F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Yes, and that's the reason why Ferrari and Red Bull asre having a hard time with Fifi and Williams.Joie de vivre wrote:so mclaren, FI and williams also have split turbos?
IIRC rules speak about clutch and gearing for the MGU-H but it seems to me both turbines must share a common shaft.xpensive wrote:I'm not even sure if the turbine has to be on a common shaft with the compressor, has it?
What if we have a loophole here that Renault missed, I have difficulties to see a common shaft across the engine??Dragonfly wrote:IIRC rules speak about clutch and gearing for the MGU-H but it seems to me both turbines must share a common shaft.xpensive wrote:I'm not even sure if the turbine has to be on a common shaft with the compressor, has it?
the hardest thing to achieve would be a dual-torque drive system that is neutral (neither positive or negative) in ABS and TC 'effects'321apex wrote: .... My general feel is that Mercedes team cars have significantly higher quality of applying power to rear wheels. ......
Under braking something approaching ABS and under power something approaching TC, both of which are officially illegal. ....
I think that are really bad assumption, because the amount of people Mercedes have recruited over the past years is an important factor in their up rise. Mike Elliot from Lotus is the new Head of Aero, were the previous cars were all under the helm of Loic Bigois. Thats a big change also this chasis has been in development for quite a long time. I think people are putting the emphasis on the delta between Merecedes and the rest to much on the engine. Mercedes is miles a head of the other Mercedes customers. These is the evidence that there car is not only about the powerunit, its more about the chassis and things under the bonnet. If you see how the cars rolls in to turn 9 & 10 you can clearly see there are doing something clever with the suspension. Also the fact that they are the kindest on their tyres says a lot about the car. The rear and the front aero balance in perfectly balanced. Lewis his driven some superb MP4's in he career and for him to say this is the best car says a lot about the W05. The Renault and Ferrari powerunit are less sophisticated at the moment. But don't think that if the powerunit's are on par that Red Bull and Ferrari will be able to match Mercedes on track. I really think that the W05 is just one of those cars that will be proved unbeatable during this season. There is a lot fuss made about Renault being down on power, but let not forget that Red Bull has been inherently slow on long straights its not a new issue. If look at the top-speeds Torro Rosso doesn't seem to far off and is sometimes even quicker. I look at the data its not Renault but Ferrari that is lacking speed. Ferrari is even slower then Renault but the journalists are always taking over each others bs instead of doing some real investigative journalism. Red Bull is putting Renault in the spotlight but the matter of the fact is the RB10 isn't on par with the W05. Ferrari can't blame anyone because the develop the chasis and the engine thats why they are now trying the blame the FIA with statements like: "this isnt F1", "their is no noise " "we should get rid of the fuel flow meter" etc. F1 has always been about politics.321apex wrote:In my view, the so called split or non-split turbine housings are dead end arguments, largely irrelevant in so far as performance deficits are concerned.
My general feel is that Mercedes team cars have significantly higher quality of applying power to rear wheels. That means, their "quality of power application" is superior to Mercedes customer teams. Taking into consideration hardware itself, which in my view is the same in all Mercedes powered teams including works team, I would seek the answer in the area of rear wheel braking/power application. As such this would dwell primarily in the area of LOGIC and software sophistication.
Under braking something approaching ABS and under power something approaching TC, both of which are officially illegal.
What Mercedes has given their customers is most likely not the same as what they are using.
This is not the game of who has the most power, but the quality of putting it down on the pavement.
If we assume, that Mercedes works team has no track record of being the best in aero or chassis efficiency, the areas I mentioned are likely the only ones to seek the answer.
I see you're really trying very hard to blind yourself from the truth. Renault PU is considerably down on power and that is a FACT, easily supported by numbers and onboard videos (and the fact that renault admits they're behind). Even raikonnen was pulling away from vettel on the straights. Toro rosso was always one of the most slippery cars on the grid at the expense of being miles off the ultimate pace. Anyone can set their car to be slippery as anything, but not everyone can maintain lap times doing so. Also, RBs of the past were not always inherently slow on the straights. RB7 was at least comparable to mclarens (faster on some circuits) while RB9 was the fastest by some margin.kooleracer wrote:There is a lot fuss made about Renault being down on power, but let not forget that Red Bull has been inherently slow on long straights its not a new issue. If look at the top-speeds Torro Rosso doesn't seem to far off and is sometimes even quicker. I look at the data its not Renault but Ferrari that is lacking speed. Ferrari is even slower then Renault but the journalists are always taking over each others bs instead of doing some real investigative journalism. Red Bull is putting Renault in the spotlight but the matter of the fact is the RB10 isn't on par with the W05. Ferrari can't blame anyone because the develop the chasis and the engine thats why they are now trying the blame the FIA with statements like: "this isnt F1", "their is no noise " "we should get rid of the fuel flow meter" etc. F1 has always been about politics.
As I stated already some days ago, I'm pretty sure that this is a very real option. At any point where the driver has a torque demand of <100% and >0%, you could run the ICE at a higher troque than required and apply a negative MGU-K torque.Tommy Cookers wrote:[[...]another point .....
from around 1 hr 5 min 58 sec to 6 min 15 sec on the BBC race coverage (lap 53 turn 4 onwards)
Hamilton's car flashes its red light at 2 places with some power on (ie little or no braking)
the commentary seems to say this is a warning of reduced acceleration (on straight), and describe it as 'gathering energy'
are we seeing mgu-k recovery under power ??
So the Renault PU should only be jugged by how Red Bull performs with it totally nonsense. Red Bull in 2012 had a dominent car both failed to win in Belgium, Italy and Canada. All highspeed lowdrag circuits, thats called a trend. Every team can pile on the down force but its about the drag those parts create. We can all just convince ourselves the Renault PU is weak but the matter of the fact is the Ferrari PU is even weaker thats why the ended were they did in Bahrain. And look were Sauber is at the moment. Go the Fia website an look at actual data and you will see that you are talking rubbish my friend. Onboards are a snapshot of the bigger picture that is called data. Kimi could have pulled away because he was manually overriding the power delivery and asking max power from the battery. If you look at the whole race were everyone has asked at some point the max. of the engine because of the safety car and no need to safe fuel the figures are quite clear.Juzh wrote:I see you're really trying very hard to blind yourself from the truth. Renault PU is considerably down on power and that is a FACT, easily supported by numbers and onboard videos (and the fact that renault admits they're behind). Even raikonnen was pulling away from vettel on the straights. Toro rosso was always one of the most slippery cars on the grid at the expense of being miles off the ultimate pace. Anyone can set their car to be slippery as anything, but not everyone can maintain lap times doing so. Also, RBs of the past were not always inherently slow on the straights. RB7 was at least comparable to mclarens (faster on some circuits) while RB9 was the fastest by some margin.kooleracer wrote:There is a lot fuss made about Renault being down on power, but let not forget that Red Bull has been inherently slow on long straights its not a new issue. If look at the top-speeds Torro Rosso doesn't seem to far off and is sometimes even quicker. I look at the data its not Renault but Ferrari that is lacking speed. Ferrari is even slower then Renault but the journalists are always taking over each others bs instead of doing some real investigative journalism. Red Bull is putting Renault in the spotlight but the matter of the fact is the RB10 isn't on par with the W05. Ferrari can't blame anyone because the develop the chasis and the engine thats why they are now trying the blame the FIA with statements like: "this isnt F1", "their is no noise " "we should get rid of the fuel flow meter" etc. F1 has always been about politics.
I would not be surprised at all. If the rules allow it, the MGU-K modulation as generator would effectively act as TC while being charged.Tommy Cookers wrote: are we seeing mgu-k recovery under power ??
These are Vmax at the sector measurement points and are not so far from the corner exits.kooleracer wrote:[[....] If you look at the whole race were everyone has asked at some point the max. of the engine because of the safety car and no need to safe fuel the figures are quite clear.
http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f ... ds_V01.pdf
http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f ... ds_V01.pdf
If analyse this data and still look it the mirror saying that Renault PU is worse then the Ferrari. Then I rest my case.
As RB is the only renault car capable of ducking it out at the front, yes, it's the only car worth measuring against others. Toro rosso for instance was by FAR the fastest accelerating car in a straight line in monza 2011 but finished +1 lap to Vettel's red bull. Ferrari is known to have bad traction, nothing new here. Also, I didn't say ferrari is better PU than renault, I said it outputs more power, which is the only logical explanation, given how ferrari has worse traction than red bull and still pulls away from him despite drs and slipstream out of T10. Even if kimi was manually overriding E-power he was doing it for quite a long time and he was able to defend 2 drs zones with not too much trouble. So long in fact vettel had to overtake him into final turn which is unusual to say the least.kooleracer wrote: So the Renault PU should only be jugged by how Red Bull performs with it totally nonsense. Red Bull in 2012 had a dominent car both failed to win in Belgium, Italy and Canada. All highspeed lowdrag circuits, thats called a trend. Every team can pile on the down force but its about the drag those parts create. We can all just convince ourselves the Renault PU is weak but the matter of the fact is the Ferrari PU is even weaker thats why the ended were they did in Bahrain. And look were Sauber is at the moment. Go the Fia website an look at actual data and you will see that you are talking rubbish my friend. Onboards are a snapshot of the bigger picture that is called data. Kimi could have pulled away because he was manually overriding the power delivery and asking max power from the battery. If you look at the whole race were everyone has asked at some point the max. of the engine because of the safety car and no need to safe fuel the figures are quite clear.
http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f ... ds_V01.pdf
http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f ... ds_V01.pdf
If analyse this data and still look it the mirror saying that Renault PU is worse then the Ferrari. Then I rest my case.
