Telemetry thread 2023

[Juzh]

.
….
Still I find it funny because he was coasting so much it seems weird he'd be low on energy at any time.

….

Although coasting reduces the energy deployed from the ES , it reduces the energy recovered to the ES more.

Something like 40kW less deploy but 120kW less recovery. This applies so long as the speed is high enough that the aero drag is higher than 120kW.

Good point. Then it makes sense why they tried to increase recovery intensity numerous times.

[ME4ME]

Question regarding the regulations on this:

Do we assume that MGU-K generator-mode engages only once the driver hit the brake padel or might it be pre-programmed to engage once the driver backes off the throttle at the end of the straight?

Honestly haven't kept up-to-date on the regulations on that kind of level, but i'd recall that certainly early on in these PU regulations there was quite a lot of room for trickery. Car knowing where it is on track. Alonso's Mclaren-Honda doing weird stuff through Pouhon at Spa.

Point is, if pre-programming is allowed, which basically emulates electric car's one-pedal-driving, than the loss of recovered energy would only be equal to the delta kinetic energy (for ex. 310 km/h vs 300 km/h) (..caused by less deployment) times the recovery systems' efficiency.

[Oehrly]

I tried to find the Radius (R) with the following formula: k=(x'y'' - y'x'') / (x'^2 + y'^2)^(3/2) et R = 1/k, but I think that something is wrong because no '0' values for the Radius come out when the car is running on a straight line. Could you please explain better how you handle this?

The radius of a straight line is not zero but instead goes towards infinity.
For a straight line x''=y''=0, therefore k=0 and R=1/k=1/0 -> infinity. So that looks correct to me.

[henry]

Question regarding the regulations on this:

Do we assume that MGU-K generator-mode engages only once the driver hit the brake padel or might it be pre-programmed to engage once the driver backes off the throttle at the end of the straight?

Honestly haven't kept up-to-date on the regulations on that kind of level, but i'd recall that certainly early on in these PU regulations there was quite a lot of room for trickery. Car knowing where it is on track. Alonso's Mclaren-Honda doing weird stuff through Pouhon at Spa.

Point is, if pre-programming is allowed, which basically emulates electric car's one-pedal-driving, than the loss of recovered energy would only be equal to the delta kinetic energy (for ex. 310 km/h vs 300 km/h) (..caused by less deployment) times the recovery systems' efficiency.

My understanding is that there are 3 basic modes depending on the driver demand.

If the driver demand is part throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE output to match the demand.

If the driver demand is full throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE depending on the strategy system’s understanding of what is needed. It’s this system that may have lead to the Alonso situation. There are many parameters that will be taken into account for this, SOC, wind direction and speed, position on track etc., including the driver override of the overtake button.

If the driver demands braking the ERS subtracts energy from the kinetic energy of the car to supplement the physical brakes.

So lift and coast, in which is no demand from the driver, does not involve the ERS. As you say, the thing it does affect for the ERS is the total kinetic energy available to be harvested. Shorter stopping time means less energy can be harvested. The kinetic energy is reduced at the rate of the drag power of the car and the recovery portion at the K power proportion of that, 120kW.

[michl420]

I read somewhere here that red bull was a bit cautious with the brakes, and that telemetrie looks classic brake saving to me. It would also explain why only in the first stint (havy car).

[organic]

Here's something interesting, Max was slower on all straights in the first stint than other two, did not go over 302kmh on the main straight in the first stint from what I saw. Later he was around 306-310, all with DRS off and no slipstream of course.

Perez didn't do this and neither did any other driver in any other car. Was that a setting to be slower on acceleration with full-fuel car to preserve tyres better? I didn't see noticeable difference in throttle % on f1-tempo.

https://i.ibb.co/XWRnJmt/BAH-23-top-speed.jpg

What you saw was RB protecting their gearbox. Confirmed by wazari in RB thread. Nice spot

[Vanja #66]

What you saw was RB protecting their gearbox. Confirmed by wazari in RB thread. Nice spot

Ah, good, we have the explanation, thanks!

[saviour stivala]

Question regarding the regulations on this:

Do we assume that MGU-K generator-mode engages only once the driver hit the brake padel or might it be pre-programmed to engage once the driver backes off the throttle at the end of the straight?

Honestly haven't kept up-to-date on the regulations on that kind of level, but i'd recall that certainly early on in these PU regulations there was quite a lot of room for trickery. Car knowing where it is on track. Alonso's Mclaren-Honda doing weird stuff through Pouhon at Spa.

Point is, if pre-programming is allowed, which basically emulates electric car's one-pedal-driving, than the loss of recovered energy would only be equal to the delta kinetic energy (for ex. 310 km/h vs 300 km/h) (..caused by less deployment) times the recovery systems' efficiency.

My understanding is that there are 3 basic modes depending on the driver demand.

If the driver demand is part throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE output to match the demand.

