Ferrari: Enginegate
Discussion
Kenny Powers said:
Nexus Icon said:
Kenny Powers said:
Even when a following Mercedes with slipstream and DRS can barely keep up? Seems there’s probably a little more to it than just a lower-drag aero package??
Aero is king. Red Bull have never won a race on engine power and Williams are tooling around at the back, 3-4 seconds off the pace, with the same power Lewis Hamilton has under his right foot.As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
CoolHands said:
How can burning oil help speed / power? Oil is a crap fuel?
2 things to consider ...1. If it's not being tested by the FIA, and still performs its primary 'stated' purpose (heat transfer away from the inlet airflow), then there are all sorts of things that could be done to it by very clever lab techs in order to make it less crap.
2. When overall fuel flow is limited, then any extra on top of that (even if it isn't optimum race fuel) is going to give you an advantage over someone who doesn't have it. Even if it's only 20% as efficient as race fuel - number picked completely out of my head - then it's still better than nothing, which is what the other teams have.
Rotary Potato said:
2 things to consider ...
1. If it's not being tested by the FIA, and still performs its primary 'stated' purpose (heat transfer away from the inlet airflow), then there are all sorts of things that could be done to it by very clever lab techs in order to make it less crap.
2. When overall fuel flow is limited, then any extra on top of that (even if it isn't optimum race fuel) is going to give you an advantage over someone who doesn't have it. Even if it's only 20% as efficient as race fuel - number picked completely out of my head - then it's still better than nothing, which is what the other teams have.
If there were any fluids entering the inlet track in such a way as some suggest here, then that breaches the rules in such a way they would be excluded from the championship and fined heavily. The rules are explicit on this, it would be the equivalent of the Toyota inlet restrictor cheat on the WRC car which saw the team banned from the sport for years.1. If it's not being tested by the FIA, and still performs its primary 'stated' purpose (heat transfer away from the inlet airflow), then there are all sorts of things that could be done to it by very clever lab techs in order to make it less crap.
2. When overall fuel flow is limited, then any extra on top of that (even if it isn't optimum race fuel) is going to give you an advantage over someone who doesn't have it. Even if it's only 20% as efficient as race fuel - number picked completely out of my head - then it's still better than nothing, which is what the other teams have.
That is completely different to the previous oil consumption from the breather system, which was eventually outlawed by venting the breathers to atmosphere and limiting the engine oil consumption use during a race.
TheDeuce said:
I doubt there's a sizeable power difference between any of the PU's on the grid, at most maybe +/- a few percent.
As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
All valid points, and I understand that aero is critical, but personally I still struggle to believe that a slippery F1 car is more slippery than one following in its wake with DRS wide open. But as I've said I'm far from an expert, more of an armchair commentator, so I'm happy to take onboard the views of those who are more informed.As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
Kenny Powers said:
TheDeuce said:
I doubt there's a sizeable power difference between any of the PU's on the grid, at most maybe +/- a few percent.
As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
All valid points, and I understand that aero is critical, but personally I still struggle to believe that a slippery F1 car is more slippery than one following in its wake with DRS wide open. But as I've said I'm far from an expert, more of an armchair commentator, so I'm happy to take onboard the views of those who are more informed.As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
The drs flap only removes drag from the rear, the rest of their fixed aero package is still creating more downforce, hence drag than the Ferrari has.
Kenny Powers said:
TheDeuce said:
I doubt there's a sizeable power difference between any of the PU's on the grid, at most maybe +/- a few percent.
As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
All valid points, and I understand that aero is critical, but personally I still struggle to believe that a slippery F1 car is more slippery than one following in its wake with DRS wide open. But as I've said I'm far from an expert, more of an armchair commentator, so I'm happy to take onboard the views of those who are more informed.As nexus and deesee have said, the killer difference is aero. The Ferrari is extremely slippery hence the straight line speed - and as a side effect a slippery car also offers a reduced advantage to anyone trying to pick up a tow - to use your analogy, it's punching less of a hole in the air than a less slippery car would.
Ferrari have wisely sacrificed a little of their high speed aero for improved down force, the results have shown on track. But they're still nowhere like as fast and planted through the corners as the Mercs or red bulls, which explains why niether of those cars can keep up on the straights.
Top speed = horsepower minus drag. Without knowing the exact figure for one of those factors we can't know what the other is. Although my personal assumption is that so late on in this era, assuming no major cheating, both should be very close in terms of power output.
NewUsername said:
I think topspeed = Horespower - drag is a little simple, having done a few topspeed events myself id say gearing is critical.....I know these teams have to use the same ratios all year without changing, is Ferrari's gearing better suited to top speed along with their engine gains
Gearing won't affect ultimate top speed unless the ratios result in the car being rpm limited. In the end, whatever the ratio the car will (eventually..) get to the same top speed, which is in basic terms dictated by power minus drag. Drag being the principal residence to velocity. Other factors such as rolling resistance also play a very small factor.That's not to say gearing can't help at top speed events, because at almost all such events acceleration is important to reach the highest top speed in the space available - which is typically not the actual top speed of the car.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 22 October 14:48
TheDeuce said:
.
That's not to say gearing can't help at top speed events, because at almost all such events acceleration is important to reach the highest top speed in the space available -
Exactly the point i'm making, I don't think that the cars are hitting the limiter on all the straights on all the circuits...... so they are space limited on many occasions. That's not to say gearing can't help at top speed events, because at almost all such events acceleration is important to reach the highest top speed in the space available -
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 22 October 14:48
Its probably nothing to do with it but gearing could be a small factor
NewUsername said:
TheDeuce said:
.
That's not to say gearing can't help at top speed events, because at almost all such events acceleration is important to reach the highest top speed in the space available -
Exactly the point i'm making, I don't think that the cars are hitting the limiter on all the straights on all the circuits...... so they are space limited on many occasions. That's not to say gearing can't help at top speed events, because at almost all such events acceleration is important to reach the highest top speed in the space available -
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 22 October 14:48
Its probably nothing to do with it but gearing could be a small factor
These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
NewUsername said:
Exactly the point i'm making, I don't think that the cars are hitting the limiter on all the straights on all the circuits...... so they are space limited on many occasions.
Its probably nothing to do with it but gearing could be a small factor
I'm not actually sure if they are gear/rpm limited when they're flat out, or if it's just the power runs out vs resistance. And yes, most of the time they don't get the opportunity to reach their theoretical top speed, but also in many places, they do... Purely because they have massive power and are comparatively small in mass terms - it doesn't take very much space (compared to a normal car) for an F1 car to be flat out. Its probably nothing to do with it but gearing could be a small factor
Deesee said:
They get no where near the limit, they will shift up at circa 11500, getting to the RPM limit is no good for fuel, the electrical power helps them so much now, Merc may be mapped and geared for lower speed corners, Ferrari out of medium speed corners for example.
These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
In terms of top speed though? In top gear, if they're attacking/defending, I'm guessing they don't choose to lift at 11500 just to save a little fuel. I had assumed they simply hit the limit of the power they have somewhere ahead of reaching the end of the final gear?These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
They get no where near the limit, they will shift up at circa 11500, getting to the RPM limit is no good for fuel, the electrical power helps them so much now, Merc may be mapped and geared for lower speed corners, Ferrari out of medium speed corners for example.
These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
In terms of top speed though? In top gear, if they're attacking/defending, I'm guessing they don't choose to lift at 11500 just to save a little fuel. I had assumed they simply hit the limit of the power they have somewhere ahead of reaching the end of the final gear?These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
They get no where near the limit, they will shift up at circa 11500, getting to the RPM limit is no good for fuel, the electrical power helps them so much now, Merc may be mapped and geared for lower speed corners, Ferrari out of medium speed corners for example.
These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
In terms of top speed though? In top gear, if they're attacking/defending, I'm guessing they don't choose to lift at 11500 just to save a little fuel. I had assumed they simply hit the limit of the power they have somewhere ahead of reaching the end of the final gear?These guys are doing a little feature on the ERS systems every race, worth looking At
https://twitter.com/marellitech/status/11825816063...
DEESEE (@DEESEE15723775) Tweeted:
Baku https://t.co/Nekmdccgru
NB, Baku is quite an extreme example, as I'm sure its the longest full power stretch on the calendar, and Romain, was fastest through the trap in Q1, so that's why i used that, maxed out at just above 12000 rpm.
Edited by Deesee on Tuesday 22 October 16:38
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff