Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
Dr Z said:
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their s
t aero? And Haas while we're at it.
Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
With respect, your comment prior to mine was belittling, as is your rolleyes in this one. t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
MartG said:
Mike Gascoyne reckons McLaren have already decided to split from Honda
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10914414/f1...
The Daily Mail reported that McLaren and Honda were splitting and McLaren were working on a Mercedes engine deal in Canada as early as Monday IIRC. http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10914414/f1...
No reputable news agency jumped on the bandwagon though which makes me wonder whether McLaren have made their mind up or are just exploring the option in detail.
jsf said:
With respect, your comment prior to mine was belittling, as is your rolleyes in this one.
I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
I don't see a problem with what you post; yes you can sometimes be a bit hasty and take things the wrong way, but one can't knock the fundamentals of what you say, even if others seem not to understand the basic mathematical tenets of the world of aerodynamics. I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
rubystone said:
jsf said:
With respect, your comment prior to mine was belittling, as is your rolleyes in this one.
I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
I don't see a problem with what you post; yes you can sometimes be a bit hasty and take things the wrong way, but one can't knock the fundamentals of what you say, even if others seem not to understand the basic mathematical tenets of the world of aerodynamics. I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
I agree that with a more powerful engine that Mcl would be further up the grid, but to assume that 'they've got one of the best chassis' and once they get a Merc engine they'll be front runner is naive.
London424 said:
But isn't the argument it's not just about 'adding more downforce' or surely all teams would do it. We've got plenty of Merc engined cars why don't they just add more downforce?
I agree that with a more powerful engine that Mcl would be further up the grid, but to assume that 'they've got one of the best chassis' and once they get a Merc engine they'll be front runner is naive.
Not all cars have the same aerodynamic efficiency, so adding more downforce on one car would add more drag than the same level of downforce on another car. This means that the downforce versus drag compromise for optimum lap time is different for different chassis running the same power unit. For a given power level they have to find that balance between adding downforce while not adding too much drag that gives the best lap time. This is where people like Adrian Newey earn their money in finding downforce that doesn't cost them too much drag.I agree that with a more powerful engine that Mcl would be further up the grid, but to assume that 'they've got one of the best chassis' and once they get a Merc engine they'll be front runner is naive.
thegreenhell said:
London424 said:
But isn't the argument it's not just about 'adding more downforce' or surely all teams would do it. We've got plenty of Merc engined cars why don't they just add more downforce?
I agree that with a more powerful engine that Mcl would be further up the grid, but to assume that 'they've got one of the best chassis' and once they get a Merc engine they'll be front runner is naive.
Not all cars have the same aerodynamic efficiency, so adding more downforce on one car would add more drag than the same level of downforce on another car. This means that the downforce versus drag compromise for optimum lap time is different for different chassis running the same power unit. For a given power level they have to find that balance between adding downforce while not adding too much drag that gives the best lap time. This is where people like Adrian Newey earn their money in finding downforce that doesn't cost them too much drag.I agree that with a more powerful engine that Mcl would be further up the grid, but to assume that 'they've got one of the best chassis' and once they get a Merc engine they'll be front runner is naive.
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
I suggest you do because you just don't get it.
If you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their sIf you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
My tuppenceworth is that it's more complex than just "more downforce=more drag" and there are other things in play anyway.
Drag shedding is a thing.
The aero flow structures at low speed are not the same as at high speed.
A wing can be made to generate downforce up to a certain speed, then from that certain speed up to top speed, can be made to stall.
This is how the f-duct came about years ago, although that used the driver to "switch" it on and off by creating or removing pressure in a pipe.
The teams exploit this effect, by creating structures that cause downforce at lower speed and start to stall/cause turbulence at higher speeds, lowering the downforce but also -importantly- the drag from there up to top speed.
They stall parts of the aero package at higher speeds (either directly with AOA or yaw, or indirectly by causing the upstream flow to become turbulent) on purpose. I believe this is one of the areas RBR are very adept at. Flow structures move. You can cause them to move so much that the rearward aero stalls at higher speeds because the flow has moved "out of the way".
On the topic of the three Merc-engined cars - the main concept Williams in particular and to a lesser degree Force India have gone for is lower-drag cars than Mercedes, for a completely different reason than "it's hard to generate efficient lift:drag cars".
At the majority of tracks, the cars aren't starting with the maximum 105kg of fuel on board at the start of the race.
Williams are taking the fuel loads down lower than the others. They have done this since the start of the PU formula (it was apparent then: we used to get FOM graphics showing the fuel load).
Their concept relies on this: the lower the drag on the car, the less fuel is needed to shove it through the air through a full race distance.
At the start of the race, the effect is most pronounced: they are significantly lighter than the cars around them (we could hypothetically be talking about 100kg of fuel versus 85kg).
At the end of the race, everyone ends up practically empty so the effect diminishes through the race distance, but of course F1 isn't about elapsed time to get to the finishing line - it's not a time trial. It's about getting track position and then stopping people getting round you at the end phase of the race.
Essentially, to run a draggy, downforce-y car means that specifically at the start of the race your car will need to be heavier than the opposite aero concept as per Williams.
This concept has knockon effects on tyre warming and so on (less weight and less downforce=less tyre deflection = harder to keep them in their working range - and that's been hurting Williams).
Bear in mind all of this is true even if you're talking about cars with the exact same engine spec, exact same mode.
One is heavier and has more drag. It'll be slower in a straight line once both cars aren't traction limited - 15kg is worth about 20bhp in power:weight terms, and obviously lower drag is helpful, but harder to quantify.
