Stradivarius wrote:Let's further assume that Rosberg is running 1:55.0, 1:54.5, 1:54.0 1:53.5, 1:53.0, 1:52.5. Maybe he hasn't warmed his tyres properly on the warm-up lap or maybe he has a small flat spot or something like that, but the problem goes away gradually.
Here's the problem stradivarius, without having access to the full data either team has, it becomes akin to throwing darts blindfolded. You're just making various assumptions based on what you want the result to be -- where the result is that Nico Rosberg in the W04 had the same speed as Vettel, but something prevented him from accessing the speed through the first several laps.Stradivarius wrote:First of all, it is my opinion that it is relevant in this topic to have some idea of the actual speed advantage that Red Bull has, since a very large speed advantage that has come very suddenly is more likely to be the result of some new system or device, as for example traction control. If Red Bull is performing more or less at the same level as usual, I think it is less likely that they are using TC or something else.GitanesBlondes wrote:Unfortunately it makes more strategic sense to simply maintain the gap as needed once it becomes obvious no one else has the pace to match it. We all know the tires being what they are, requires teams to figure out the best way to maximize the overall tire life each stint, while still maintaining a pace that doesn't cause them to go backwards. It comes down to simple risk/reward, and the smart play is not to take any unnecessarily stupid risks from a strategic standpoint.
I agree that it makes sense to maintain the gap and looking after the tyres. But here I am considering Vettel's first laps while he built the gap. On these laps, Rosberg was much slower, so after 4 laps it looked like Vettel was superior. But then we saw that a laptime below 1:53 wasn't impossible for Rosberg to do, and he got quite close already on lap 4.
Let me just try to illustrate what I mean with an example. Let's assume that Vettel is capable of doing 1:52.5 and improving his laptime by 0.1 s for each lap for the first 6 laps if he doesn't think about tyre life beyond 6 laps. So he can do 1:52.5, 1:52.4, 1:52.3, 1:52.2, 1:52.1 and 1:52.0 on laps 1 to 6. But after 4 laps, he understands that Rosberg is already more than 7 seconds behind, so he doesn't do 1:52.1 on lap 5, he does 1:52.5 instead and keeps a similar pace after that to keep his tyres alive.
Let's further assume that Rosberg is running 1:55.0, 1:54.5, 1:54.0 1:53.5, 1:53.0, 1:52.5. Maybe he hasn't warmed his tyres properly on the warm-up lap or maybe he has a small flat spot or something like that, but the problem goes away gradually.
So what we observe (in this hypothetical case is then):
Lap 1: Vettel pulls away by 2.5 s
Lap 2: Vettel pulls away by 2.1 s
Lap 3: Vettel pulls away by 1.7 s
Lap 4: Vettel pulls away by 1.3 s
Lap 5: Vettel stops pushing
Lap 6: Rosberg is on the same pace as Vettel
Lap 7 -> : Rosberg and Vettel run on the similar pace and the gap increases with only one second during the next 10 laps. They both make their tyres last for a similar length of the stint.
Would you conclude here that Vettel was generally 2 seconds per lap faster than Rosberg, because he was pulling away with 2 seconds per lap at when he was pushing? Do you think the times prove that Vettel would be capable of going 2 seconds faster than Rosberg all the time?
I would say that Vettel's best lap while he was pushing to the maximum is 1:52.2, which shows his speed. Two laps later, Rosberg was only 0.3 s slower than this lap. Let's say that slightly smaller fuel load and improved track conditions is worth -0.4 s in lap time, but tyres worn for 2 laps more is worth +0.2 s in lap time. In that case, Rosberg has shown that he is capable of running only 0.5 s off Vettel's ultimate pace. Are these numbers unrealistic? Do the lap times usually improve much more than 0.1 s per lap?
Actually, a lot of this was down to Hamilton's style. He sacrificed corner exit by braking later into T1 and turning in earlier. Therefore He was always in Hulkenberg's gearbox at the apex of T1, but was then on throttle much later. At the time it seemed to me like a very silly way to drive, and still does.hollus wrote:Then he eventually complained in the radio that Hulkemberg had "incredible grip". Actually, one could clearly see Hulkenberg accelerate way earlier than anybody else in corner 2, exactly like Vettel in Singapore.
What about Alonso then? He was unable to get close enough to Hulkenberg as well.Gecko wrote:Actually, a lot of this was down to Hamilton's style. He sacrificed corner exit by braking later into T1 and turning in earlier. Therefore He was always in Hulkenberg's gearbox at the apex of T1, but was then on throttle much later. At the time it seemed to me like a very silly way to drive, and still does.hollus wrote:Then he eventually complained in the radio that Hulkemberg had "incredible grip". Actually, one could clearly see Hulkenberg accelerate way earlier than anybody else in corner 2, exactly like Vettel in Singapore.
This sums up what I wrote earlier very nicely with an excellent example of todays race. Sauber ran with the Spa-wing IIRC, in any case a relative skinny one and still they got excellent traction out of the slow turns. T1 was a great illustration of it. Obviously for us it is impossible to know ho much is down to which design element of the car but the full coanda approach a la Red Bull is the most likely candidate to explain the acceleration out of the corner, especially compared to the Ferrari of Alonso.hollus wrote:
...
It starts looking to me like cars with Ramp exhausts have superior rear axle downforce in very slow sections, while semi-coanda cars probably get their downforce at higher speeds. I'd thus attribute much of the "TC" Vettel has to the ramp exhaust, and probably to the best developed ramp exhaust out there, which shines exactly where true traction control often does. That the car needs to be driven in a certain way around hairpins to take full advantage of this is another story.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 14829&f=12Ross Brawn, who said: “Maybe their exhaust solution [regarding rear-bodywork design] was based on the idea that there would be more leeway with the mapping. [The Renault-engined] Red Bull’s and Lotus’s solution is problematic off-throttle, because in off-throttle mode there is less blowing from the exhaust and therefore less downforce contribution by the exhaust, which means that one has to rely more on the Coke bottle [profile of the rear bodywork]. But the Coke bottle on the Red Bull and Lotus is less pronounced because of their ramp behind the tailpipe. Therefore, their solution is inferior at corner entry compared to the solution pioneered by McLaren, and which all the teams except Red Bull and Lotus followed. It’s possible that they wanted to compensate with clever engine mapping.”
The design choice of exhaust layout is essentially whether or not to compromise the extent of the Coke bottle-style cut-in of the rear lower bodywork by partially blocking it with an exhaust-exit ramp that allows you to target the exhaust flow over the downforce- producing components to better effect. You can either have a McLaren-style sharply-defined Coke-bottle section that enhances the speed of the airflow along the flanks and over the brake ducts and diffuser top, but with compromised exhaust-enhanced downforce. Or you can go the Red Bull route and have ideal exhaust positioning at the cost of compromised airflow from the Coke-bottle section. This would be expected to give you superior downforce to the McLaren layout on-throttle but less off-throttle.
raymondu999 wrote:The following is an excerpt from Mark Hughes' MPH column in the 28 February edition of Autosport:It pretty much tallies with what I thought. The ramp/tunnel solution provides a more pronounced exhaust effect, as the exhaust is isolated from any possibility of external interference. But of course given the increased obstruction to the path of other airflow there would be more drag thanks to the boundary layers, and also a less powerful effect from all other airflows (other than the exhaust-derived airflow). As I posted early on in another thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =6&t=14500Ross Brawn, who said: “Maybe their exhaust solution [regarding rear-bodywork design] was based on the idea that there would be more leeway with the mapping. [The Renault-engined] Red Bull’s and Lotus’s solution is problematic off-throttle, because in off-throttle mode there is less blowing from the exhaust and therefore less downforce contribution by the exhaust, which means that one has to rely more on the Coke bottle [profile of the rear bodywork]. But the Coke bottle on the Red Bull and Lotus is less pronounced because of their ramp behind the tailpipe. Therefore, their solution is inferior at corner entry compared to the solution pioneered by McLaren, and which all the teams except Red Bull and Lotus followed. It’s possible that they wanted to compensate with clever engine mapping.”
