Even that wouldn't help, as one driver prefers certain characteristics of a car compared to the other. So by the time you change the setups to suit the driver, are they still 'the same car'...and would it even be possible to change the setup to that extent? Sadly, we poor fans just have to accept that it's something we'll never know....and then despite speed, how do you measure racecraft and input/feedback to the team? Was MS really head and shoulders over everyone else as far as outright speed is concerned, or was it a combination of his speed and his ability to provide feedback to the team which made the car as fast as possible for him that made the difference?
I think the difference was the racing/testing environment of the time MS was at his best. Unlimited testing provided ample opportunity for him to provide virtually live feedback on a regular basis. Thereby changes made and another feedback loop began resulting in further refinement. Great post by the way on the hypothetical 'who is best in same machine' - Hope you are having a great holiday 'down under'
I agree.....but my point was just that two guys hopping into the same car and doing fastest laps wouldn't prove who was faster, really, nor who was the better racer. For example, I know I'm useless on the track in a front engined car, just as the owner of that car is useless in my cars...yet both cars have 4 wheels and a steering wheel. We all read about how some drivers prefer understeer, others oversteer, and some neutral...so without vast setup changes, the same car will not be to two people's liking. So, just say Vettel was faster than Alonso in the same car, there would be hysterical calls from the Alonso lovers who'd say it wasn't fair because the car wasn't set up to his style, and vice versa.
As said in the post above mine this was the real strength of MS. Starting with a car given by the designers he could develop with almost unlimited money and menpower the car in exactly the direction he wanted it. So MS and Ferrari was at that time the best possible combination as Ferrari had the abbility to test with an own track and MS had the ambition to do so. And as an example of commitment he was surely a motivation for the team/mechanics to go that extra step as well. This is what is called "leadership" in a team sports that was taken from the drivers with the ban of testing. So when taking two drivers in the same car you are right that we will not see who is really faster. Giving them the same amount of money and testing would indicate who has the better abbility to make a car fast in a combination of development and drivers speed, a combination that worked best for ages before the cars where developed on the computer and tests were simulated rather than driven. Maybe this is the problem of Vettel: he is driving at a time where the imput of the driver is less important than it was years before and so his share on the success of RB might be underestimated.
I think your guess is wrong!.... Firstly, "low speed aero" is, to all intents & purposes, an oxymoron. Aero efficiency, or lack thereof, only becomes significant at high speeds. Further, and I may be missing something, but I fail to see how the power/torque bands will have any effect on the aero design - Sure, these things are gonna be tiny so we may see some very exaggerated Coke bottles. But that's just physical packaging, nothing to do with torque curves etc. You've got whatever power & torque you've got. Doesn't change based on aero considerations. Beg to differ here too I'm afraid; Engine physics 101 tells us that more revs = more power. Always has been that way, always will be. Sure, turbo motors are more highly stressed, but I don't think wear is going to be an issue. I'm not yet sure on the longevity regulations for these things - Anyone know if they're still gonna have to do 5 (?) races? Once they get 'em running in earnest you can bet the fuel flow figure will change if necessary - ie, if they find they're running out of juice they'll get more....... Cheers, Ian
I hear what you're getting at, and it was indeed amply illustrated early this season when poor old Phil couldn't make Clifford work at all. But, I remain convinced that they start the weekend with each car identical - The so called "optimum" baseline setup as determined by the 'puters etc. Each jockey will then tweak it some and they may indeed go different routes on setup - But this is really fine tuning - The underlying car remains the same. OTOH, it's certainly possible that one design inherently suits one guy more than the other, but at this level you should be able to adapt to the car..... It may not be perfect, but teammate comparisons are the only level field we have though. Agree on some of 'em being better at developing the car than others but again at this level they're all pretty darn good at it. A little of both; At his best I believe he really was head & shoulders above everyone else. Endless testing definitely helped, but don't forget they were all doing it at the time. Cheers, Ian
More revs does = more power, but there must be fuel available to make that power. The fuel limitations as we know them would max power anywhere from 12k-15k, take your pic. The fuel just isn't there to allow full power potential if running at 15k rpm, so why run 15k rpm if you don't have to. Power will essentially plateau above 11k rpm or thereabouts as flow is capped at 10,500rpm and these engine builders will have zero issue filling those cylinders with adequate air to provide peak efficiency at 10,500rpm, the problem is north of that rpm where these is no more fuel! 5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h. Fuel flow is limited to 27.8 g/s between 10,500 and 15,000 rpm. There is a reduction of fuel flow below 10,500 rpm. RPM range could be eg 10500-12200 or 13100-15000. 13100-15000 should need less boost and allow a higher CR, but have more friction which they don't want. They're talking about 500bar direct injection fuel spray which is 5x that of which they are running now. And BTW, Mercedes did do an engine test at Rockingham in early December. First V6 turbo engine off the dyno. The theorists out there are suggesting 640bhp from the engines, and another 110bhp ish from the KERS.
