F1technical.net

Posted: **31 May 2015, 23:11**

Juzh wrote:Not even close.

Right, the 2014 cars clearly get away much much better. It's only at the end of the straight when aero kicks in as the major issue that the old cars get back on terms. Clearly the 2014 cars are much more powerful.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 00:36**

Juzh wrote:2014 vs 2003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_bRXMBIs8

2014 vs 2005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a32A5SQj6m0

Not even close.

I note that the 2014 car you have chosen was 21st of 22 cars through the speed trap.

Despite this at the first gantry, 5 seconds in, 2014 is about a car length ahead of 2003. So from 70kph to 250kph the 2014 cars are quicker despite being 15% heavier. Do you still insist they are 200bhp down in power?

Not sure why you chose this section of track rather than the start finish straight, despite the 100% throttle its difficult to gauge whether the 2014 car scrubs more speed through the corner.

inox wrote:Not perhaps so essential, but you got wrong weights for years 2000-2003. It was 600 kg back then (including the driver).

The 540 kg figure was from 1988, when turbo engines were penalized by 40 kg over the naturally aspirated cars. And that didn't yet include a driver on those days. The lowest weight limit since 80's has been 500 kg (without driver) so cars probably weighted in excess of 560 kg.

See table on page 8 on this rather handy sheet:
http://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Files ... P2_01e.pdf

Thanks for the update, makes the weight fit much better on the chart now.

Will be good to get the pole lap from Montreal to see how that fits, im predicting 1:14.0 to 1:14.2 which will be about 2.5% behind the fastest lap of 1:12.275 in 2004 and slightly quicker than last years 1:14.874. Fingers crossed for dry qualy.

EDIT:

Looking at the data more, Monza is a bit of an outlier, it stands out as being the only track where the pole laps have got increasingly slower even in times of "stable" regulations

2010 1:21.962
2011 1:22.275
2012 1:24.010
2013 1:23.755
2014 1:24.109

On most tracks the 2012 times are very comparable to 2010 but at Monza they are over 2 seconds slower. Im not sure why this could be. Sorry im going a bit off topic here

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 01:26**

Moose wrote:
Juzh wrote:Not even close.
Right, the 2014 cars clearly get away much much better. It's only at the end of the straight when aero kicks in as the major issue that the old cars get back on terms. Clearly the 2014 cars are much more powerful.

I think you may have interpreted that backwards.

The current generation of cars create substantially less drag, especially at lower speeds. For instance, the older cars made more than their weight in downforce at ~100kph.

Without the effects of drag, that comparison wouldn't be as close as it was, because the 900-950+bhp V10s make a mockery of current PUs, in my opinion.

mrluke wrote:So from 70kph to 250kph the 2014 cars are quicker despite being 15% heavier. Do you still insist they are 200bhp down in power?

I think that's all drag. At those speeds, weight it more or less irrelevant. For example...

...100kg is worth 0.4s over a 1000m run starting at 72kph.

(This can be very fun to play with, by the way: http://www.baranidesign.com/acceleratio ... ation.html )

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 01:49**

bhall II wrote:The current generation of cars create substantially less drag, especially at lower speeds. For instance, the older cars made more than their weight in downforce at ~100kph.

While that may be true of Barcelona, or any of the other common tracks, it is not the case for Monza.

Check out the skinny wings

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... _start.jpg

Drag may be very similar when the DRS is activated on the 2014 car.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 02:11**

That's a valid point. And Monza was the downforce target for the 2009 rule change.

That said, you also have to consider that underbody downforce, a source of drag regardless of its efficiency, is relatively unchanged from circuit to circuit, even Monza, but was substantially reduced with the 2009 aero rules. EDIT: ...and the loss of beam wings in 2014.

That sort of drag reduction was specifically targeted by Williams, for instance, back when active suspensions were legal, and they implemented a "push-to-pass" function that temporarily lifted the car to reduce underbody downforce/drag in order to achieve higher speeds.

And even if it doesn't amount to a huge difference, I still believe the older cars created more drag at lower speeds, because aerodynamicists work to create wide windows of usable downforce. A wise man taught me that.

Unrelated note for clarity: I edited my previous post (and this one), because I initially included the wrong image (and I'm occasionally obsessive).

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 05:44**

mrluke wrote: I note that the 2014 car you have chosen was 21st of 22 cars through the speed trap.

mrluke wrote: Despite this at the first gantry, 5 seconds in, 2014 is about a car length ahead of 2003. So from 70kph to 250kph the 2014 cars are quicker despite being 15% heavier. Do you still insist they are 200bhp down in power?

2014 car is marginally out of sync when they get out of T1. That's why he's ahead initially, but loses in the end. 2005 reks him easily.
Where did I say V6t makes only 750 bhp?

mrluke wrote: Not sure why you chose this section of track rather than the start finish straight, despite the 100% throttle its difficult to gauge whether the 2014 car scrubs more speed through the corner.

