F1technical.net

ringo wrote:

Harsha wrote:I was wondering since James Allison said "Mercedes has extra boost for qualification which is giving them some more BHP"
Is it only Q map or some thing like that?
Do any one has any idea about how the Mercedes are eeking out more BHP

Considering Hamilton's gap to the rest when he qualifies, maybe mercedes boost is explained by the drivers as Paddy lowe says.

But i feel it's more the grip of the cars. The mercedes clearly has more grip all over than the ferrari.

dont feel like looking for the multiple articles on this subject but mercedes does have a special engine mode for qualifying...look it up...i think jamesallenonF1 goes into detail on this subject.
mercedes has more grip because they are running more downforce than anybody else.... next race just look at the cars.. you can see more wing on the mercedes and the front wing has a steeper angle of attack than for example the ferrari or williams the 2 closest competitors.
the US NBC broadcast team touches on the subject pretty much every broadcast...goes somethng like this ... the mercedes is .5 faster than any other car in the middle sector.. Hobbs... of course they are with that engine they are running more downforce than everybody else....then he goes on to compare mercedes to dominant cars from his era and explains that those cars used a similar formula.
yea i know its cooler to say mercedes has a better aero dept than every other team and in one year they suddenly jumped to the head of the aero class in F1....

Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

Same engine but not same software...

Vary wrote:

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

Same engine but not same software...

+1
the same reason flashing your ECU can give you more horsepower than the exact same stock engine... you can play around with max output , torque curves and so on and thats in a relatively simple road car.
IMHO the mercedes ICE is the exact same ICE thats in the williams.
my best guess is that williams is not running the same engine mapping software as mercedes... secondly the mercedes PU ws built with/for the mercedes chassis.
for what its worth i dont think ferrari gave all their secrets to sauber either.i know i wouldnt : )

giantfan10 wrote:

Vary wrote:

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

Same engine but not same software...

+1
the same reason flashing your ECU can give you more horsepower than the exact same stock engine... you can play around with max output , torque curves and so on and thats in a relatively simple road car.
IMHO the mercedes ICE is the exact same ICE thats in the williams.
my best guess is that williams is not running the same engine mapping software as mercedes... secondly the mercedes PU ws built with/for the mercedes chassis.
for what its worth i dont think ferrari gave all their secrets to sauber either.i know i wouldnt : )

Williams is running different fuel.

giantfan10 wrote:in race trim the ferrari has a more aggressive and efficient ERS than the mercedes... the ferrari can run their ERS for the entire race at lets say a "high setting" the mercedes cannot do this and has to run in a "low setting" for periods in the race.
so mercedes qualifies up front and gets an automatic advantage (hamilton ) running in clean air while everybody behind has to deal with the famous lack of grip in dirty air.Thats pretty much the advantage mercedes has right now over ferrari.. qualifying. i suspect if a ferrari lucks into qualifying on pole they will probably do exactly the same thing hamilton in the mercedes does.. manage the gap and watch the competition deal with oversteer in dirty air

Rosberg was behind both Ferrari's at the start of the race, but was able to slice his way through without to much trouble, so I don't believe qualification/PU power is the only advantage Mercedes holds.

giantfan10 wrote:dont feel like looking for the multiple articles on this subject but mercedes does have a special engine mode for qualifying...look it up...i think jamesallenonF1 goes into detail on this subject.
mercedes has more grip because they are running more downforce than anybody else.... next race just look at the cars.. you can see more wing on the mercedes and the front wing has a steeper angle of attack than for example the ferrari or williams the 2 closest competitors.
the US NBC broadcast team touches on the subject pretty much every broadcast...goes somethng like this ... the mercedes is .5 faster than any other car in the middle sector.. Hobbs... of course they are with that engine they are running more downforce than everybody else....then he goes on to compare mercedes to dominant cars from his era and explains that those cars used a similar formula.
yea i know its cooler to say mercedes has a better aero dept than every other team and in one year they suddenly jumped to the head of the aero class in F1....

In Bahrain Mercedes looked like they were running less downforce than the Ferrari's and Williams cars, judging by rear wing frontal area alone.

giantfan10 wrote:

Vary wrote:

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

Same engine but not same software...

