F1technical.net

321apex wrote:I have been away from the discussion for few weeks.
What is the latest of confirmed information related to ICE piston power in true race conditions?

RBR are saying that are 80hp down on Merc but it is not clear how much of that is down to marketing BS and how much is ability to use mgu-K for the whole lap.

All we really know is that the cars have more hp than last year, how it is split between electric and ICE is unknown.

mrluke wrote:

321apex wrote:I have been away from the discussion for few weeks.
What is the latest of confirmed information related to ICE piston power in true race conditions?

RBR are saying that are 80hp down on Merc but it is not clear how much of that is down to marketing BS and how much is ability to use mgu-K for the whole lap.

They're 80 bhp down and it's very clear why. Their speed traps are consistently down compared to mercs (and ferrari), not just at the end of the lap.

Juzh wrote:

mrluke wrote:

321apex wrote:I have been away from the discussion for few weeks.
What is the latest of confirmed information related to ICE piston power in true race conditions?

RBR are saying that are 80hp down on Merc but it is not clear how much of that is down to marketing BS and how much is ability to use mgu-K for the whole lap.

They're 80 bhp down and it's very clear why. Their speed traps are consistently down compared to mercs (and ferrari), not just at the end of the lap.

I think the most horspower losses are little ponys.
They make it bigger so they have more possibilitys to performance upgrade (wich they for sure gets within not so much time).
Bye bye same rules for every manufacturer =D>
Speed deficit is not big , I see TorroRosso having compatative speeds with the same engine package.

321apex wrote:I have been away from the discussion for few weeks.
What is the latest of confirmed information related to ICE piston power in true race conditions?

I'm surprised no one has built an acceleration analysis from the onboards yet. We have mass. Build theoretical hp curve, drag coefficient and rolling resistance. Run the thing and play with theoretical numbers until your acceleration curve matches the one from the onboards.

SomersF1 is onto something like that I think but it may be more of a gap measurement between PUs instead of absolute numbers.

From twitter :
Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1 11m
working on a piece looking at the differentials between the PU suppliers myself. Should be out next week some time..

mrluke wrote: ...
All we really know is that the cars have more hp than last year, how it is split between electric and ICE is unknown.

Au contraire, for the first time in history we know pretty much for certain;

With fuel-flow of 27.5 to 28 g/s, an efficiency between 33 to 34% of the ICE and an energy density of 45 to 47 MJ per liter, while the MGU-K is limited to 120 kW, the total power is between 528 and 567 kW, or 708 to 760 Hp.

See now how delicate the fuel flow and fuel quality is and why this formula never will work?

PhilS13 wrote:

321apex wrote:I have been away from the discussion for few weeks.
What is the latest of confirmed information related to ICE piston power in true race conditions?

I'm surprised no one has built an acceleration analysis from the onboards yet. We have mass. Build theoretical hp curve, drag coefficient and rolling resistance. Run the thing and play with theoretical numbers until your acceleration curve matches the one from the onboards.

SomersF1 is onto something like that I think but it may be more of a gap measurement between PUs instead of absolute numbers.

From twitter :
Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1 11m
working on a piece looking at the differentials between the PU suppliers myself. Should be out next week some time..

I did something like this for some onboards from the last two races, but the problem so far was that the qualifying was always on a wet track. Only for a dry qualifying you know the current mass and can assume that the engine is run at his full power potential. Anyway the power estimates at the rear wheel i got are about 685 hp, but that is from wet qualifying runs.

Now i'm checking youtube for the first onboard telemetry of Bahrain, pm me if you've seen an interesting video. I think i will open a new thread once i analysed a fast and dry q run.

xpensive wrote:

mrluke wrote: ...
All we really know is that the cars have more hp than last year, how it is split between electric and ICE is unknown.

Au contraire, for the first time in history we know pretty much for certain;

With fuel-flow of 27.5 to 28 g/s, an efficiency between 33 to 34% of the ICE and an energy density of 45 to 47 MJ per liter, while the MGU-K is limited to 120 kW, the total power is between 528 and 567 kW, or 708 to 760 Hp.

See now how delicate the fuel flow and fuel quality is and why this formula never will work?

I don't see your point here. Fuel energy density will be pretty much the same for everyone (at least if the fuel supplier knows what they are doing). Any efficiency differences will depend on the quality of the engine design (nothing wrong with that). Only the fuel flow uncertainty should be seen as anything possibly unfair. That uncertainty should become insignificant once the sensor bugs are worked out.
So why will this formula never work?

The paddock seems to build up some kind of consensus that Merc build the best power unit by far. If this was achieved by the lab rats making all the difference - as xpensive insisted all winter long - a new boy like Petronas must have beaten Shell and Mobile 1 who were considered giants in the field. Hence I'm inclined to ditch the lab rat story to the dungeons of oblivion.

And what about the split turbo story? We will certainly know next year if everybody and his dog adopts the same layout. But honestly the power difference cannot come from one single source alone. At least that is what I'm convinced of when I look at all the fields of technology you can employ to gain a competitive advantage in engine power by being simply more efficient.

You can look at thermal efficiency, cooling, exhaust design, turbo design, combustion design and at honing the software to link all these things into a package that is unbeatable. I think this is exactly what Merc have done. They have used their resources in engine development and hybrid technology to flood the battle field with innovations just about everywhere.

And why they should not? Red Bull have enjoyed the advantage that their particular field of expertise was giving them the edge in battle dress. Why should the pendulum not swing for some time towards a team and a manufacturer who has supported F1 for quite some time with extraordinary investment?

The thing that Merc should worry about is the engine freeze and the politicking power of Red Bull and Ferrari. If those teams join forces they can turn the situation around very quickly and cement the aerodynamic dominance that has ruled the sport for decades. That would be very bad for the sport. After technically sterile seven years we eventually get a power formula which is fun to whatch and the aero boffins should be able to kill the thing in the cradle? No way if my voice is ever heared.

I'd love to see Merc make a clean sweep this year and Rec Bull go for their own engine manufacture. That would be as much fun as seeing Porsche, Toyota and Audi slugging it out in LMP1 with totally different concepts.

One thing to note also is that 80hp is deceiving as we don't know if the renault unit is at 100% of it's capability.
To add to that, the 80hp is not for the ICE, it's for the PU on a whole as it delivers power along a straight; keeping in mind this is all speculation because redbull don't know how slippery the mercedes is.

ringo wrote:One thing to note also is that 80hp is deceiving as we don't know if the renault unit is at 100% of it's capability.
To add to that, the 80hp is not for the ICE, it's for the PU on a whole as it delivers power along a straight; keeping in mind this is all speculation because redbull don't know how slippery the mercedes is.

In my opinion, the ICE part of all engines is on par within a margin of error. Any deficit quoted by RB must come from their hybrid electrical side being unable to harvest and/or to put out "steady" propulsion when it is needed.

Log type exhaust manifold as discussed prior is an excellent instrument to provide a reliable amount of internal EGR. Any shortcomings of it's "tuning characteristics" can easily be overcome by boost. If anyone had ever held in their hands a set of inconel headers their weight will readily become apparent. Log type manifold is far lighter and way more compact even when it is produced as double wall piece. With skimpier heat shielding, I would put weight savings due to log type exhaust manifold at 10-15lbs on vehicle basis.

In F1 terms, I believe this is huge when you consider also that exh. manifold sits rather high above vehicle CG. All Mercedes powered teams enjoy this benefit.

If Mercedes have such a massive power advantage, why are they a second ahead of the other Mercedes powered teams?

Likewise RBR are doing very well to be "best of the rest" when they are 80hp down. They only seem to be able to do this when they have a full "charging" lap in qualy so I suspect any power deficit is down to what the different teams can achieve in "self sustaining" mode.

321apex wrote:[...]
Log type manifold is far lighter and way more compact even when it is produced as double wall piece. With skimpier heat shielding, I would put weight savings due to log type exhaust manifold at 10-15lbs on vehicle basis.

In F1 terms, I believe this is huge when you consider also that exh. manifold sits rather high above vehicle CG. All Mercedes powered teams enjoy this benefit.

I don't necessarily see a huge benefit, given...

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.

5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Those things are effectively standardized.

When I underestimated the influence of the MGU-H, I have to admit that I equally overestimated the value of the fuel.

Admittance of being wrong is also a most underrated human virtue.

bhall wrote:

321apex wrote:[...]
Log type manifold is far lighter and way more compact even when it is produced as double wall piece. With skimpier heat shielding, I would put weight savings due to log type exhaust manifold at 10-15lbs on vehicle basis.

In F1 terms, I believe this is huge when you consider also that exh. manifold sits rather high above vehicle CG. All Mercedes powered teams enjoy this benefit.

I don't necessarily see a huge benefit, given...

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.

5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Those things are effectively standardized.

But are the engine manugfacturers at the minimum weight? Ferrari tried to reduce the weight of their turbo assembly by skimping on the burst containment housing. So that is at least one of the three that is over weight (and probably above the min height reg as well). There have been rumours for some time that the Renault unit was heavy, although I have seen no verifiable info.

One thing is for sure, a log manifold will have an outright power deficit over tuned exhausts although we will never know how much as it is combustion dependent. So the packaging and weight benefit on lap time must be greater than the power deficit on lap time.

I'm going to take a guess and say the Mercedes unit is easier to cool due to the layout. It has benefits of better packaging with not only the PU but also the cooling requirements. Look at Red Bull's huge radiators with the exhaust manifold right under them. Lotus is coming out saying it cannot cool the turbo enough, which leads to not loading it as much as they could with the MGUH.