Because 2003 and 2005 cars take parabolica at such higher apex speeds comparison is not really worth it.

mrluke wrote: Looking at the data more, Monza is a bit of an outlier, it stands out as being the only track where the pole laps have got increasingly slower even in times of "stable" regulations

2010 1:21.962
2011 1:22.275
2012 1:24.010
2013 1:23.755
2014 1:24.109

On most tracks the 2012 times are very comparable to 2010 but at Monza they are over 2 seconds slower. Im not sure why this could be. Sorry im going a bit off topic here

"stable regs"
2010 - DDDs & F-ducts >>> 2011 DRS & kers
2012 - more aero restrictions
2013 - restricted DRS to DRS zones
Everything makes sesnse?

Also, 2010 times are NOT comparable to 2012 lol.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 08:45**

inox wrote:
stevesingo wrote:
Altenatively, a 10% increase in fuel flow and RPM limt of 12000 would get you over 800hp from the ICE alone.
How is that possible? If we assumed current ICE power to be 700 hp and increase fuel flow by 10%, it would mean maximum output of 770 hp and probably slightly less due to added friction caused by extra revs. Revs itself don't add power, its the amount of burned fuel.

Working on the following assumptions;

100kg/hr fuel flow
10500rpm
VE of 120%
Equivilent N/A BMEP 14Bar
AFR 14:1

I calculate that a 1600cc engine will make 724hp @10500rpm @2.76Bar boost

12000rpm and 110kg/hr fuel flow gives 798bhp @2.66Bar boost.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 16:10**

Abarth wrote:They wouldn't be good engineers if they did not have designed these engines to the limit, and moreso the rotating/oscillating parts.

Given the limited scope for engine development, wouldn't the basic designs have been future proofed? The manufacturers must have an engine power/torque development plan, that details where they were in 2014 and were they expect to be at the end of the engines development lifespan. So I'd expect many fundamental components to have been designed from the outset to withstand the expected power when development is completely frozen.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 16:27**

A few things to consider while attempting to estimate power outputs by comparing the 2005 and 2014 cars.

1) The 2005 car has grooved tyres while the 2014 car has slicks giving the latter better traction early on.
2) The 2014 car produces significantly greater torque which will help acceleration.
Both 1) and 2) above will offset some of the weight disadvantage attributed to the 2014 cars, to what extent I don't know.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 17:37**

stevesingo wrote:
inox wrote:
stevesingo wrote:
Altenatively, a 10% increase in fuel flow and RPM limt of 12000 would get you over 800hp from the ICE alone.
How is that possible? If we assumed current ICE power to be 700 hp and increase fuel flow by 10%, it would mean maximum output of 770 hp and probably slightly less due to added friction caused by extra revs. Revs itself don't add power, its the amount of burned fuel.
Working on the following assumptions;

100kg/hr fuel flow
10500rpm
VE of 120%
Equivilent N/A BMEP 14Bar
AFR 14:1

I calculate that a 1600cc engine will make 724hp @10500rpm @2.76Bar boost

12000rpm and 110kg/hr fuel flow gives 798bhp @2.66Bar boost.

Using what heat content for the fuel and what efficiency for the ICE?

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 19:52**

Bhall,

Thanks for your post and calculator.

The 72 - 250kph where the 2014 car appears to be quicker should be least affected by Drag, the 100kg weight penalty over this speed equates to ~30m i.e. the lighter car gets to 250kph about 30m before the heavier car does.

Or to look at it another way by the time the lighter car has driven 250m the heavier will be at @ 235m so 15m or about 3 car lengths behind. Thats no longer an insignificant difference and in the video we see that the heavier car is actually about a car length ahead.

Looking at the wings on the 2003 picture I am going to suggest that the current formula may have the same overall downforce levels for Monza but that the older cars got a greater benefit from underbody downforce whereas the more recent car are much more reliant on wings. Although there is going to be drag associated with underbody it will be less than the wings.

Thinking on it more, the 03 cars are getting enough downforce from the floor that they can practically take off the rear wing, although they are lighter they carry much more speed through the high speed corners. Whereas the newer cars have to "drag" a rear wing around with them to get enough downforce for a decent laptime so are probably running lower overall downforce (I speculate). The redbulls with their skinny wing were 1.5s off the pace but obviously down on power as well.

Perhaps this would explain why each year the cars have been getting slower at Monza than they have at other tracks (sorry for clumsy wording).

Juzh,

850bhp in a 700kg car would be equivalent to ~730bhp in a 605kg car, i.e. if you removed 200bhp from a 2003 car you would get to 2014 levels of performance. Perhaps that is a little unfair of me.