Add in how efficient the car is at cooling/heat rejection (which is a massive cause of drag) and it's not actually as straightforward as drag=downforce, although at a general high level that's true. Internal car aerodynamics are important.
So - does loads of power mean "just add loads of downforce"? - Yes, but there are other variables besides.
Drag shedding is a thing.
The aero flow structures at low speed are not the same as at high speed.
A wing can be made to generate downforce up to a certain speed, then from that certain speed up to top speed, can be made to stall.
This is how the f-duct came about years ago, although that used the driver to "switch" it on and off by creating or removing pressure in a pipe.
The teams exploit this effect, by creating structures that cause downforce at lower speed and start to stall/cause turbulence at higher speeds, lowering the downforce but also -importantly- the drag from there up to top speed.
They stall parts of the aero package at higher speeds (either directly with AOA or yaw, or indirectly by causing the upstream flow to become turbulent) on purpose. I believe this is one of the areas RBR are very adept at. Flow structures move. You can cause them to move so much that the rearward aero stalls at higher speeds because the flow has moved "out of the way".
On the topic of the three Merc-engined cars - the main concept Williams in particular and to a lesser degree Force India have gone for is lower-drag cars than Mercedes, for a completely different reason than "it's hard to generate efficient lift:drag cars".
At the majority of tracks, the cars aren't starting with the maximum 105kg of fuel on board at the start of the race.
Williams are taking the fuel loads down lower than the others. They have done this since the start of the PU formula (it was apparent then: we used to get FOM graphics showing the fuel load).
Their concept relies on this: the lower the drag on the car, the less fuel is needed to shove it through the air through a full race distance.
At the start of the race, the effect is most pronounced: they are significantly lighter than the cars around them (we could hypothetically be talking about 100kg of fuel versus 85kg).
At the end of the race, everyone ends up practically empty so the effect diminishes through the race distance, but of course F1 isn't about elapsed time to get to the finishing line - it's not a time trial. It's about getting track position and then stopping people getting round you at the end phase of the race.
Essentially, to run a draggy, downforce-y car means that specifically at the start of the race your car will need to be heavier than the opposite aero concept as per Williams.
This concept has knockon effects on tyre warming and so on (less weight and less downforce=less tyre deflection = harder to keep them in their working range - and that's been hurting Williams).
Bear in mind all of this is true even if you're talking about cars with the exact same engine spec, exact same mode.
One is heavier and has more drag. It'll be slower in a straight line once both cars aren't traction limited - 15kg is worth about 20bhp in power:weight terms, and obviously lower drag is helpful, but harder to quantify.
Add in how efficient the car is at cooling/heat rejection (which is a massive cause of drag) and it's not actually as straightforward as drag=downforce, although at a general high level that's true. Internal car aerodynamics are important.
So - does loads of power mean "just add loads of downforce"? - Yes, but there are other variables besides.
Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 15th June 12:11
jsf said:
Dr Z said:
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their st aero? And Haas while we're at it.
Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
With respect, your comment prior to mine was belittling, as is your rolleyes in this one. t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
I am just trying to help you realise, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, which means the majority of what you write on this aspect is completely wrong.
I am sure TR and Haas can manage quite fine without me, I do earn my living by building and engineering race cars that have won FIA championships though, so maybe you should consider my input to be of some merit.
Maybe you could use my suggestion to try and learn more about the subject as helpful, rather than seeing it as confrontational.
KevinCamaroSS said:
I'm no aero expert, but, simple logic tells me that the difference in downforce between a high downforce car and a low downforce car is going to become greater the faster they go, therefore in slow speed corners the difference is much less.
Indeed, as the aero guys/engineers here have alluded to, if you are running less downforce, it manifests itself as ever so longer braking zones and lower corner entry speeds, especially in the entry to low speed corners. Actually, I made a passing reference to it in an earlier post criticising the McLaren chassis.However, the minimum speeds through the low speed corners would be more about how much mechanical grip your chassis generates. This is less dependent on the amount of downforce you are running. A caveat being that you are running enough downforce to work the tyres properly; that you are able to get them up to temp without sliding too much (also affected by the downforce you are running), and put enough energy through the tyres over a lap to keep them in the window (again downforce/set up comes into play here).
With the new 2017 tyres being wider/bigger there is a limit to how much of a low downforce set up you can run, as if you can't work the tyres well, you stand to lose a lot more lap time in the corners than you'd gain on the straights. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen McLaren struggle with the tyres this year (they did last year). Suggests to me that they are not compromising as much for straight line speed.
And I have shown where they aren't compromised as much by power at Monaco, the car is still some way off the top teams. In China for example, they would be very heavily compromised due to lack of power and the very long straight, still they were only 4 km/h off the top teams in the high speed corners where the performance is more biased towards downforce. It also made me doubt that they are compromising as much as being claimed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the car is a back marker. Far from it.
With that said, I'll leave it to the experts here.
HustleRussell said:
Williams to become 2018 Works Honda Team?
{Paddy Lowe checking the small print in his contract}HustleRussell said:
Williams to become 2018 Works Honda Team?
Why on earth would you drop Merc power for Honda?Trevatanus said:
HustleRussell said:
Williams to become 2018 Works Honda Team?
Why on earth would you drop Merc power for Honda?They need the money?
Blinded by the cachet of being a works team again?
James Allen has hypothesised that Honda could pay for an unbranded Mercedes engine supply for McLaren for just next year, with a return to Honda power in 2019 if they can sort their own engine out. This would take the pressure off Honda a little, while allowing the partnership to continue in the future.
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/06/insight-why...
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/06/insight-why...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff