chassis shaker rigs will do full scale dynamic tests of the chassis, but with exclusion of aero. Dynamic engine/power train dynos will try to simulate side loading g-force effects (up to 1G) by putting the power train in a gimble while running it at power. But I just have never seen any hint at full chassis "dynamic aero" studies (such as letting the car move on it's own). Maybe they do it, but not to the level of the other stuff. And maybe they don't do it because they never have had to do that previously. Or if they are doing it, they are keeping it a secret because I can imagine understanding operation in dynamic situations is key. Why lets others know the recipe of your secret sauce.

Originally Posted by Greem

I genuinely think that a lot of people have been a tad surprised, even though they knew it was a possibility.

Put me in that category. Knowing it was a problem previously with ground effect cars, why would they expect it to not be a problem now? And if you studies doesn't show it, maybe you should question if how you are modeling things is maybe not right? Not seeing a known issue doesn't mean it's not there, but rather that maybe your not looking at it in the right way.

But some teams are impacted more than others. Are those who are not having issues just lucky, or maybe they actually did tackle the problem and have addressed it in advance. If I were them, I would keeping quiet about it and let those more impacted struggle to fix. Don't let other teams know you have a purposeful handle on it as they will examine your solution even more closely to extract "how" you have done it. Just pretend your car just seems to not be impacted and play dumb as to why.

Richard

[Richard C]

Oh anther thing. Let say some teams have blindly stumbled into something that reduces their level of propensity to porpoise. They also have to clearly get a handle on "why" their car works. Because they are just one setup change or small aero development change away from potentially creating the problem on their own car. Imagine going through testing with no issues and then showing up at a track during the season and all of a sudden you have bad porposing issues and you have no clue how to make them go away.

So ALL teams need to figure out how to see this behavior happening in their simulations and testing, understand what scenarios or design elements aggravate/trigger it, then build in an appreciable level of forgiveness into their aero solution (and potentially setup strategy) while at the same not sacrificing their overall aero solutions targeted performance.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Did Bottas lack pace? He has got 20 pole positions since his first F1 season in 2013.

20 poles but only 10 wins, so absolutely Bottas lacks pace. Rosberg won nearly as many races in one season driving a Mercedes than Bottas won in five seasons driving a Mercedes, so Bottas is absolutely a downgrade and slower (at least in races) than Rosberg. The lack of urgency for Mercedes to find an upgraded replacement for Bottas, be it Ricciardo or Alonso, was really bizarre.

Originally Posted by bathurst77

on the other side you have a talented young guy who has done very well in a backmarker team with only a couple of years experience and his first season in a top team. This is THE TEXT BOOK DEFINITION of a #2 driver.

Russell has three seasons, not two, under his belt. Russell is nearly as experienced as Prost was, when Prost scored 7 victories to the 5 victories of supposed #1 driver Lauda. Indeed, Russell is more experienced then when Hamilton won his first title! If Russell were to win the 2022 WDC as his first WDC, he would be twice as experienced as Hamilton when doing so.

So by any prediction, they are equal number one drivers. After all Hamilton himself - a rookie rather than a forth year driver - was a dreadful #2 or "wingman" for reigning double champion Alonso and Hamilton drove to actively deny Alonso points, so why should Russell drive any differently? In both cases (Hamilton+Russell & Alonso+Hamilton), just like Lauda+Prost or Mansell+Piquet or Mansell+Prost, it is very much a situation of equal number one status.

You seem to be greatly underestimating how uncompetitive the Williams is, and how much faster Russell (with three, not two, seasons of experience) can go simply by driving equally as well in a much faster car. Russell already showed this during his second season in a one-off drive after all.

The double-standards, that Hamilton should be allowed to go for the WDC in his first and second season, yet Russell should not be allowed to go for the WDC in his forth season are just bizarre. They are BOTH rookie GP2 champions, so there is absolutely nothing to say that one driver is better than the other, rather than (more likely) both about equal.

Was Prost held back from finishing races ahead of multiple champion Lauda? No. Was Hamilton held back from finishing races ahead of multiple champion Alonso? No. So why a different situation here...?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Put me in that category. Knowing it was a problem previously with ground effect cars, why would they expect it to not be a problem now?

It's not possible to bottom-out cars in the wind tunnel as it would damage the rolling road.

As to why it doesn't show up in the simulator, the simulator doesn't include real-time CFD (aerodynamic simulation). That would be intractable even for the powerful computers used by F1 teams. It takes a long time to solve a CFD simulation case of a complex geometry, even with a powerful computer. So the 'aero model' in the simulator is just a table of predetermined data from the wind tunnel and CFD, which obviously doesn't include the case of the car bottoming-out.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Put me in that category. Knowing it was a problem previously with ground effect cars, why would they expect it to not be a problem now? And if you studies doesn't show it, maybe you should question if how you are modeling things is maybe not right? Not seeing a known issue doesn't mean it's not there, but rather that maybe your not looking at it in the right way.

I think some of that is answered in the article that was linked in the ground effect thread:

Jody Egginton - 'So, when that [porpoising] occurred, there were some differences between what our simulator was showing and how the car reacted on track. We didn’t go to great details to model that in the simulator because we wanted to avoid it. We certainly know where we want to go to get maximum aero performance and what we’ve got to do and how to do it in a way that the driver can handle without making the car too difficult for them to drive. We’ll try to find aerodynamic solutions to mean that we desensitise the floor with minimum load loss.'

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

20 poles but only 10 wins, so absolutely Bottas lacks pace. Rosberg won nearly as many races in one season driving a Mercedes than Bottas won in five seasons driving a Mercedes, so Bottas is absolutely a downgrade and slower (at least in races) than Rosberg. The lack of urgency for Mercedes to find an upgraded replacement for Bottas, be it Ricciardo or Alonso, was really bizarre.

If he lacked pace I doubt he would have got 20 poles. However, having only got 10 wins compared to Rosberg's winning nearly as many races in one season, 9 in 2016, shows Bottas's racecraft, or lack of it, is the issue and not his pace.

[morninggents]

[QUOTE=V8 Fireworks; Was Prost held back from finishing races ahead of multiple champion Lauda? No. Was Hamilton held back from finishing races ahead of multiple champion Alonso? No. So why a different situation here...? [/QUOTE]


Two reasons. Firstly, Mercedes have had such superiority over the last 7 seasons they have been able to dictate to their drivers when to give up position to secure most points (and the wdc) to their favoured driver. Secondly, car reliability has increased fantastically since the 1990s and early 2000s which means that the teams can decide to ask (demand?) one driver to give up position. When the cars were less reliable teams were less likely to ask drivers to give up position for fear of a mechanical issue causing them to slow in the later laps allowing other drivers to pass thus losing constructor points. This last bit put a bit awkwardly but I hope the point understood!

Just for clarity I don't like 'team orders' and would much prefer to see all drivers allowed to race.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If he lacked pace I doubt he would have got 20 poles. However, having only got 10 wins compared to Rosberg's winning nearly as many races in one season, 9 in 2016, shows Bottas's racecraft, or lack of it, is the issue and not his pace.

How many more could he have won if there had been no team orders?

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by morninggents

How many more could he have won if there had been no team orders?

A few but not anywhere near enough to prove to Mercedes that he was a better bet for the WDC than Hamilton.

Russell just has to go out and from the 1st qualy of the year absolutely nail it, and see if he can do what Hamilton did to Alonso when he was first in F1.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by morninggents

How many more could he have won if there had been no team orders?

Sochi 2018?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Sochi 2018?

Yup thats the only one that sprung to my mind. theres been a couple of other places where team orders have come into play but never when Bottas was challenging for the win IIRC.

Sochi annoyed me...there was no need for it really.