F1technical.net

I wonder what the empty (without ballast) weight difference is between current cars and the pre-KERS cars (2000 - 2008). I'd guess at least 130kg?

FoxHound wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting the engines are close.

The suggestion is the gap is shrinking, and it is plausible that Renault can make huge strides with more tokens left to improve than others.

Juzh,

The suggestions you insinuate are that it's solely the engine that stops Red Bull from winning.
And the reason is they don't have as high as top speed as Mercedes/Ferrari.

I don't agree with that, and while the engine is largely responsible, it's not due to speed trap data they fall behind.
I can give you reams of data which will show Red Bull consistently slower than Mercedes powered cars from 2010 to 2013. Data averages vary but from a quick glance at "speed" tracks it's around 6-9 kmh.
They still crushed everyone 4 years running.

The issues also lay in how much rake red bull can get away with now.
Titanium skid planks clipped Red Bull's ability to run as close to the floor from 2014 onwards, making the engine look worse.

And then there's the efficiency of the engines which play such a huge role that looking at qualy data to hold speed up as a deficiency without any hint of humour is disingenuous to say the least.

And when Red Bull's are overtaking Williams down the end of a straight, you say it's "clearly better traction" but vice versa it's clearly the engine.
You play with a loaded dice and it's skews what could potentially be a worthwhile point.

Your rake yheory does not mesh well with the fact that redbull was nearly the fastest car in singapore and hungary last year. One those two low speed high DF tracks you run high rake. Their aero is just as potent or even better than anyone's on the grid.

PlatinumZealot wrote: Your rake yheory does not mesh well with the fact that redbull was nearly the fastest car in singapore and hungary last year. One those two low speed high DF tracks you run high rake. Their aero is just as potent or even better than anyone's on the grid.

It meshes pretty well if you look into it closely.

Singapore being anomalous due to Mercedes very well documented tyre problems at that track last year.
Comparison here is impossible but for the fact Mercedes were 0.250 seconds quicker than Red Bull in 2014, and 2015 in general, Red Bull fell further behind Mercedes at slower less engine dependant tracks.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/09/19/h ... overnight/

Riccardo was 0.750 seconds off of Hamilton in Hungary qualifying 2015. The gap was 0.450 seconds in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_Grand_Prix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Hungarian_Grand_Prix

But if we take Monaco 2015, Mercedes were 1 second quicker than Red Bull at a track that is 40% full throttle, lower even than Singapore and lowest on the F1 calendar. Meaning the engine is least important at this track for full power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Monaco_Grand_Prix

In 2014, this was 0.4 seconds difference between Mercedes and Red Bull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Monaco_Grand_Prix

Clearly then, there is an increase in the gap going forwards from 2014 to 2015 which cannot solely be explained as engine disparity.

They had high rake today again though. And Ricciardo had the highest top speed. Assuming Ricciardo took some wing off , it means their floor is working very well.

PlatinumZealot wrote:They had high rake today again though. And Ricciardo had the highest top speed. Assuming Ricciardo took some wing off , it means their floor is working very well.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't work well.

My point is that after the ruling for the titanium skid planks, Red Bull could not utilise the effect as before.
Red Bull ran high rakes in 2015 too, but they could not get the arse to sit down as low as before primarily due to the ruling in 2015. Don't take my word for it though...

Much of Red Bull's success in F1 in recent years was down to a very aggressive aero concept of running a lot of rake on the car.This meant the front wing and T-tray would be run as low as possible to the floor, with the diffuser high up to maximise the aerodynamics and increase downforce.
The team was able to get the front of the car so low down because they were able to run the underfloor plank right on the ground thanks to the presence of skid blocks made of a dense metallic material. These blocks would prevent the plank wearing away.
For 2015, teams have had to replace this heavy metal with titanium – which rubs away much easier to help produce sparks.
The ease with which the titanium rubs away means that there is now a risk of it not protecting the plank – and if the plank wears away too much, a car could be disqualified.
The knock-on effect is that indirectly those teams that were running very close the floor – like Red Bull – have had to be more conservative with the ride height to ensure the titanium blocks do not wear away too much.
That has compromised its whole aero concept, which has been further hampered by the new nose regulations that have changed how airflow is directed around the front of the car.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... -red-bull/

Despite the long straights, Shanghai International isn't really a power circuit - 56% of the lap is full-throttle, compared to 60% at Melbourne and 66% at Bahrain (56% is also more or less the season average). That means lap times around Shanghai serve as a pretty good indicator of the relative strength of the chassis, certainly the best measure we've seen thus far, and RB12 is most definitely in the mix at the top.


via F1Fanatic

I don't know that I buy Marko's claim of it being the best chassis overall, because he tends to think downforce is everything - it's not. But, I think it's safe to say that both Mercedes and Ferrari should be concerned about the effect of any upgrades to Renault's power unit.

China does have 2 of the longest straights in F1 though, Ben.

So while the hammer aint down for as long as Monza, when the hammer is down it's down for an extended period.
Perhaps this is what makes China so unique?

The start/finish straight isn't particularly long, and both straights are a bit anomalous in that it's possible to make up ground by braking very late into the decreasing-radius turn-1 complex...



...and cars are essentially launched onto the back straight by a long, increasing-radius corner complex that's the most highly cambered in F1.



To take advantage of both requires a car that lacks neither grip nor traction, features good balance, and doesn't abuse the tires.

Speaking of which, the caveat is Pirelli's inconsistent pressure guidelines. It's virtually impossible to figure out who benefits and who doesn't, but it most definitely affects competitive balance in some way. (In my view, that's the real reason behind the changes.)

I'm not saying Renault's power unit hasn't improved. Even if output is still lacking, Palmer says driveability compares well with Mercedes, and I'll take driveability over raw power any day of the week as long as the deficit isn't extreme, because driveability is the finesse with which good handling is achieved.

I'm just saying you gotta give credit where it's due: RB12 seems to be a very good race car.

How nice wouldn't this track be in full length ... http://www.24hseries.com/uploads/images ... 0copie.jpg

bhall II wrote:I'm just saying you gotta give credit where it's due: RB12 seems to be a very good race car.

Agree it's a very good car. But I'll temper that with China being unique in that it's front limited, 1 of 3(I'm told), and the most extreme of those 3. Along with those straights.
So good balance is required everywhere, agreed once more.

Interesting to note, the mediocre W03 won here in 2012 with the W02 leading some laps in 2011.
Both those cars had severe balance issues, but mainly in relation to the rear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "front limited," because it's always advantageous to have a strong front-end.

I also don't know what I'm supposed to take from the reference to Mercedes's victory in 2012. That was the height of the Pirellotteri era, and the first seven races saw seven different winners - including Pastor Maldonado in a terrible Williams car.

bhall II wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "front limited," because it's always advantageous to have a strong front-end.

A strong front end that won't slip or understeer too much, correct?
A good balance, we agreed.

Inherent characteristics of the China track are that it is a "front limited" track in so far as that cars need to be biased for frontal grip. The speed you carry through the corners is limited by the maximum amount of frontal grip.

Dialling in a strong front end is advantageous as you say, but what about wear and degradation? At China the front end is hammered because of the front bias. So wear and degradation become a factor to those cars who would otherwise have good wear and deg rates for the fronts at other tracks. For continuation purposes we'll keep with Red Bull...(you know all of the above anyway Ben).

2013.

Horner on China wrote:Over the last couple of years this track has not been our strongest,.
It has a heavy emphasis on front [tyre] wear and degradation, so you tend to be front limited here rather than rear.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106791

2016

Ricciardo wrote:Looking for it but probably not expecting it as much. The nature of the track doesn't suit us as much as Bahrain for two reasons. Because it is a front limited circuit and the likes of Williams and Toro Rosso will benefit from that.
Where we have a little bit is rear wear in Bahrain when I look at it, I think here having less rear wear they will be able to get away with it. I expect it will be harder to crack the top five here but if we do I think it will be another good one for us.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/229386/1/r ... china.html

From this, you can accept that every team is running compromised to get not only the best laptime, but also the best race time(avoid pitting every 10 laps for new fronts). My inner pedant will just say that it's optimal for China, not compromised so we can avert lengthy discussion on that.
China being unique in that regard along with Catalunya, to an extent.

With unique comes the ability to %$"& things set up wise, or make up ground relatively speaking. With this and in relation to the topic, traction in or out of corners will need to be prioritised depending on what happens in practice. Which was wet this year for the most part.

With Marko's irksome comments, you simply cannot attest that your chassis is responsible for the gain when the window for set up is so compromised at this specific track. It invoked my ire(again).
It could well be plausible that Red Bull have a ridiculously good front end, and went with a configuration that allowed them to use the rears for better traction out of corners, giving them the opportunities to overtake Ferrari and Mercedes powered cars regularly.
This set of circumstances will not happen again until next years Chinese GP, Catalunya at a shove(and a half).

Without numbers, we cannot say conclusively. But Red Bull were closer in 2014 by a tenth in qualifying and 19 seconds in the race, yet around 15Km/h down on the Mercedes top speed. Interesting no?
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/04/20/2 ... ix-review/

As for the Pirellotteri, a valid point. I optimistically choose to believe that the W03 ate it's rear tyres for breakfast and that a front limited track is manna from heaven for such a car.

I asked because I've seen "[something]-limited" used in different ways. Here, it means Red Bull dialed down front-end "grip" to promote better tire wear. That invariably means they had to balance it out with less rear wing.

bhall II wrote:I asked because I've seen "[something]-limited" used in different ways. Here, it means Red Bull dialed down front-end "grip" to promote better tire wear. That invariably means they had to balance it out with less rear wing.

They do have other options.

Camber, stiffness front to rear, rebound/compression, ride height etc are other ways of skinning that cat.

FoxHound wrote:

bhall II wrote:I'm just saying you gotta give credit where it's due: RB12 seems to be a very good race car.

Agree it's a very good car. But I'll temper that with China being unique in that it's front limited, 1 of 3(I'm told), and the most extreme of those 3. Along with those straights.
So good balance is required everywhere, agreed once more.

Interesting to note, the mediocre W03 won here in 2012 with the W02 leading some laps in 2011.
Both those cars had severe balance issues, but mainly in relation to the rear.

Well, look at 2014, lotusrenault at barcelona, how the hell that car qualified fifth..