I missed this one sorry. With the canted forward radiators, more 'heavy stuff' such as ECU equipment can be stuffed in the undercut area just under the radiator inlet which is also very near the driver ie centrally located. That's where the benefit is as I understand it.
As far as changing aero is concerned, the power bands of these engines will be different so I cannot see how that would not change just about every other setting on the car starting with suspension due to a bit more torque with these engines, then aero. I believe aero will change not in a sense that high speed aero will not be what it is and always has been, but I believe less aero will be run in favor of reducing drag for the powertrains.
No worries! Exactly! - There's more room for the heavy electronics etc stuff ahead of the rads if they're canted with the top forward. [Obviously, you want that stuff ahead of the rads to keep it cool.] Additional benefit is the *lower* CofG that results from this cant. Cheers, Ian
There was a recent article showing pics (bad ones, probably on purpose) of Renault's V6 on the dyno. They also mentioned not seeing much reason at this point to rev beyond 12,500rpm due to the fuel cap. The *need* to raise the cap if they want engines revving to 15k rpm. There's no point otherwise, not with 5 engines per season. Going to find that article.
Beg to differ yet again! I guess more torque could result in more squat - But that's easily handled via tweaking the heave spring so as to maintain whatever attitude you want. They're so stiff today a little more (or less) torque can easily be managed IMO. ? By "less aero" I presume you mean less downforce? While that should reduce drag, so what? The balance between D/F and drag may change a little but I disagree that's as a result of "reducing drag on the powertrains". With respect, any powertrain has much "drag" - Basically the difference between crankshaft power and power at the wheels - This has nothing to do with the aero characteristics of the car however. Cheers, Ian
I've asked this before, and have even done many searches - I don't think (but would be happy to be proved wrong!) that regulation is in place for 2014. Longevity is defined in the sporting regulations and AFAIK those haven't yet been released for 2014. I'd be surprised if that's still in place once they go to the new motors - I suspect they'd all be taking penalties by mid season!....... Cheers, Ian
This is why we watch. It will have a difference. Wait and see, but I have to disagree. We will see current Monza levels of aero being run at Monaco is my hypothesis.
This is theory and "educated guesses" (from the Internet gurus?) based on energy content of the gas etc? Maybe Florian can run some #'s..... They may be correct - But if they are I reckon we'll see an increase in the allowance once they've got more data. Indeed. Art. 5.8.1 says a maximum of 500bar. My limited understanding here suggests this will make them very efficient - I believe so called "lean burn" is more easily achieved at these pressures. (Florian? ) Cool! Thanks. That I did not know. Did it blow up?...... Absolutely! It'll certainly be interesting. Cheers, Ian
I hope you're right and that they increase the fuel allotment. The theory of 'max power' being achieved well below 15k rpm is not a concept which really needs to be mathematically hashed out even though several people have done so already. Essentially, fuel amount X is allowed to be distributed at 10,500rpm, and the question which is easy to answer is, is there enough air available thereabouts to make for an efficient and max combustion at that rpm relative to the static compression ratio? yes, absolutely yes with a turbo engine. This is why the FIA also put into place different fuel allotments below this rev range, because they knew good and well that these builders will build an engine that makes use of any of all of that fuel with a turbo at a lower RPM and make some non-linear torque monster. This was the FIAs attempt at trying to make for a linear power curve. Heck, if the FIA wanted to do that then they should simply control the amount of fuel allowed in 1k rpm intervals. Not so though. Making full power at 15k rpm with the fuel allotment rules as they are now simply makes little sense. Builders can lower static compression a bit, raise boost, and make it work optimally at 15k rpm, but what's the point when the same power can be made at a lower rpm. F1 after all is a game of efficiency and longevity now. Massive direct injection fuel pressure will make the engine more efficient in a sense that the fuel will be at a micron size level of atomization meaning it will ignite with a quicker more even flame front. Ferrari did this with 120bar IIRC with their 120 degree V6 in the early 60s I believe. 156 Ferrari maybe? Not to my knowledge hah. Renault should be about ready too. And you know Ferrari have something clever in the mix there. Should be a good season 2014
Ok lets add more to this!! Most of the big guns have displayed their new machines - Im still going with what I posted below just for fun. Id like to see the Red cars take it all of course, but based on what Ive seen so far, and what the technical guru's here have posted in the other new car related threads, I will adhere to my original post. 41 day 13 minutes to go until race 1 in Melbourne!!!
I had a dream last night where I saw the finishing order at Melbourne: It was: 1.) Jenson 2.) Rosberg 3.) Vettel 4.) Perez 5.) Alonso 6.) Hamilton For what it's worth!
