This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I am very optimistic:
- there might be a LOT to improve via software if we assume Mclaren did an average or good job with theirs.
....
- ... Russell doing extra cooling on their car.....
I do not share your optimism for this season.
I always said (and many, especially McLaren fans strongly opposed...) that the issue is the cooling. Merc has the upper hand on the integration and especially the idea and feedback on the cooling requirements. THIS is what makes the difference. The Merc chassis and engine are wholely designed on matching the cooling.
This is also what you see on the track, that the Merc is really on the edge already with cooling.
For the McLaren...it looks a bit like other cars after changing the engine...
McLaren will be there in two years.
Even the Mclaren drivers said, the Merc advantage is in their mapping.
What I will say is that the chassis seems very good - one of the best, if not THE best. It’s been a while since we could say that. It speaks well to the competency of the technical team.
I am very optimistic:
- there might be a LOT to improve via software if we assume Mclaren did an average or good job with theirs.
....
- ... Russell doing extra cooling on their car.....
I do not share your optimism for this season.
I always said (and many, especially McLaren fans strongly opposed...) that the issue is the cooling. Merc has the upper hand on the integration and especially the idea and feedback on the cooling requirements. THIS is what makes the difference. The Merc chassis and engine are wholely designed on matching the cooling.
This is also what you see on the track, that the Merc is really on the edge already with cooling.
For the McLaren...it looks a bit like other cars after changing the engine...
McLaren will be there in two years.
Even the Mclaren drivers said, the Merc advantage is in their mapping.
Getting the max out of the deployment/recharge software is absolutely crucial. There is clearly an optimum strategy and that has a huge impact on the final lap time.
In any event, i'll try to explain what i understood from how these engines work:
"The MGU-K is geared directly to the crankshaft. This means you can use it to either drive the shaft—upping the revs—or apply resistance to slow it down (under braking, it essentially acts as an engine brake). When driving the shaft, you’re drawing power from the battery; when braking it, you’re recharging. But if you're recharging, that energy has to be sourced from somewhere. Where exactly? Under braking, it’s coming from the brakes. During 'super clipping,' it’s pulled from the engine.
Say you’re at full throttle, putting out 400 kW from the V6 ICE alone. If the regulations cap super clipping at 250 kW, you’re effectively siphoning those kilowatts off the engine. This leaves only 150 kW (roughly 200 hp) reaching the wheels, which is why the car slows down. It’s simply a recovery mode where you harvest energy from the V6 instead of the brakes.
Since you're drawing power from there, the more efficient your engine is, the more effective your 'charging tool' becomes—allowing you to bank even more energy."
It's the best explanation i found online on how this stuff works and this makes a ton of sense to me. Is this correct, though?
Getting the max out of the deployment/recharge software is absolutely crucial. There is clearly an optimum strategy and that has a huge impact on the final lap time.
In any event, i'll try to explain what i understood from how these engines work:
"The MGU-K is geared directly to the crankshaft. This means you can use it to either drive the shaft—upping the revs—or apply resistance to slow it down (under braking, it essentially acts as an engine brake). When driving the shaft, you’re drawing power from the battery; when braking it, you’re recharging. But if you're recharging, that energy has to be sourced from somewhere. Where exactly? Under braking, it’s coming from the brakes. During 'super clipping,' it’s pulled from the engine.
Say you’re at full throttle, putting out 400 kW from the V6 ICE alone. If the regulations cap super clipping at 250 kW, you’re effectively siphoning those kilowatts off the engine. This leaves only 150 kW (roughly 200 hp) reaching the wheels, which is why the car slows down. It’s simply a recovery mode where you harvest energy from the V6 instead of the brakes.
Since you're drawing power from there, the more efficient your engine is, the more effective your 'charging tool' becomes—allowing you to bank even more energy."
It's the best explanation i found online on how this stuff works and this makes a ton of sense to me. Is this correct, though?
