2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[bhall II]

Without knowledge on the traction of the cars it's almost pointless to try an guess the difference in power.
From how the cars move around the track, the V10 clearly has more than 100hp advantage, even when considering ERS.
[...]

The W06 doesn't seem to have a problem putting power down. So, I'm content with a comparison of straight line speeds to estimate the upper limit of horsepower, especially given the relatively known quantity to which it was compared. It's probably a fair shake more exacting than an eyeball comparison that generally can't discern the contribution of tires, suspensions, weights, fuel loads, downforce, etc.

That said, I absolutely agree with you that the top V10s had much more power than current PUs. Even if the Mercedes does have 850bhp, I'm inclined to believe that's peak horsepower and nowhere near constant.

[mrluke]

When Mercedes hits 334kph at China 2015, DRS was not available until 310kph

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... China.html

But the speed is so sensitive to drag increasing CD by 0.01 requires an additional 10bhp to maintain the same speed.

I dont think the transmission loss is too important because it is going to pretty similar between 2004 and 2015.

I would expect that if the frontal area has decreased that the cd would increase slightly as the remaining area will be slightly less efficient however I speculate and bow to your greater knowledge here.

[mrluke]

The old v 10 cars were not getting as much downforce from the underbody as todays cars. They had bigger rear wings. Uglier front wings. All sorts of vents and flaps. And guess what? They still had tonnes of downforce. Common sense says they had more drag. I will change my username if someone has irrefutable evidence!

I present irrefutable evidence that the 2004 cars had smaller front and rear wings at Monza than 2014 cars.



Also the rear wing is much higher so expect that would have a larger drag effect due to leverage (?).

[l4mbch0ps]

What do you mean? That shot clearly shows the rear wing is waaay wider, and while the front wings of the current cars are clearly more advanced, with more elements and cascades etc. look at the end plate on the ferrari... that wing is much larger than the picture makes it look I believe.

[bhall II]

When Mercedes hits 334kph at China 2015, DRS was not available until 310kph

Nice catch. In practical terms, though, it's unlikely to have much of an effect on the outcome, because I was very generous with frontal area estimates. For ease of use, and because I was only interested in an upper limit estimate, I used the "box" created by the diameter of the tires (660mm) and the maximum track width of the car (1800mm), as well as rear wing frontal area (0.16m^2 and ~0.08m^2).

I made no concessions for the empty spaces within the "box," and I didn't include areas outside of the "box," like the lower air box, driver head protection, mirrors, or the roll hoop camera, etc, all on the assumption that they'd more or less cancel each other out. In reality, frontal area is most likely lower.

Drag coefficient is also reduced when frontal area is lowered, thus Cd is reduced when DRS is engaged, but I simply cannot account for it. So, I left it alone. (Road & Track estimated Cd for a 2012 car with DRS engaged to be 0.81.)

Oh, and this?

...bow to your greater knowledge here.

Never a good idea.

[PlatinumZealot]

The old v 10 cars were not getting as much downforce from the underbody as todays cars. They had bigger rear wings. Uglier front wings. All sorts of vents and flaps. And guess what? They still had tonnes of downforce. Common sense says they had more drag. I will change my username if someone has irrefutable evidence!

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... z_2004.jpg

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... mi-2-2.jpg

I present irrefutable evidence that the 2004 cars had smaller front and rear wings at Monza than 2014 cars.



Also the rear wing is much higher so expect that would have a larger drag effect due to leverage (?).

DRS

No Beam wing

Smaller undercut sidepods

Longer wheel base.

OK, In all seriousness for me it is really hard to guess from the photo who had less drag. But the drag is not the only decider..

the 2014 engines have more low end power. Yes the gearbox can make up for it but only so much. The 2014 cars would have had a head start on the v10's coming out of the corners plus they have more gears.




But anyway The 2004/2005 Ferrari engine had 920/940 hp in race trim. Not so sure on the Monza spec engine... but it cannot be far off.

[PlatinumZealot]

Work with me here...

Based on maximum tire diameter, maximum track width, and frontal area of the rear wing, I estimate the total frontal area for a 2004 car to be ~1.38m^2.

According to a somewhat dodgy website, horsepower for the Petronas 04A, which was a re-badged Ferrari Type 053 V10, was 880bhp. (Seems low, but whatever.)

During qualifying for the 2004 Chinese Grand Prix, Felipe Massa set the fastest trap speed at 330.3kph in a C23 equipped with the Petronas 04A.

The importance of these figures is this: if we plug them into the drag acceleration calculator, along with straight length and corner exit speed (based on this track guide), we can solve for drag coefficient (Cd).

http://i.imgur.com/m9tn3gT.jpg

This yields a Cd of 0.85 and a maximum speed of 331kph, the latter being indicative of a car set up specifically for that circuit. Why does this matter?

Despite having more total drag (CdA), we can use the Cd of a 2004 car to more or less establish the upper limit for a 2015 car, as long as we account for its reduced frontal area. (That's the "A" in CdA; it's a reference area. For a wing, it's planform. For a car, it's frontal area.)