The design choice of exhaust layout is essentially whether or not to compromise the extent of the Coke bottle-style cut-in of the rear lower bodywork by partially blocking it with an exhaust-exit ramp that allows you to target the exhaust flow over the downforce- producing components to better effect. You can either have a McLaren-style sharply-defined Coke-bottle section that enhances the speed of the airflow along the flanks and over the brake ducts and diffuser top, but with compromised exhaust-enhanced downforce. Or you can go the Red Bull route and have ideal exhaust positioning at the cost of compromised airflow from the Coke-bottle section. This would be expected to give you superior downforce to the McLaren layout on-throttle but less off-throttle.Regarding helping them regain the coke-bottle efficiency, it's an interesting problem - one that in my opinion Lotus and Red Bull have tackled in completely diverging solutions. The Lotus ramp terminates all the way near the diffuser - I think they're trying to completely scavenge whatever airflow they can into their tunnel, so that it "replaces" their original coke bottle, to help them with off-throttle downforce. The Red Bull, however - has terminated its exhaust ramp earlier. IMO this basically is so that the air can flow more "naturally" around the ramp itself as well. If you looked at the car from an aerial shot, it does look like there is a coke bottle shape forming behind the entire ramp/tunnel on the RB9 - so that when the exhaust gas isn't there, the air goes back into a more natural coke bottle. A "secondary" coke bottle, if you will.raymondu999 wrote:I think the difference really just stems from there. The Red Bull style, I would think, has a much stronger exhaust effect as the effect is shielded from any other flows, but at the cost of added drag, as obviously there will be additional boundary layers and additional choking issues to contend with.
IMO the reason why more people went McLaren is that it was easier to set up - but at the cost that the exhaust effect would be less, as the exhaust direction will be much more affected by other flows of air.
Could a motor withstand multiple pole slippage? It'd certainly make a loud noise.Tommy Cookers wrote:the KERS machine (motor/generator) has a specialised type of drive that continuously modulates the MG torque
(either torque output ie motoring or torque input (load) ie generating)
the 'demand' signal from the ECU is to give a desired (eg steady) torque although rpm is varying rapidly
the drive always knows the actual rpm, so supplies the MG with appropriate voltage, giving demanded torque despite changing rpm
(necessary because an electrical machine has an inherent opposing 'back emf' voltage that is proportional to machine rpm)
this is fundamentally an internal current-controlled loop equivalent to a torque-controlled system
so in principle the KERS can seamlessly sweep from motoring to generating or vice versa if that's what the ECU wants
any EM in KERS or 2014 has built-in EM rpm feedback or the equivalent, and neither the EM or its drive could work without this
because of this (internal) rpm feedback, wheelspin causes a sudden fall in signal voltage, and in voltage to the EM
so as wheelspin starts the motor torque rapidly starts to fall (by some useful amount, seamlessly even into reverse torque)
(of course, a suitable internal rate of change limit of current/voltage ('slew rate limit') must have been set to achieve this)
for this modulation of torque RCE's 'capacitors, batteries, inductors and a feedback signal' are not needed
RCE instant torque changes (from the machine) are impossible (because of the EM inertia and other factors)
for the torque to be modulated according to wheel load as per RCE some load sensing device and feedback would be needed
this would surely be banned via a protest and ruling ?
so wheelspin (even wheel locking) can be and is deterred using the inherent characteristics of the EM and its drive
(this deterrence however achieved depends fundamentally on the EM capability, so will from 2014 be much greater)
so legal (passive-component) networks as per RCE may be more useful in 2013 than 2014
So for teams getting the most out of the EBD KERS might be somewhat more important then for the other ones. If we consider what Scarbs wrote earlier about the high amount of 'dumped' kinetic energy the impact under breaking might be higher then most think. It gets obviously combined with those clever engine and throttle maps with the cylinder cutting.KERS obviously has a considerable impact on the behaviour of the car under charging/braking. It is a variable teams have to play with and it allows to modulate the torque output coming out of the engine. I saw it mentioned quite a while ago and at least some teams seem to use it to get away with more exhaust gas for the aero benefit as kinetic energy of the engine gets skimmed of by the recovery system and is transformed electric energy or dumped in thermal one by resistors. So KERS has certainly an influence on the effectivness of the EBD, how much is impossible to say from my chair.
