Monaco GP 2010 - Monte Carlo

[timbo]

I would love to see such behavior also at faster tracks which probably means that cutting downforce mightily is the right way to go.

You don't want to see such thing in a fast corner.
Slides are only looking good when driven can do something to control them.

[Miguel]

One totally different thing I observed during the race weekend. There was a lot of slipping and sliding. I cannot remember that it has been that extreme in the past. It seems to indicate that Monaco generates the right amount of downforce to give the drivers a real task in car control.

Why is this happening at a slow track where engine power does not count so much and drag isn't much of an issue? I would love to see such behavior also at faster tracks which probably means that cutting downforce mightily is the right way to go.

You will also see it in Singapore. I highly despise that track, but a few guys are incredibly sublime there, and the superfast cameras make them shine even more. No, Piquet isn't one of them. I guess it's a mix of low grip coupled with low speed: on one hand there's not enough aero to keep the car really stuck to the ground, and on the other hand the short gearing in the slow corners create a larger torque at the tires.

[WhiteBlue]

I would love to see such behavior also at faster tracks which probably means that cutting downforce mightily is the right way to go.

You don't want to see such thing in a fast corner.
Slides are only looking good when driven can do something to control them.

It is all relative. I don't mind if they loose some speed through those corners. Performance losses are entertainment gains.

Edit:

The other point to make is that the cars use less fuel to cover the race distance here. Around 125 kilos instead of the 160 they use at many tracks.

The fuel saving was 22% compared the average downforce generating track. All that energy clearly was not by less acceleration but by lack of downforce generation. Consequence: Restrict downforce legally at other tracks.

[Ray]

Di Grassi is looking like a liability...seems like I've not seen anything of him in all the footage I've watched this year and when I do get to see him he is making nasty shapes with that Virgin in the tunnel!!

I was impressed by the way he defended against Alonso. He gave his team some much needed airtime and made Alonso do some work for his position gains. When I saw Di Grassi versus Alonso it became clear what a hand full the Virgin actually still is. That car must be a truck aerodynamically compared to the Ferrari.

I think maybe Alonso was very cautious about passing him because it was obvious he had a handful just keeping pace ahead of Alonso. You could see it quite a few times on corner exit and even through the tunnel when he passed him finally. I would guess Alonso passed him there because he wasn't willing to risk having Di Grassi stuff it in the fence right in front of him and take them both out. Trulli was smart enough to get out of the way, yeah it's not racing to let people by but they both know they had zero chance to stay in front without making a huge mistake and crashing. I'm not saying that backmarkers should move just because it's a Ferrari or Alonso or anyone else, it was clear that the Virgin, the Lotus, and Di Grassi were no match and there is zero sense in possibly wrecking a ery expensive car to stay in front of someone you can't beat anyway.

EDIT: Di Grassi sliding around had nothing to do with the aero performance of the Virgin, it had everything to do with Di Grassi overdriving the car trying to stay ahead of Alonso. Attempting the impossible. Aero wasn't a factor in that battle and it was ultimately lost by Di Grassi because he was trying to merely keep pace with him and it's clear that the Virgin isn't capable of that and he made a mistake, multiple times, that could have wrecked them both.

[vall]

I loved those on-board camera laps! On these narrow streets and barriers, it looked awesome.

[WhiteBlue]

Having read this article I feel myself agreeing very much with the sentiments that:

The decision to strip him of his deserved 6th place which bumped him down to 12th was disgraceful.

Formula One wants overtaking, yet they frown upon it when done in the most dramatic of circumstances. If the decision stands then rule 40.13 needs changing, and quick.

If I had been in the steward's shoes I would not have handed the verdict that they did. They must have known that the 20 s penalty was legal but completely inappropriate to the incident and absolutely unfair.

I would have put Michael one or two positions back in the full knowledge that the decision would have been open to protest by all parties. It would have been a fair correction for Merc GP making a wrong interpretation of the rules. Of course it would have been not in accordance of the rules and Ferrari could have made a protest. But there would also have been the chance that nobody would have protested the legality because the verdict would have been seen as fair. And if the appeal court had been forced to eventually set a 20 s time penalty due to a protest it would have shown that the stewards do not only care about the legality but also about fairness and the majority of the fans who want exciting racing.

[timbo]

The fuel saving was 22% compared the average downforce generating track. All that energy clearly was not by less acceleration but by lack of downforce generation. Consequence: Restrict downforce legally at other tracks.

How did you arrived to such conclusion? Monaco is actually a track with least time spent on full-throttle.

[WhiteBlue]

The fuel saving was 22% compared the average downforce generating track. All that energy clearly was not by less acceleration but by lack of downforce generation. Consequence: Restrict downforce legally at other tracks.