The 2005 video is very difficult to find any reference points until the 3rd bridge.

Wasn't your whole initial point about how much faster the 03/04/05 cars were across the start finish straight and their vmax in particular? Its a shame that we cant make the adjustment to see what difference it would make if the 2014 cars could exit parabolica at the 03/04/05 cars speed or vice versa.

However it neatly reinforces my earlier point that the newer cars are much slower in the high speed corners so they must have some sort of advantage somewhere else.

Monza
2004 1:20.089
2010 1:21.962
2012 1:24.010
2014 1:24.109

Montreal
2004 1:12.275
2010 1:15.105
2012 1:13.784
2014 1:14.874

Brazil
2004 1:10.646
2010 1:14.470
2012 1:12.458
2014 1:10.023

Suzuka
2004 1:33.542
2010 1:30.785
2012 1:30.839
2014 1:32.506

Looking at the above 2010 times are quite comparable to 2012, except for at Monza. Interesting comparing the differences between Monza and Montreal.

My reference to stable regs refers to the period of domination by redbull where they continued to refine the same basic package as opposed to the change from V10 to V8 or V8 to V6T which required new concepts. I was not suggesting that there were no regulation changes at all.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 20:48**

mrluke wrote: I note that the 2014 car you have chosen was 21st of 22 cars through the speed trap.

Just to return on this.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but rosberg's car was the fastest car trough speed trap in 2014:

Code: Select all

Pos	No	Driver	Time of Day	Speed
1	6	Nico Rosberg	14:09:07	353.9
2	77	Valtteri Bottas	14:05:49	353.0
3	11	Sergio Perez	14:39:22	351.1
4	44	Lewis Hamilton	14:07:51	350.8
5	19	Felipe Massa	14:59:44	350.6
6	14	Fernando Alonso	14:59:24	350.1
7	7	Kimi Räikkönen	14:29:10	348.2
8	25	Jean-Eric Vergne	14:39:29	347.7
9	27	Nico Hulkenberg	14:03:47	347.3
10	26	Daniil Kvyat	14:39:46	347.2
11	22	Jenson Button	14:39:49	346.2
12	20	Kevin Magnussen	14:39:39	345.7
13	3	Daniel Ricciardo	14:10:57	345.3
14	1	Sebastian Vettel	14:10:34	345.0
15	13	Pastor Maldonado	14:04:46	341.9
16	21	Esteban Gutierrez	14:39:32	341.8
17	99	Adrian Sutil	14:07:37	340.6
18	17	Jules Bianchi	14:17:38	339.8
19	10	Kamui Kobayashi	14:11:00	339.5
20	4	Max Chilton	14:08:59	339.0
21	8	Romain Grosjean	14:17:40	338.7
22	9	Marcus Ericsson	14:17:51	334.7

mrluke wrote: Wasn't your whole initial point about how much faster the 03/04/05 cars were across the start finish straight and their vmax in particular? Its a shame that we cant make the adjustment to see what difference it would make if the 2014 cars could exit parabolica at the 03/04/05 cars speed or vice versa.

However it neatly reinforces my earlier point that the newer cars are much slower in the high speed corners so they must have some sort of advantage somewhere else.

Vmax is not nearly as affected by parabolica apex speed. And yet with DRS opened Rosberg only gets up 353. And it was you who brought up Ricciardo's 362, remember? I threw start/finish speed in as a caviat.
I'd be willing to bet that, if anything, old cars despite having apparently shallower wing angles still produce more drag than 2014+. Lots of aero restrictions coming into the V6t era were aimed specifically at lessening drag. Not to mention 10 years worth of aero development in a seriously underpowered (by f1 standards) times of V8s. And drs.

mrluke wrote: 850bhp in a 700kg car would be equivalent to ~730bhp in a 605kg car, i.e. if you removed 200bhp from a 2003 car you would get to 2014 levels of performance. Perhaps that is a little unfair of me.

But they're running race fuel. And raikkonen is running a 1 stop strategy. Weight difference almost negligible at this point.

mrluke wrote: However it neatly reinforces my earlier point that the newer cars are much slower in the high speed corners so they must have some sort of advantage somewhere else.

They do, vs V8s.

mrluke wrote: Monza
2004 1:20.089
2010 1:21.962
2012 1:24.010
2014 1:24.109

Montreal
2004 1:12.275
2010 1:15.105
2012 1:13.784
2014 1:14.874

Brazil
2004 1:10.646
2010 1:14.470
2012 1:12.458
2014 1:10.023

Suzuka
2004 1:33.542
2010 1:30.785
2012 1:30.839
2014 1:32.506

2010 brazil qualy was wet. Hulk just managed to pull trough on slicks in the last seconds on a drying track, but is still only 2s off 2012 ultimate pace. Red bulls on inters are just 3s off pole from 2012. 2014 had new tarmac. Can't be compared.
Suzuka in 2010 was washed out by a hurricane on Saturday. Cars ran qualy on a completely green, still drying track on Sunday morning, but still managed to beat 2012. Comparable times? Really?
Canada is a 1 off anomaly. Don't get me started on Barca or Hungary.
2s difference is not comparable in my book.

Posted: **01 Jun 2015, 22:30**

I cant see that we are going to agree on this and there simply isn't enough data available for the 2014/15 cars yet.

Renault have stated their PU makes 850bhp, Renault are clearly very down on power vs Ferrari and Mercedes.

Posted: **02 Jun 2015, 00:20**

mrluke wrote: Renault have stated their PU makes 850bhp, Renault are clearly very down on power vs Ferrari and Mercedes.

Renault have stated a lot of things since V6T came about. Very little of which turned out to be true.

Posted: **02 Jun 2015, 02:50**

mrluke wrote:Bhall,

[...]

Perhaps this would explain why each year the cars have been getting slower at Monza than they have at other tracks (sorry for clumsy wording).

At the risk of veering way off-topic...

(Quick note: Because I think the quest for all-out accuracy often lends itself to creating more problems than it's worth, I've deliberately chosen what I feel are broadly representative, but uncontroversial figures for frontal area, drag coefficient, and horsepower. Real-world numbers would undoubtedly change the final result, but I'm confident it would still conform to the trends we can identify here. Nevertheless, I welcome all comments and corrections.)

Above 100kph, drag and power are the dominant factors that determine how fast a car can accelerate. This is because drag squares with speed and the power needed to overcome that exponentially increasing drag load is cubed. The major drag reductions imposed by the 2009 rule change and the 2014 elimination of the beam wing are why the latest cars are similar in terms of straight-line performance when compared to V10-era machinery, despite being 100kg heavier, down on power by at least 100bhp, and somewhat paradoxically having much higher theoretical top-speeds.

V6t era from 70kph

V10 era from 70kph

Due to the greater penalties imposed by a larger frontal area and a higher drag coefficient, the significantly higher power and substantially lighter weight of the V10 car yield a paltry ET advantage of only 0.15s at the end of a 1000m run that starts at 70kph and results in a top-speed that's 17.36kph lower than its V6t counterpart. Such is the nature of drag and speed that the V10's ET advantage drops to just 0.1s when that same run is started at 100kph.

V6t vs V10 from 100kph

To contextualize this a bit further, if you reduced the drag of a V10-era car to V6t-era levels, the resulting hybrid would be 0.64s quicker and 17.26kph faster than current cars.

V6t vs V10 hybrid from 70kph

How does this relate to the matter at hand? (Good question.)

For any given circuit, and for all cars with a given amount of power, there exists a level of downforce that can be considered a threshold beyond which the benefits of additional downforce are negated by the drag penalty imposed to create it. Understandably, teams never cross this circuit/power-dependent threshold. But...

The same dynamic also exists within each circuit for each sector, and teams routinely suffer the penalty of carrying too much downforce through sector(s) in which downforce is unnecessary, because the penalty is completely offset by gains made through other critical sector(s). An excellent example of this is Sepang.

Within the highlighted sections of the track, downforce is more or less a hindrance to performance. But, high downforce levels throughout the rest of the lap yield huge gains, so teams gladly suffer the penalty of running too much downforce elsewhere.

In terms of sheer, cumulative distance, F1 circuits are all primarily composed of sectors in which downforce is unneeded. That ultimately means the 2009 and 2014 downforce reductions have created opportunities for performance gains, via reduced drag, throughout most sectors within most circuits, and it's responsible for the following:

mrluke wrote:Considering how little the lap times have increased for the increased weight I struggle to see how it can be possible that the cars have less power than before....

In general on the aero circuits the cars are slower but on the more power focused circuits the cars are setting very competitive times...

Melbourne 3.35%
Sepang 18.63%
Bahrain 3.03%
Shanghai 2.22%
Barcelona 13.44%
Monaco 2.10%

Because overall downforce reductions have reduced the scope in which teams can self-impose large, partial-lap restrictions, so to speak, lap times are relatively comparable for circuits that aren't necessarily downforce-critical. In those cases, the teams have mostly lost what was never needed in the first place and can now take advantage of higher top-speeds that were never feasible before. (The big difference is seen on so-called "aero tracks" where performance losses have been staggering.)

So, what can easily appear to be the result of comparable/more power at first glance is actually the result of greatly reduced drag.

Or something like that.

(By the way, I was much younger when I started writing this tome and probably had a more coherent notion of the idea I intend to convey. So, I apologize if I've failed to connect the dots as cohesively as possible. Age changes a man, yanno?)

F1technical.net

2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula