2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

At (1/2 x terminal speed), the aero drag power is still (1/8 x max power) so mid range accel still requires some allowance for aero drag. As mentioned previously in this thread, the more speeds for which acceleration can be determined, the better the quality of estimation for drag and power.

[tomazy]

That is why I calculated the average top speed of all cars using the same engine. The average takes the drag question out of the equasion in theory does it not? It would be better if the sample size would be bigger that is true, but the average drag between Saube an Ferrari, and the average drag between Meredes, Williams, Lotus and Force India are closer than if we compare just two teams directly. At least this is what I think.

[gruntguru]

That is why I calculated the average top speed of all cars using the same engine. The average takes the drag question out of the equasion in theory does it not? It would be better if the sample size would be bigger that is true, but the average drag between Saube an Ferrari, and the average drag between Meredes, Williams, Lotus and Force India are closer than if we compare just two teams directly. At least this is what I think.

The problem is the cars being compared may have different aero drag, either by design or DF setup.

[tomazy]

That is why I calculated the average top speed of all cars using the same engine. The average takes the drag question out of the equasion in theory does it not? It would be better if the sample size would be bigger that is true, but the average drag between Saube an Ferrari, and the average drag between Meredes, Williams, Lotus and Force India are closer than if we compare just two teams directly. At least this is what I think.

The problem is the cars being compared may have different aero drag, either by design or DF setup.

The problem is a small sample size. If you take the average, you should have some cars with low drag (Williams 329kmh) and some cars with higher drag (Mercedes 323km/h) and some in between (Lotus 327km/h and Force india 325km/h) and you get a number thet is less distorted than looking only at one car for example 325,6km/h. This is preaty good sample sise for Mercedes engine.

For Ferrari, there are only Ferrari 327km/h and Sauber 324km/h, they could both be low drag cars, but we can asume, that there is a thing like ideal drag for as much DF as posible, and that would be the average.

Ferraris engine this year is much closer to Mercedes than last year.

[Abarth]

There is a dedicated thread about power calculation from acceleration data....

Unfortunately, there was not much action there lastly.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 6&start=15

[Brian Coat]

At (1/2 x terminal speed), the aero drag power is still (1/8 x max power) so mid range accel still requires some allowance for aero drag. As mentioned previously in this thread, the more speeds for which acceleration can be determined, the better the quality of estimation for drag and power.

That's right.

Your thinking is different to Blanchimont's zero crossing method in the other thread.

In either case there's no need to know the aero as long as you *assume* a flat power curve; but there are also many other unknowns (e.g.mech/elec losses) so it's a relative comparison tool at best, or at worst, just a bit of fun (and why not!).

[The_Truth]

Is there any posibility of Mercedes does not provide the very same Power Unit to their customers this year?

[Moose]

Is there any posibility of Mercedes does not provide the very same Power Unit to their customers this year?

No, the rules stipulate that they have to be identical. Instead, they just built a monster of a chassis. Their advantage is not in the engine.

Note, in 2013 (when we know that the Merc engine was roughly equal to the others) Mercedes qualified half a second faster than Ferrari, a second faster than Force India, a second faster than McLaren, and were 3 seconds faster than Williams in Q1 (Q1 was rain affected, so we can't compare Q1 to Q3).

Their advantage in 2015 is (roughly) the same size as it was back in 2013. The difference is not that Mercedes have a hugely better car, it's that RedBull don't have a good car/engine, and hence have dropped back 2 seconds a lap.

[PlatinumZealot]

The auxiliary engine parts could be making the difference too.

[The_Truth]

No, the rules stipulate that they have to be identical. Instead, they just built a monster of a chassis. Their advantage is not in the engine.

Sorry for bother you but can you pinpoint which rule stipulated that they must provide the very same engine to all of their customers? Thanks.

[paipa]

Teams have access to a stream of GPS data of all competitors all the time. It is a simple problem to approximate power curves and drag coefficient values for all competitors from that kind of data for anyone with an understanding of the forces that propel and resist a car and a grasp of regression analysis. Even with the ERS murking the picture a bit, I'd be surprised if there was a single team that couldn't estimate those two properties of all their competitors with +-1% accuracy. In fact, I'd be absolutely stumped.

I don't see how any manufacturer could get away with delivering inferior engines to any teams. They would be found out in ten laps. I don't believe a single word of those interviews where technical directors imply they are unsure where others stand with their engines.

If those guys in that 2014 thread someone just linked to can get in the ballpark using Youtube videos without much information on temperature, wind, track elevation profile, and most importantly, tons of data from an F1 car they are running at the very same circuit, then surely F1 teams can do estimates nearly down to the horsepower.

[Vortex37]

Teams have access to a stream of GPS data of all competitors all the time. It is a simple problem to approximate power curves and drag coefficient values for all competitors from that kind of data for anyone with an understanding of the forces that propel and resist a car and a grasp of regression analysis. Even with the ERS murking the picture a bit, I'd be surprised if there was a single team that couldn't estimate those two properties of all their competitors with +-1% accuracy. In fact, I'd be absolutely stumped.

I don't see how any manufacturer could get away with delivering inferior engines to any teams. They would be found out in ten laps. I don't believe a single word of those interviews where technical directors imply they are unsure where others stand with their engines.

If those guys in that 2014 thread someone just linked to can get in the ballpark using YouTube videos without much information on temperature, wind, track elevation profile, and most importantly, tons of data from an F1 car they are running at the very same circuit, then surely F1 teams can do estimates nearly down to the horsepower.

There is an interesting interview with Remy Taffin from Renault, which describes how the various elements of the PU interact, and where they use ERS alone etc. I think he used Monaco as an example, and stated that things change from circuit to circuit. One of the key elements with this current PU, is the control software. Last year Ron Dennis and others at McLaren publicly dropped thinly veiled hints, that they were not allowed full access to the engine control software. This is not the common software in the spec ECU. So it would be easy for a manufacturer to give a customer a 'less developed' software, which did not exploit the full capabilities of the various PU elements. It would be easy to 'loose' 1/10ths and put this down to a normal mathematical error.

[mrluke]

Mercedes wouldn't give mclaren full access to all of the software etc as Mclaren had already announced they were switching to Honda.

[Facts Only]

Some interesting stuff going on with the 2015 PU's.

I'm surprised and intrigued by the Renault PU, how have they managed to bollock it up so badly? Ferrari have made the big step forward that I was expecting them and Renault to make but Renault have managed to go backwards somehow, a seemingly bigger deficit to Merc and poor reliability as well.

I'm impressed by Ferrari, the gauntlet was laid down and they stepped up and made massive improvements.

Honda are were I was expecting them to be, nowhere. I bet Jenson button is feeling some De Ja Vue running round in last in a Honda.

I've asked around to try to find out what's going on with Renault but with Cateham gone and Lotus now with Merc (best decision they've made in a while) my sources are a bit limited. Last year I heard that the Renault PU was being referred to as Le Escargo, I don't know what slower than a snail though.

[kledaras]

Do you guys think Ferrari PU is equal to Mercedes PU right now? if they are indeed giving identical engines to their customer teams, looking at williams and sauber is interesting, sauber in particular, tiny budget, last years wings on car, but still coming 5th. Williams - same PU as Mercs, still down a lot on them and on par with Ferrari, so it suggest the advantage of mercs is not the PU?