If the driver demand is full throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE depending on the strategy system’s understanding of what is needed. It’s this system that may have lead to the Alonso situation. There are many parameters that will be taken into account for this, SOC, wind direction and speed, position on track etc., including the driver override of the overtake button.

If the driver demands braking the ERS subtracts energy from the kinetic energy of the car to supplement the physical brakes.

So lift and coast, in which is no demand from the driver, does not involve the ERS. As you say, the thing it does affect for the ERS is the total kinetic energy available to be harvested. Shorter stopping time means less energy can be harvested. The kinetic energy is reduced at the rate of the drag power of the car and the recovery portion at the K power proportion of that, 120kW.

"We do assume that MGU-K generator mode engages only once the driver hits the brake pedal'' Yes we assume that in accordance with the intended rules of ERS, as otherwise it would be energy that would go to waste. But ... certainly ... there was quite a lot of trickery.... Yes there was, that is why the rule makers enforced the second in-out MGU-K policing sensor.

[henry]

Question regarding the regulations on this:

Do we assume that MGU-K generator-mode engages only once the driver hit the brake padel or might it be pre-programmed to engage once the driver backes off the throttle at the end of the straight?

Honestly haven't kept up-to-date on the regulations on that kind of level, but i'd recall that certainly early on in these PU regulations there was quite a lot of room for trickery. Car knowing where it is on track. Alonso's Mclaren-Honda doing weird stuff through Pouhon at Spa.

Point is, if pre-programming is allowed, which basically emulates electric car's one-pedal-driving, than the loss of recovered energy would only be equal to the delta kinetic energy (for ex. 310 km/h vs 300 km/h) (..caused by less deployment) times the recovery systems' efficiency.

My understanding is that there are 3 basic modes depending on the driver demand.

If the driver demand is part throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE output to match the demand.

If the driver demand is full throttle the ERS adds or subtracts energy to the ICE depending on the strategy system’s understanding of what is needed. It’s this system that may have lead to the Alonso situation. There are many parameters that will be taken into account for this, SOC, wind direction and speed, position on track etc., including the driver override of the overtake button.

If the driver demands braking the ERS subtracts energy from the kinetic energy of the car to supplement the physical brakes.

So lift and coast, in which is no demand from the driver, does not involve the ERS. As you say, the thing it does affect for the ERS is the total kinetic energy available to be harvested. Shorter stopping time means less energy can be harvested. The kinetic energy is reduced at the rate of the drag power of the car and the recovery portion at the K power proportion of that, 120kW.

"We do assume that MGU-K generator mode engages only once the driver hits the brake pedal'' Yes we assume that in accordance with the intended rules of ERS, as otherwise it would be energy that would go to waste. But ... certainly ... there was quite a lot of trickery.... Yes there was, that is why the rule makers enforced the second in-out MGU-K policing sensor.

You keep repeating this error. You equate marketing and publicity material with rules.

The publicity material was aimed at a non technical audience to help them appreciate a primary function of the MGU-K which, as you rightly, say is to recover energy that might otherwise be lost to heat generated by the brakes.

The rules on the other hand are for the technical audience. They make no mention of purpose only function, add or subtract energy to/from the drive train within certain constraints. There is no mention of brakes or brake pedal in the rules. The designers have sought out the possible uses and as well as the energy recovery they have found utility on torque smoothing, gear change synchronisation and yes, recovering energy directly from the ICE.

Understanding this distinction will continue to be important as we look at the 2026 rules where they have already lifted on constraint that affects energy recovery.

I don’t think the second sensor is connected to any basic functionality of the ERS. But I’ll admit I don’t know why they introduced a second sensor on the ES. This sensor is identical to the other except for the polarity and that it is only accessible by the FIA. I could guess that they thought teams were interfering with its readings to disguise some illegal interpretation of the ERS energy constraints. But that’s a guess.

[saviour stivala]

As regards the 'k' recovery the rules do indeed reflect the 'marketing and publicity material' of the 'K' recovery intensions, ''K - will recover energy that would otherwise have gone to waste''. Any 'extra' harvesting by the 'K' (of which there were attempts at) goes totally contrary to the intended rules, and that there is no doubt that also includes 'ICE-TO-K' harvesting, which means harvesting without the brake pedal being activated. ''The is no mention of 'BRAKE PEDAL' purpose only a function of 'BRAKES''. The brakes cannot function without the 'Brake' pedal being activated. The layed-down parameters of the rules as regards 'K' harvesting where always consistent, The FIA introducing of the second in-out 'K' policing sensor was to prevent developments galloping. And also for those still in doubt, ICE-TO-K will still not be permitted in 2026, which still means that the 'BRAKE' pedal will still have to be activated for the 'K' to harvest.

[Stu]

We seem to be drifting off topic here - Telemetry thread - I appreciate that some discussion will arise on how the traces are interpreted, but please try to keep it on track.