With DRS engaged, I estimate the frontal area of a 2015 car to be ~ 1.26m^2. If we plug that into the calculator, along with the increased weight of the car, we can use Nico Rosberg's trap speed of 334.6 at the 2015 Chinese Grand Prix to estimate the upper limit of the W06's horsepower.

http://i.imgur.com/6J7jGqX.jpg

That gives us 850bhp.

To cross reference, we can plug those figures into the calculator and compare the result to Rosberg's qualifying trap speed at the 2015 Australian Grand Prix (based on this track guide), because Albert Park has very similar downforce requirements.

http://i.imgur.com/fA1Dt1o.jpg

Close enough for me!

In reality, I suspect current cars have a lower drag coefficient, and thus lower horsepower according to these calculations. But, 850bhp does seem like a reasonable upper limit.

(Note: I gathered figures for a 2004 car back when the conversation involved comparisons between V10s and current PUs. If anyone is inclined to do so, comparing a current car in this manner to a car from 2010-2013 will likely give a more accurate result.)

Very good calculator.

[godlameroso]

Didn't early 2000's cars have huge diffusers that worked in tandem with pretty much all the rear bodywork? I don't think they were lacking any downforce, in fact 2010 was the year with the most downforce of all. Exhaust blown double diffuser was mighty, combined with beam wing large front and rear wings etc etc. If you really want a good indication of how much downforce cars have look at Hungary, particularly sector 2, or Suzuka, particularly sector 1.

Fastest race lap in 2010 was in the mid 1:33's started as 1:36's and averaged 1:35. Yet in 2004 Schumacher was putting down 1:33's consistently as race pace, of course there was refueling and V10's in those days. The last of the v8's in 2013 had an race pace of about a second slower on average to 2010 cars. Unfortunately Suzuka was a wet race last year.

If we compare Hungary 2014 winner avg lap time was around a mid 1:26 with a 1:25.7 fast lap, a second slower than 2013 ( Hamilton's clean air run low averaging 1:25) which is a second slower than it was in 2010 where Webber was averaging 1:24 in clean air, and a 1:22 fastest lap. Finally in 2004 Schumacher was averaging 1:20, with a 1:19 fastest lap. Refueling would probably account for two of those seconds, power would probably account for another second, but there's still a second missing. Maybe the fact 2014 cars are fuel limited, or maybe 2004 cars had more downforce than 2014 and this year, or better tires maybe.

[lio007]

Nice PU-overview about the 2015 season so far:
https://thejudge13.files.wordpress.com/ ... rsion3.pdf

[PlatinumZealot]

F1 technical did it again.

It was here the suspicion was first raised that teams could put performance enhancers in the engine oil that would be sucked into the engine via a crank case breather adding more power to the combustion. I think a lot of narrow minded members scoffed at it, but looks like the FIA thought it was worth investigating!


http://en.f1i.com/news/17073-fia-clears ... ystem.html

[wuzak]

F1 technical did it again.

It was here the suspicion was first raised that teams could put performance enhancers in the engine oil that would be sucked into the engine via a crank case breather adding more power to the combustion. I think a lot of narrow minded members scoffed at it, but looks like the FIA thought it was worth investigating!


http://en.f1i.com/news/17073-fia-clears ... ystem.html

And found that it wasn't being done.

[PlatinumZealot]

F1 technical did it again.

It was here the suspicion was first raised that teams could put performance enhancers in the engine oil that would be sucked into the engine via a crank case breather adding more power to the combustion. I think a lot of narrow minded members scoffed at it, but looks like the FIA thought it was worth investigating!


http://en.f1i.com/news/17073-fia-clears ... ystem.html

And found that it wasn't being done.

But it is possible.

[Jef Patat]

Gives a nice overview:
https://albrodpulf1.wordpress.com/2015/ ... unit-2015/

translated:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

[jfxavier]

I am not sure which of the two scenarios is correct when the car is accelerating.
Will be grateful of someone can explain with certainty.

1. The MGU-H keeping the T/C revs up and hence the boost pressure as well, to enable ICE to accelerate smartly and avoid turbo lag.

2. The T/C already is spooled up and boost pressure OK and the MGU-H is feeding excess energy to the MGU-K to assist the ICE in the acceleration.

I am not sure which is the real scenario as theories are floating around with regards to both possibilities.

[hurril]

I am not sure which of the two scenarios is correct when the car is accelerating.
Will be grateful of someone can explain with certainty.

1. The MGU-H keeping the T/C revs up and hence the boost pressure as well, to enable ICE to accelerate smartly and avoid turbo lag.

2. The T/C already is spooled up and boost pressure OK and the MGU-H is feeding excess energy to the MGU-K to assist the ICE in the acceleration.

I am not sure which is the real scenario as theories are floating around with regards to both possibilities.

They are both true. Though I am sure there are different biases to be had there depending on if the short-term goal is that of charging or cutting lap times.