How did you arrived to such conclusion? Monaco is actually a track with least time spent on full-throttle.

That is no contradiction but confirmation of my post. The energy isn't saved by less acceleration or by less relative length of straights. The excessive downforce sapps the power on the other tracks leading to much more full throttle passages. For instance Eau Rouge is nowadays taken on full throttle. Without excessive downforce that and many other corners will be back to part throttle.

[timbo]

BTW the figure is actually about 10% if you account for lesser race distance (260.5 km) at Monaco.

[alberto222mx]

Having read this article I feel myself agreeing very much with the sentiments that:

Excellent article....

After all the discussion here and the news everywhere the only thing that makes feel a bit sad is Schumacher´s reputation got dirty once again and this time he isn´t guilty et all...

[marcush.]

could it be ,die Grassi chose deliberately to let his car look so all over the place ,to just keep alonso from attacking him at some places?
this is common practise in karting to get your machine deliberately loose or complete sideways "accidentially" to outfox your competitors in braking areas...
the virgin is over three seconds slower than the ferrari ,so if he chose to overdrive this he´d be even slower ,would he? so how would this avoid alonso to just
jump ahead.

[Richard]

hat is no contradiction but confirmation of my post. The energy isn't saved by less acceleration or by less relative length of straights. The excessive downforce sapps the power on the other tracks leading to much more full throttle passages. For instance Eau Rouge is nowadays taken on full throttle. Without excessive downforce that and many other corners will be back to part throttle.

Aha - I see what you mean now. Probably several factors at play:

1 - Slow twisty track so shorter bursts of acceleration. Acceleration is the biggest demand on fuel in any vehicle.

2 - No long straights on full throttle to maintain high speed. Drag is disproportionately higher at high speed.

3 - Less downforce due to slower speeds, hence less traction, hence less acceleration.

WB - I guess you are referring to item 3?

[Richard]

One totally different thing I observed during the race weekend. There was a lot of slipping and sliding. I cannot remember that it has been that extreme in the past. It seems to indicate that Monaco generates the right amount of downforce to give the drivers a real task in car control.

Why is this happening at a slow track where engine power does not count so much and drag isn't much of an issue? I would love to see such behavior also at faster tracks which probably means that cutting downforce mightily is the right way to go.

You don't want to see such thing in a fast corner.
Slides are only looking good when driven can do something to control them.

I noticed the slides and fishtails too, I wasn't sure if was just camera angle.

I agree that we need to see the cars on the limit of traction more often. Then we'd see drivers having to lift off on fast corners, that brings doubt to their mind, that sorts the men from the boys.

There are some classic corners where drivers used to play chicken with the traction and you'd hear them lift off the gas. Nowadays those corners are dead and they keep their foot down the whole way.

That's what made Suzuka such a great race last year. Alas Spa and Silverstone used to pose a similar problem but can now be taken flat out.

[marcush.]

according to Mr.Gutjahr ,who is one of the race stewarts(?) ,Barrichello did slip through when he should have been punished because of the Schumacher incident..he was not even interviewed by the stewarts.

Another hint at :Safety, who cares? ,when we can be tribunal over the great Schumacher..who overtook a competitor....what a world..

[WhiteBlue]

Probably several factors at play:

1 - Slow twisty track so shorter bursts of acceleration. Acceleration is the biggest demand on fuel in any vehicle.

2 - No long straights on full throttle to maintain high speed. Drag is disproportionately higher at high speed.

3 - Less downforce due to slower speeds, hence less traction, hence less acceleration.

No, I firmly believe that downforce and drag use a lot more power than acceleration. If you are interested you can simply compute the braking energy around one lap and divide it by the efficiency of the power train. It is near equal to the acceleration energy. If you compare that to the total use of energy in the fuel over one lap you have what is dissipated for drag and downforce. I'm sure people would be surprised.

Let us assume that drivers could actually absorb 10 G laterally over extended periods which they can't and let us assume that the FiA would allow the ICE power to rise in order to meet the power demand. The example of the Red Bull shows that it is still better to increase cornering speeds by more downforce than speed on the straights. So for the competitive cars acceleration energy demand would probably not rise but dissipation of energy for downforce and drag would. My educated guess for that scenario is a rise of power and energy consumption of at least 50%.

Going the other way would make sense. You cut downforce until the maximum of lateral acceleration is 2- 2.5 G. Now you have an over powered car that would be faster on the straights but significantly slower in cornering. Average power settings or throttle position would be much lower and energy consumption would be reduced. Performance would suffer somewhat but that would most likely be compensated by more exiting racing of the over powered cars.