"Quantifying" an upgrade

[raymondu999]

Hey all. Over the past few years, upgrades have been quantified in terms of time. For example, some say this part is x tenths, that part is x tenths, etc. I don't get how they get these figures. These figures will change depending on track design (It won't produce the same benefits at Monza as it did at Monaco) and also the circuit length (It will be worth less over a single lap at Interlagos vs at Spa). How is this number actually obtained? And wouldn't it be more accurate to say it increases efficiency/downforce by x% instead of x tenths?

[Giblet]

Wind tunnel data is one way, as it is a laboratory. If they lower the drag coefficient, they can quantify that the car will go x% faster. If the can get more measured down force out of the wing with no drag penalty, they know it will x% quicker in corners.

It gets muddled when the upgrade is about feel for the driver, and this they need to test on a track. If a driver feels better turning in, they need to go off what he says. This is why some drivers are considered by teams to be good at quantifying parts with their 'butt dyno'. Some drivers are better at this than others.

Confidence in the car improves lap times for the most part.

[Jersey Tom]

Hey all. Over the past few years, upgrades have been quantified in terms of time. For example, some say this part is x tenths, that part is x tenths, etc. I don't get how they get these figures.

Who said those public claims were accurate or even real?

[Giblet]

We can't know that obviously, but I'm not so sure the OP was asking if they teams lie to the public. Of course they do. The site super skeptic strike again

We do know that teams improve their cars, and quantify the numbers in one way shape or form. They don't lie to themselves obviously, while they might be to us.

[Ciro Pabón]

Even taking in account JTom observation, F1 is actually a "fair of parts". A new nosecone here, a mirror there.

As internal data is restricted, it's easy for external observers to notice which part was added and compare times. They do it at a particular circuit. Hence, the x tenths claim. This is the source of many illusions (for example, sandbagging).

Accuracy of the estimates of the public has been studied many times, it's an interesting subject. For example, in an study, some people made project plans. When they were asked to revise figures, and they were told they need to provide a 95% level of confidence, their estimation of time for completion of the project doubled...

So, two very good questions you can make when receiving an estimate:

- What is the level of confidence of your estimate?
- What assumptions did you make?

When you get an estimate from your employees, ask those two questions and you will get much better responses than ellaborating artificial modifications (X percent on Y circuit or Z percent increase in downforce) of a flawed estimate.

Engineers have to know two things:

1. The answer I'm providing
2. How much I think the answer is wrong.

Simple.

For example, I think this answer I'm giving is 27% wrong... and it will decrease your forum browsing time by 3 tenths. What? Don't you believe me?

[raymondu999]

But my point is that they just claim "oh, this part is worth 8 tenths." Ok, fair enough. At x circuit, it will produce 8 tenths faster. All very plausible. HOWEVER. Let's say they're talking 8 tenths quicker in Monaco. Now take that to a circuit like Monza. Or Interlagos. It won't prove to be 8 tenths faster. It will prove to be maybe less of an improvement, in lap-time wise. No? Based on circuit length and design the gains (in just time) will prove to be different, no?

[Giblet]

They tend to use Jerez as the baseline, as that is the track they test at the most, have the most data for , and has a great variety of high, medium, and low speed corners. The drivers also know it better than most. Alonso closed his eyes and did the track in his mind, 'air guitaring' steering and shifting, and was but a few seconds off of his real time.

If you can be fast at Jerez, you can be fast everywhere. if your upgrade works at Jerez, it works everywhere.

But yeah, a few 10ths on a short track is not the same as a few on a long one, unless all the 10ths are made up in one type of corner.

[raymondu999]

interesting. I thought Barcelona was more the baseline and not Jerez?

[Giblet]

Oh my mistake, thanks for the correction.

[Shaddock]

Could be a reliability upgrade, this could actually degrade performance.

[mx_tifoso]

But my point is that they just claim "oh, this part is worth 8 tenths." Ok, fair enough. At x circuit, it will produce 8 tenths faster. All very plausible. HOWEVER. Let's say they're talking 8 tenths quicker in Monaco. Now take that to a circuit like Monza. Or Interlagos. It won't prove to be 8 tenths faster. It will prove to be maybe less of an improvement, in lap-time wise. No? Based on circuit length and design the gains (in just time) will prove to be different, no?

If an upgrade isn't designed for a specific track then it won't be used there, as simple as that. The team will revert to the previous design, which is what we see many times throughout the season. The new part doesn't have to be used simply because it is new, if it doesn't provide a benefit over the previous set-up then it shouldn't be used, that would be a useless compromise.

It also depends on what kind of upgrade it is, as it can be mechanical, electrical, aero, etc. Some can work on any kind of circuit and condition and others can't, thus the measurement in improvement depends on that.

[DaveKillens]

You have to remember that when someone from a team makes claims on an upgrade, they wish to convey something that most fans can wrap their minds around. For many of us (in this forum), if a team member states that a new aero part delivers a certain amount of lesser drag for the same downforce, we can figure out how it impacts the car's performance.

But for the average fan who isn't as crazy as most of us about such facts and figures, they deliver their message to the lowest common denominator. They keep it simple and easy to comprehend for any non-technical fan.