+1
the same reason flashing your ECU can give you more horsepower than the exact same stock engine... you can play around with max output , torque curves and so on and thats in a relatively simple road car.
IMHO the mercedes ICE is the exact same ICE thats in the williams.
my best guess is that williams is not running the same engine mapping software as mercedes... secondly the mercedes PU ws built with/for the mercedes chassis.
for what its worth i dont think ferrari gave all their secrets to sauber either.i know i wouldnt : )

So williams are only a remap away from beating Mercedes? why doesn't somebody tell them? We are talking about what 1-2s per lap improvement from just a remap? Thats quite impressive.

Its both easy and tempting to say that Mercedes is only wining because they have the best engine but unfortunately there is more to it than that.

Vary wrote:Same engine but not same software...

By "software", I assume you mean engine mapping.

The ECU's are all identical (McLaren controlled supply) and the firmware version is monitored by the FIA.

Each PU would be run/tested at the factory post assembly. I imagine that there will be variations in the power and torque curves for each PU (due mainly to combined machining/assembly tolerances and their impact on parasitic losses). Mercedes would obviously take the cream (worth say 5hp?), and this is the advantage they have from supplying PUs to so many teams.

As Williams are their closest competitor (that they supply with PUs), they could (in theory) select their PUs from towards the bottom of the spectrum to maintain supremacy...

giantfan10 wrote:

Vary wrote:

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt

for what its worth i dont think ferrari gave all their secrets to sauber either.i know i wouldnt : )

I'm sure they are - because that's the best way to improve the PU.

Sauber also run the same fuel as Ferrari. As did Marussia last season.

mrluke wrote:Mercedes have the same engine as Williams, why dont Williams just bolt on all the extra downforce and win?

It may be relatively easy to add downforce. It isn't so easy to add downforce without incurring too much drag penalty.

It is the extra resources that teams like Ferrari, Mercedes and RBR which help them getter downforce for a give drag level - ie better aero efficiency.

As a form of equalization; what would be the effect of on the running order if

1) unlimited MGUH to MGUK link is removed

2) making MGUK to ES unlimited

and

3) keeping ES to MGUK limited to 4MJ for 2015 and 6MJ in 2016

WilliamsF1 wrote:As a form of equalization; what would be the effect of on the running order if

1) unlimited MGUH to MGUK link is removed

Cars will be slower over a lap/race distance.

WilliamsF1 wrote:2) making MGUK to ES unlimited

You'll end up with quite large and heavy MGUK. The restriction will be how much energy can you practically take from the rear wheels.

WilliamsF1 wrote:and

3) keeping ES to MGUK limited to 4MJ for 2015 and 6MJ in 2016

Not sure that an increased MGUK will generate that much energy in a lap, particularly at places like Silverstone (gets <800kJ per lap from braking alone).

wuzak wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:As a form of equalization; what would be the effect of on the running order if

1) unlimited MGUH to MGUK link is removed

Cars will be slower over a lap/race distance.

WilliamsF1 wrote:2) making MGUK to ES unlimited

You'll end up with quite large and heavy MGUK. The restriction will be how much energy can you practically take from the rear wheels.

WilliamsF1 wrote:and

3) keeping ES to MGUK limited to 4MJ for 2015 and 6MJ in 2016

Not sure that an increased MGUK will generate that much energy in a lap, particularly at places like Silverstone (gets <800kJ per lap from braking alone).

You are missing the point

All the sizing of the components remain the same

The only change is no limit on the MGUK harvesting and limiting the MGUK usage per lap to 4MJ

WilliamsF1 wrote:

wuzak wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:As a form of equalization; what would be the effect of on the running order if

1) unlimited MGUH to MGUK link is removed

Cars will be slower over a lap/race distance.

WilliamsF1 wrote:2) making MGUK to ES unlimited

You'll end up with quite large and heavy MGUK. The restriction will be how much energy can you practically take from the rear wheels.

WilliamsF1 wrote:and

3) keeping ES to MGUK limited to 4MJ for 2015 and 6MJ in 2016

Not sure that an increased MGUK will generate that much energy in a lap, particularly at places like Silverstone (gets <800kJ per lap from braking alone).

You are missing the point

All the sizing of the components remain the same

The only change is no limit on the MGUK harvesting and limiting the MGUK usage per lap to 4MJ

What is the point he is missing?

If the sizing remains the same for the components (which doesn't make sense to do if the MGUH to MGUK transfer is eliminated) then you'd have exactly what wuzak stated. Some PUs might charge the ES through overrunning, but that burns fuel, and this is a fuel limited formula.

The pecking order would likely not change.