This is how I understood it as well. Hence, a lower electrical output would benefit the non Mercedes teams, since recharge becomes less important. They will still have an advantage on the PU side, but the recharge and deployment now is worth way more than the straight ICE advantage they have.
F1 must give out ADUO to the other PU manufacturers. Otherwise, this season is 2014 again. In clean air, LEC and HAM would have finished easily 30-40 seconds behind.
I do not share your optimism for this season.
I always said (and many, especially McLaren fans strongly opposed...) that the issue is the cooling. Merc has the upper hand on the integration and especially the idea and feedback on the cooling requirements. THIS is what makes the difference. The Merc chassis and engine are wholely designed on matching the cooling.
This is also what you see on the track, that the Merc is really on the edge already with cooling.
For the McLaren...it looks a bit like other cars after changing the engine...
McLaren will be there in two years.
Even the Mclaren drivers said, the Merc advantage is in their mapping.
Getting the max out of the deployment/recharge software is absolutely crucial. There is clearly an optimum strategy and that has a huge impact on the final lap time.
In any event, i'll try to explain what i understood from how these engines work:
"The MGU-K is geared directly to the crankshaft. This means you can use it to either drive the shaft—upping the revs—or apply resistance to slow it down (under braking, it essentially acts as an engine brake). When driving the shaft, you’re drawing power from the battery; when braking it, you’re recharging. But if you're recharging, that energy has to be sourced from somewhere. Where exactly? Under braking, it’s coming from the brakes. During 'super clipping,' it’s pulled from the engine.
Say you’re at full throttle, putting out 400 kW from the V6 ICE alone. If the regulations cap super clipping at 250 kW, you’re effectively siphoning those kilowatts off the engine. This leaves only 150 kW (roughly 200 hp) reaching the wheels, which is why the car slows down. It’s simply a recovery mode where you harvest energy from the V6 instead of the brakes.
Since you're drawing power from there, the more efficient your engine is, the more effective your 'charging tool' becomes—allowing you to bank even more energy."
It's the best explanation i found online on how this stuff works and this makes a ton of sense to me. Is this correct, though?
This is how I understood it as well. Hence, a lower electrical output would benefit the non Mercedes teams, since recharge becomes less important. They will still have an advantage on the PU side, but the recharge and deployment now is worth way more than the straight ICE advantage they have.
F1 must give out ADUO to the other PU manufacturers. Otherwise, this season is 2014 again. In clean air, LEC and HAM would have finished easily 30-40 seconds behind.
The New Wing
FIA reducing the overall electric output
ADUO
Is the wording of the new compression ratio test that it comes in on a certain date (eg “June x”) or a certain race (eg “race 7”) or something else (eg “the Canadian Grand Prix”)?
I ask because of the potential (likely) loss of the Middle Eastern GP. If the new tests come in at a certain date or a certain Grand Prix, it will mean fewer races before we can hope for that “exploit” to be closed down (in theory at least). But if it’s “race 7” then cancelling/rescheduling some races just kicks the can down the road.
Is the wording of the new compression ratio test that it comes in on a certain date (eg “June x”) or a certain race (eg “race 7”) or something else (eg “the Canadian Grand Prix”)?
I ask because of the potential (likely) loss of the Middle Eastern GP. If the new tests come in at a certain date or a certain Grand Prix, it will mean fewer races before we can hope for that “exploit” to be closed down (in theory at least). But if it’s “race 7” then cancelling/rescheduling some races just kicks the can down the road.
The date is fixed. june 1st. But I wouldn't expect much from that. I'm pretty sure mercedes will pass the hot test. that game have been politically lost. just some smoke and mirrors for people. more hope on the new starting procedure that could be reverted since does not grant anything for safety and it is not regular. and also form decreasing MGU-K output and harvesting
The Mercedes advantage appears to be primarily MGU-K related. It seems to reduce parasitic losses from harvesting through LiCo and super clipping much better than the others. (And deployment maps seem better)
Both of these advantages have little to nothing to do with the turbo. Ferrari has also historically run a smaller turbo in the previous regulation set, which didn’t seem to impact them very negatively. I can’t see why it would be any different now, especially when the lag reducing effect of a smaller turbo is even more advantageous than it used to be.
ADUO should help a lot.
Thanks for the explanation.
The "macarena" wing should also help quite a bit in tracks where Ferrari could struggle with energy, by providing 5-7 km/h more at high speed.
Admittedly the benefit of a more powerful ICE is multiplied when super clipping, since the engines are essentially cut down to ~180 kW when doing it (assuming perfectly efficient super clipping). A 10 kW (~15 horsepower) advantage will thus mean roughly a 10% advantage in retained ICE power while super clipping, even if 10 kW usually only works out to about a 2% advantage over the rest of the lap. This means that they sustain speed better while super clipping.
So the relatively minor ICE power advantage of the Mercedes is definitely amplified by the use of super clipping, but the majority of their advantage should still lay in the MGU-K. ADUO should also help the teams catch up a bit on the ICE side, even if they don’t copy the Mercedes compression trick.
By the way, has a reasonably general consensus been achieved on how Mercedes obtained that "minor ICE" advantage?
Is the wording of the new compression ratio test that it comes in on a certain date (eg “June x”) or a certain race (eg “race 7”) or something else (eg “the Canadian Grand Prix”)?
I ask because of the potential (likely) loss of the Middle Eastern GP. If the new tests come in at a certain date or a certain Grand Prix, it will mean fewer races before we can hope for that “exploit” to be closed down (in theory at least). But if it’s “race 7” then cancelling/rescheduling some races just kicks the can down the road.
The date is fixed. june 1st. But I wouldn't expect much from that. I'm pretty sure mercedes will pass the hot test. that game have been politically lost. just some smoke and mirrors for people. more hope on the new starting procedure that could be reverted since does not grant anything for safety and it is not regular. and also form decreasing MGU-K output and harvesting
Yeah, I mean my expectation is that it’s akin to the flexi wings clampdown at Spain last year - a lot of talk for almost no return. But idk, I’m at least curious and wonder if Mercedes might at least need to make some modifications to ensure compliance - I’d rather it come in sooner than later, put it that way.
Shouldn't be mapping shared with customer team, should it?
If you look at what Stella said, they feel a bit "left in the dark" by HPP on the power unit, in a way that they couldn't simulate it properly before actually running on track, and they only found out the real potential in qualifying.
Reflecting on his team's campaign as a Mercedes customer, McLaren's Group CEO said: "The one thing that jumps at you, if you look at all the qualifications this year, is the time difference between the Mercedes-Benz works team and other teams.
"And by and large it is always in excess of one second, putting aside the pace that they can generate in a grand prix when they are on their back foot.
"My opinion, and it is an opinion held by many people within our organisation, is that you have no chance of winning the world championship if you are not receiving the best engines from whoever is manufacturing your engines.
"And a modern grand prix engine at this moment in time is not about sheer power, it is about how you harvest the energy, it is about how you store the energy."
He added: "Effectively, if you don't have the control of that process, meaning access to source code, then you are not going to be able to stabilise your car in the entry to corners etc., and you lose lots of lap time.
"Even though you have the same brand of engine that does not mean you have the ability to optimise the engine."
Is the wording of the new compression ratio test that it comes in on a certain date (eg “June x”) or a certain race (eg “race 7”) or something else (eg “the Canadian Grand Prix”)?
I ask because of the potential (likely) loss of the Middle Eastern GP. If the new tests come in at a certain date or a certain Grand Prix, it will mean fewer races before we can hope for that “exploit” to be closed down (in theory at least). But if it’s “race 7” then cancelling/rescheduling some races just kicks the can down the road.
It is not by race number but by date so 1st June would be Monaco, ironically the one track where the compression ratio probably has the least affect
