F1technical.net

Good link WB, for those too lazy to click n read..

-Data based on collated acoustic analysis & GPS from each manufacturer. Feedback from F1 engineers is that it is pretty accurate.
-Merc & BMW most powerful @ approx 755hp, then Ferrari, Renault, Toyota.
- less than 2.5% spread; approx 0.3sec difference max.
Renault most efficient; 4 laps longer on a full tank than Merc; Ferrari less efficent again
-Cosworth quoting 770hp but efficiency & reliability short of rivals
-Red Bull in limbo awaiting Renault's F1 decision. Car designed around the Renault engine.



Good info confirming what was pretty much known this season. The surprise for me is the mention of BMW as a strong engine still. BMW's chassis must've been garbage!

How would engine manufacturers use GPS to help achieve useful information on their rivals' engines?

GPS gives them the location of the cars on track at all times. Actually I seem to remember that FOM refines the signal by triangulation between different radio pickups points around the track.

yeh i understand what GPS is and does. but not how its use would help engineers learn more about the power output of their competitors.

Fil wrote:yeh i understand what GPS is and does. but not how its use would help engineers learn more about the power output of their competitors.

Point to point acceleration, from which work can be analysed and some inferences can be made. Gearing needs to be assumed for this to work. It's likely this is done in conjunction with other data.

TBH GPS data feeds are notoriously slow-rate. There are kits pushing 200Hz through a variety of means, though I'm not sure these data streams would be disclosed to other teams. You're basically left with acceleration out into long straights as the only semi-viable sources of information.

ok, but where they get data about each other from GPS?

Either way, I guess the competitor's aerodynamic drag has to be estimated just the same, correct SZ?

tadzio89 wrote:ok, but where they get data about each other from GPS?

FOM distributes the GPS data of all cars to all competitors. I'm sure you have seen the graphic with several dots on the track teams use to visualize the position of drivers on track. That is based on that service. Teams use it to simulate pit stops and refine strategy.

xpensive wrote:Either way, I guess the competitor's aerodynamic drag has to be estimated just the same, correct SZ?

Would assume that aside from a few teams the aero strategies (aside from 'flash in the pan' results at high speed tracks) that Cd is broadly comparable team to team... and the top speeds are pretty damning

And what would a realistic average value of Cd times cross-section area be, SZ?

My guesstimate would be 1.45, where Cd represents some 1.1 of that.

xpensive wrote:And what would a realistic average value of Cd times cross-section area be, SZ?

My guesstimate would be 1.45, where Cd represents some 1.1 of that.

More important that it'd be consistent...

Afraid this is well off the mark, the linked article is wrong. Don't know what sort of assumptions and calculations were used but they don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Take Monza for example. Having 18hp more than all the other teams wouldn't mean that the Merc engined cars finish at the top so convincingly as what happened. You need to be pretty far in front for that to happen, especially considering where Force India's car development was.

Reportedly the F1 teams confirmed those figures when they were asked.

Oh right, so F1 teams simply confirm engine power figures now when asked.

Maybe you believe it purely because you want to. Come on, no way would we confirm engine details like that to anyone!
Another issue with the linked article, F1 cars can be on a variety of fuel maps for over half a race unknown to the watching public so any guess work is mostly pointless.

There's no doubt the Merc engine is miles ahead of anything else, not just in all out performance but in control systems, integration package, versatility.

I hope Cosworth do well when they come back, I think it could be an excuse for some of the new team that don't perform very well though.

That 18BHP difference doesn't hold any water to me. The Toyota unit was, according to Toyota themselves putting out 740BHP @ 19,000rpm last year and since the drop in RPM this would drop a fair bit - to pretty much 700BHP dead-on. And even the Toyota website now says "more than 700BHP" compared to "around 740BHP" from last year. Looking at Monza and Spa you could easily tell the Toyota units were down a fair bit.

What I want to know is why Toyota weren't allowed to improve engines at the end of 2008?

James Allen with a intresting engine article for 2010.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/11/a ... e-in-2009/

So the Toyota was 2.5% down on the Mercedes and BMW. Only worth .3 of a second a lap, god knows what the TF109 would have been capaple of with one of those engines in it.