Discussion
Deesee said:
Oh yes with a pink tint.. more a- than b...
That's really weird. I could have sworn they weren't a junior team to Mercedes. Yet they seem to have all the benefits of a junior team... Anyway, I can see why the big three want secondary teams with cost caps incoming - in reality it expands their R&D footprint. Even if Mercedes are adamant they don't have a secondary team.
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Oh yes with a pink tint.. more a- than b...
That's really weird. I could have sworn they weren't a junior team to Mercedes. Yet they seem to have all the benefits of a junior team... Anyway, I can see why the big three want secondary teams with cost caps incoming - in reality it expands their R&D footprint. Even if Mercedes are adamant they don't have a secondary team.
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
slight left turn , but , is it just me that's finds it impossible to believe that if you dynoed mercs car and williams car , the engines would be anything remotely similar in power output ?
Engines supplied to customer teams have to be the same spec as the factory teams. Customer teams have to have access to the same engine maps etc.A rule change came a few seasons back. Sadly, Williams are in that much trouble.
ivanhoew said:
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
slight left turn , but , is it just me that's finds it impossible to believe that if you dynoed mercs car and williams car , the engines would be anything remotely similar in power output ?
Engines supplied to customer teams have to be the same spec as the factory teams. Customer teams have to have access to the same engine maps etc.A rule change came a few seasons back. Sadly, Williams are in that much trouble.
Why? What would be the point? It’s not like Williams are a threat... it would be better for Merc to have Williams and Racing P taking points of other teams and holding them up. The rules are enforced and Merc wouldn’t want any legal issues or rule breaking accusations coming their way.
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
slight left turn , but , is it just me that's finds it impossible to believe that if you dynoed mercs car and williams car , the engines would be anything remotely similar in power output ?
Engines supplied to customer teams have to be the same spec as the factory teams. Customer teams have to have access to the same engine maps etc.A rule change came a few seasons back. Sadly, Williams are in that much trouble.
Why? What would be the point? It’s not like Williams are a threat... it would be better for Merc to have Williams and Racing P taking points of other teams and holding them up. The rules are enforced and Merc wouldn’t want any legal issues or rule breaking accusations coming their way.
It's the easiest thing to take an ECU image and compare it to another. You wouldn't even need to understand or analyse it, it's either identical or it's not.
The brains at Mercedes would stop themselves doing anything so basic and stupid.
Teddy Lop said:
Mr Pointy said:
Who are you proposing? Kaltenborn?
why not?She achieved more with less, and kept the show on the road through a time when others didn't.
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
slight left turn , but , is it just me that's finds it impossible to believe that if you dynoed mercs car and williams car , the engines would be anything remotely similar in power output ?
Engines supplied to customer teams have to be the same spec as the factory teams. Customer teams have to have access to the same engine maps etc.A rule change came a few seasons back. Sadly, Williams are in that much trouble.
Jabbah said:
HighwayStar said:
ivanhoew said:
slight left turn , but , is it just me that's finds it impossible to believe that if you dynoed mercs car and williams car , the engines would be anything remotely similar in power output ?
Engines supplied to customer teams have to be the same spec as the factory teams. Customer teams have to have access to the same engine maps etc.A rule change came a few seasons back. Sadly, Williams are in that much trouble.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why would they? No doubt Merc get all the data back on engine performance anyway, and then use that data to help develop the engine, which in turn powers their very dominant factory cars. The more identical (or as close to possible as identical) engines they have sending back data, the better off they are.
And that is before the fact it is against the rules, and that when you have a championship winning driver, in a championship winning car, who is probably going to win another WDC and CC, where is the advantage is screwing over the team at the back of the grid and risk any kind of penalty?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They could give a different spec engine... But as I understand it, not a previous season/version engine. There have been cases where a supplier team has run an engine update ahead of their customer and vice versa. It might be the case that the customer has to 'choose' to play ball. Certain b teams might feel so inclined to accept that sort of thing if they are otherwise supported by the top team.They cannot restrict the RPM limit. The engine has to be supplied with the same potential for the customer as it is for the supplier team. That said, depending on the fluid technology and packaging they can afford, the customer team may choose to limit the engine's ultimate potential in various ways.
I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to clarify the exact regs - but in principal, no - a supplier cannot short change a customer.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not sure about the ins and outs of how much setup the customer is required to do to get the most out of the PU for their specific car. But in principle the PU can't be 'restricted' in its potential by the manufacturer. If it's capable of a certain power output in the Mercedes, it has to capable of the same in the Williams - whether or not they achieve it.I think the maps/modes come as standard with the engine and are the same. Not sure if the teams can or do alter them to better suite their own car and packaging.
Heres an engine map 101..
https://youtu.be/NIINfuwzq-c
It touches on the fact that it can be different for individual drivers in the same team.. Let alone different teams.
https://youtu.be/NIINfuwzq-c
It touches on the fact that it can be different for individual drivers in the same team.. Let alone different teams.
My understanding is that the spec of the powertrain supplied by the manufacturer to the customer has to be capable of the same as the manufacturer unit.
It might be that the customer cannot run the powertrain to optimal spec for other reasons, such as cooling or other characteristics of their own chassis, however all things being equal their engine is the same as the one in the back of he Merc.
It might be that the customer cannot run the powertrain to optimal spec for other reasons, such as cooling or other characteristics of their own chassis, however all things being equal their engine is the same as the one in the back of he Merc.
The current PUs have taken engine maps into another dimension. Deployment of stored electrical energy is done relative to where the car is on the circuit (sensors every 50m) so the engine maps are circuit specific.
The test driver on the simulator will establish all the basic settings and modes. These are then finessed during FP1&2 to meet each drivers specifics. You also need an out-lap map just to fully charge the cell. A qually map completely depletes the cell.
So the basic software map can be thought of as an Excel spreadsheet, every team has exactly the same software. It’s the numbers in each cell that makes it different. Columns might represent every metre of a given circuit, while rows represent the usual valve opening, fuel injection and ignition timing points plus brake by wire and electrical deployment points and %age settings.
When the hybrids arrived the back end used to step out at virtually every corner. That was probably be because the mesh was based around 10m intervals; reducing that to 1m eliminated that. There was also a recent incidence when Max stuck it in the barrier on the first lap that he used a Party Mode setting.
The maps are so complex they need an army of engineers to manage them. Another reason why in 2021 the aim will be to have electrical energy deployment under direct control of the driver. We recently saw what Senna’s throttle control was like. Current ECU’s totally eliminate the need for this level of skill.
The test driver on the simulator will establish all the basic settings and modes. These are then finessed during FP1&2 to meet each drivers specifics. You also need an out-lap map just to fully charge the cell. A qually map completely depletes the cell.
So the basic software map can be thought of as an Excel spreadsheet, every team has exactly the same software. It’s the numbers in each cell that makes it different. Columns might represent every metre of a given circuit, while rows represent the usual valve opening, fuel injection and ignition timing points plus brake by wire and electrical deployment points and %age settings.
When the hybrids arrived the back end used to step out at virtually every corner. That was probably be because the mesh was based around 10m intervals; reducing that to 1m eliminated that. There was also a recent incidence when Max stuck it in the barrier on the first lap that he used a Party Mode setting.
The maps are so complex they need an army of engineers to manage them. Another reason why in 2021 the aim will be to have electrical energy deployment under direct control of the driver. We recently saw what Senna’s throttle control was like. Current ECU’s totally eliminate the need for this level of skill.
rdjohn said:
.
When the hybrids arrived the back end used to step out at virtually every corner. That was probably be because the mesh was based around 10m intervals; reducing that to 1m eliminated that.
We recently saw what Senna’s throttle control was like. Current ECU’s totally eliminate the need for this level of skill.
Erm.....having less interpolation and denser throttle mapping ( more points on the map closer together ) would allow for finer throttle control not less.....definitely dont think of a map as a spreadsheet, its multidimensionalWhen the hybrids arrived the back end used to step out at virtually every corner. That was probably be because the mesh was based around 10m intervals; reducing that to 1m eliminated that.
We recently saw what Senna’s throttle control was like. Current ECU’s totally eliminate the need for this level of skill.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tyre wear will be assessed on the simulator and then tweaked at the circuit. The rotary knobs allow the driver to adjust the diff and brake by wire all of which impact on tyre wear.The point I was making about being like Excel was that each team has a blank piece of software and engineers provided by the manufacturer. Customer teams will have to come up with their own settings for each cell. The blank software meets the FIA requirements, the customisation achieves the bast results.
Yes a spreadsheet is an oversimplification, wastegate managment and boost are very significant also. Fuel pressure and maximum flow all have to be programmed - even the beeps for the driver to lift and coast.
If you look at the spec for the Standard ECU, it is basically a powerful, low latency input / output board with monitoring points for the FIA. The very clever stuff is done in the control, or integration software. This is a controlled part so an engine upgrade might also include a big software rewrite.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff