2019 performance speculation

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
the EDGE
39
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Luton ENGLAND

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by the EDGE » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:33 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:08 pm
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?

Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?

Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
Part of the goal of F1 is to push limits of design, and build fuel efficient, greener engines. Following your concept and the concepts that followed, having a fuel eficient engine would become a handicap because you would design your car to burn more fuel than necessary to burn up the excess weight

LM10
48
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by LM10 » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:36 pm

roon wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:23 pm
Merc's sixth consecutive WDC.
A still-winnowing Ferrari with a bigger gap to second than in '18, losing more points to RB.
RB with a test-bed engine for another third place year.
Fourth goes Renault, Haas, or Racing Point.

Merc's main competitors in Ferrari and RB are both contending with major changes (driver lineup for both, PU supplier change for RB). It's Merc's season to lose. Expect more masterful sandbagging with a comfortable late season walk-away.
Why on earth would they go for sandbagging? :wtf:
In 2018 Ferrari destroyed their own season eventually. The reason was not Mercedes stopping sandbagging.

roon
441
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by roon » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:55 pm

LM10 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:36 pm
Why on earth would they go for sandbagging?
To avoid rules changes and calls for parity.

f1316
127
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by f1316 » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:51 pm

the EDGE wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:33 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:08 pm
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?

Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?

Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
Part of the goal of F1 is to push limits of design, and build fuel efficient, greener engines. Following your concept and the concepts that followed, having a fuel eficient engine would become a handicap because you would design your car to burn more fuel than necessary to burn up the excess weight
I know what you’re saying and I largely agree. But what I’m saying is that just allowing the larger tanks won’t solve the problem the FIA were intending to solve - if they actually want to get rid of lift and coast then you actually have to regulate in such a way that provokes that. Perhaps, to incentivise more fuel efficiency, you could be allowed a smaller tank by passing some kind of verifiable fuel economy test (e.g. something like running the car on a rolling road as you might with a road car) to show you can run flat out with that amount of fuel for the required distance.

My opinion is and always will be that formula one was better as a series of sprints - and that this is naturally removed any (significant) need for tyre or fuel saving - but doesn’t seem like that’s ever going to happen again.

the EDGE
39
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Luton ENGLAND

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by the EDGE » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:05 pm

So bring back re-fueling & make smaller tanks, lighter cars that don’t require setting up for such a wide weight change during the race, resilient tyres ... I’m all for that, I never wanted F1 to move away from it

Gaz.
37
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:53 am

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by Gaz. » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:12 pm

roon wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:55 pm
LM10 wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:36 pm
Why on earth would they go for sandbagging?
To avoid rules changes and calls for parity.
Did the FIA release two sets of rules for F1, a Merc rulebook and an Everyone Else rulebook? No, so there's already parity.
Forza Jules

godlameroso
337
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:02 am

If they lost 1.5 seconds, then it means that at worst the cars will be as fast as they were in 2017, in effect a soft reset.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Jolle
155
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by Jolle » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:31 am

the EDGE wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:05 pm
So bring back re-fueling & make smaller tanks, lighter cars that don’t require setting up for such a wide weight change during the race, resilient tyres ... I’m all for that, I never wanted F1 to move away from it
In the refueling era fuel contributed around 10-15% of the total mass of the car, same as now.

godlameroso
337
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 am

With a 70 liter tank and re-fueling the cars could be made 50kg lighter pretty easily. Maybe off topic but the driver ballast idea was a good one. F1 cars can rely on less aero if they're made lighter. If F1 cars were 150kg lighter you could greatly restrict aero without affecting lap times too much. The cars back in 2004 had horrible aerodynamics compared to today, but they were 2/3rds the weight.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

godlameroso
337
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:00 pm

After the first day of testing almost nothing can be said. Regardless, I'll give my 1st day verdict.

The field has gotten closer not further apart. The teams converging pretty much on the jet fighter side pods, curved diffusers, and generally shrink wrapping the car. Only question mark is Williams, so far I can see the field covered by 2 seconds nose to tail.

Big improvement from McLaren over last year. This year's car already faster than last year's. Much more reliable much more planted, sector 3 was ok so still some work to do.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

FrukostScones
183
User avatar
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by FrukostScones » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:37 pm

Ferrari
Merc
RedBull
McLaren
Sauber
HAAS
TR
Renault
Force India
Williams
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important. ...

godlameroso
337
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:13 pm

FrukostScones wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:37 pm
Ferrari
Merc
RedBull
McLaren
Sauber
HAAS
TR
Renault
Force India
Williams
Ferrari is definitely out in front, Mercedes is definitely faster than they're letting on, probably very close between them. Red Bull looks very planted, but I can't say for sure where they stack up. Renault is probably a bit behind McLaren, but too close to really call. The picture will get clearer as the days go on.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

FrukostScones
183
User avatar
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by FrukostScones » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:18 pm

Sure, Merc is maybe fadster then Ferrari and Rb maybe worse... fun prediction and adjusting, until season kicks off 15th March.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important. ...

shryr
4
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 10:58 pm

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by shryr » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:50 am

1. Ferrari
2. Mercedes
3. Red Bull
4. Renault
5. Alfa Romeo
6. McLaren
7. Haas
8. Racing Point
9. Toro Rosso
10. Williams

sriraj1031
-1
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2019 performance speculation

Post by sriraj1031 » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:04 am

FrukostScones wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:37 pm
Ferrari
Merc
RedBull
McLaren
Sauber
HAAS
TR
Renault
Force India
Williams
Mercedes par with Ferrari
Red bull
Sauber
McLaren
Haas
Renault
Racing point
TR
Williams