Many thanks

[Daiti]

Hello all, I don't know if this thread is the perfect place for this analysis so please let me know if it should be moved.

I was heavily inspired by @F1DataAnalysis on twitter to try to dig into the numbers to get a better look at how Mclaren is looking. This is admittedly my first attempt at analyzing F1 telemetry data, so if I've made any mistakes feel free to correct, I can also provide any information regarding how values are calculated.

For all analyses here I'm looking at Norris, Perez, and Hamilton. If anyone wants to see any particular comparison please request!

Firstly, we're going to look at the speed, longitudinal acceleration (positive means foot on the gas, negative means slamming on the brakes), and lateral acceleration (related to mechanical grip with the assumption that the drivers are on the edge). All of these are in relation to distance along the track.
https://i.imgur.com/r4n0PYS.png
Starting with the main straight, top speed for Norris is 317kph compared to Perez's 319kph and Hamilton's 315kph.

We can see in the speed plot that the 3rd major braking point loses Norris a lot of time. I'm not including the figure here, but Piastri is very similar. (Though I should note he actually holds on to it a little better and where Norris' speed drops he's able to keep it steady. Both are still very off Hamilton/Perez.)

Additionally, at the 6th and 8th braking points the minimum speed going through the corner is notably lower.

Before diving into the longitudinal and lateral acceleration I think it's useful to look at them plotted with respect to each other:
https://i.imgur.com/STNO83Q.png
Here the data points create a shape narrower than the other drivers. Peak lateral acceleration occurs in high speed corners so that's likely where the Mclaren is lacking the most.

The max braking performance looks surprisingly good. So surprisingly I'm curious if it's an issue from the telemetry data. I did a fair amount of smoothing to remove weird artifacts, but it might not have been perfect. I think it's important to remember this caveat when looking at all of these figures.

Lastly, I want to include this figure showing the velocity and lateral acceleration plotted against each other. I'm not entirely sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, but I think it's interesting to look at:
https://i.imgur.com/uovqDv9.png

If anyone has any requests for other data/drivers to look at let me know!

Hello, I'm new to the forum and I was trying to replicate these charts as an excercise, but what I get is a series of points that differ significantly from these results. I believe my main issues lie in data preparation (combining the car data with the position data) and the calculation of derivatives. Could someone help me understand where I am doing wrong? Feel free to ask for any clarification.

[venkyhere]

I dont know how crude or naive these inferences are, I welcome corrections.

The white circles show RedBull sandbagging, relative to Ferrari - tremendous amount of lift-n-coast, before hitting the brakes (T10 seems to be the exception where Max is very gentle on the brakes instead of lift-n-coast -ing).

Green (T6+T7) and Yellow (T12) circles show how the RB20 is able to hit the A-pedal much quicker than Ferrari in these medium/high speed turns. Both cars with the same laptime, RedBull making up all the sandbag-loss, in just two corners.

Ferrari seem to be the "fastest of the rest" and LeClerc is an excellent driver (probably the only one who is upto VER/HAM level). If this is anything to go by, come Silverstone/Suzuka with plenty of fast/medium speed corners, the RedBull is probably going to have a 0.8-1.0 advantage over the field.

[AmateurDriver]

https://i.imgur.com/VZcNtwV.jpeg

I dont know how crude or naive these inferences are, I welcome corrections.

The white circles show RedBull sandbagging, relative to Ferrari - tremendous amount of lift-n-coast, before hitting the brakes (T10 seems to be the exception where Max is very gentle on the brakes instead of lift-n-coast -ing).

Green (T6+T7) and Yellow (T12) circles show how the RB20 is able to hit the A-pedal much quicker than Ferrari in these medium/high speed turns. Both cars with the same laptime, RedBull making up all the sandbag-loss, in just two corners.

Ferrari seem to be the "fastest of the rest" and LeClerc is an excellent driver (probably the only one who is upto VER/HAM level). If this is anything to go by, come Silverstone/Suzuka with plenty of fast/medium speed corners, the RedBull is probably going to have a 0.8-1.0 advantage over the field.

Basing this kind or comparison on a heavy fuel lap is nonsense. Conditions and purposes could be completely different.

[venkyhere]

Basing this kind or comparison on a heavy fuel lap is nonsense. Conditions and purposes could be completely different.

If you notice the white circles and the 'upslope' of the speed plots leading up to it :
1 - red and blue are almost coincident in the 'upslope' => acceleration is nearly same, which kind of balances out engine power per kg of weight carried between the two.
2 - the flat-lining of the blue trace, just before a corner, occurs not just at T1 (the corner after the longest straight), but at every single corner after any kind of straighline/nearly-straightline speed builup. That means, it can't be terminal velocity difference due to drag difference or terminal velocity due to engine power limitation.

I can't think of any other explanation for the white encircled events, other than 'blue trace car is lifting way before he needs to brake'.

I am of course open to correction, eager to hear an alternative explanation.