2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[mrluke]

Bahrain trace

[bhall II]

This is beginning to feel like "Whack-A-Mole." lol



In no particular order...

- If you want to factor DRS into your ideas, you need to factor it into your calculations as well, and that means you have to reduce frontal area. The last time I went through the regulations to make a solid estimate, I think I came up with 1.08m^2. (But, don't quote me on that.)

- The figures you're really after are in the blue and white box labeled "Aero Drag Limited Acceleration" toward the bottom of the page. This displays the results of your specific run, while the white "Output" box above it lists absolute maximums.

- The column labeled "Drag Horsepower" incrementally lists the power needed for the tested configuration to overcome drag as speed increases. The lower the horsepower figure, the lower the drag.

If your example was intended to reflect Monza, I think you've probably overestimated the drag coefficient. Nonetheless, the resultant drag horsepower from your calculation of the V6t is still lower than the one you calculated for V10-era cars. That's indicative of lower drag, and it cannot be interpreted any other way.

In other words, you've pretty much just proven my point, and I appreciate that.

For added context, you can see how acceleration stops completely once drag horsepower and horsepower at the wheels are equalized.


V10

(Incidentally, I really wish I had thought to point that out earlier!)

- I think all of this becomes much, much easier to comprehend after you drop the notion that current PUs are in any way comparable to the old V10s. They're just not, and that's the only thing holding you back.

- Oh, and you were absolutely correct about my mistake with regard to trace/circuit turn correlation. Apparently, I've forgotten how to count.

That said, I still think it oversimplifies matters to point toward speed differentials and immediately associate them with nothing more than drag. While it definitely plays a prominent role, there's more to it than that.

- And finally, because the circuit features the sport's longest straight, I leave you with a comparison between the 2015 Chinese Grand Prix and the 2004 edition of the same, as estimated by trap speeds, weight, and frontal area.


V6t, DRS open


V10

(Yeah, I was a little off for 2004. But, I'm perfectly fine with that, because I'm tired of making those charts! )

Play around with those numbers on your own and notice how much everything is affected by drag, especially when frontal area changes.

[wuzak]

What stands out to me is the difference in low speed corners. Just how much better must the 2004 tyres have been than the tyres used today. Sorry OT

Or, just how good the low speed downforce generation was compared to today. That's not surprising - in 2004 they could use the exhausts to generate downforce. Today, they can't.

But they didn't.

Or at least most used top exits for their exhausts.

The cars in the '90s had EBDs, but they moved away from in the late '90s, led by Ferrari's '98 car, as the exhaust would make the downforce, and thus grip, unpredictable when the throttle was lifted off. Removing the EBD gave more predictable handling and confidence for the driver.

EBD returned in the 2009 (?) season with RBR because they figured out how to get the engine to provide more consistent downforce.

[Moose]

What stands out to me is the difference in low speed corners. Just how much better must the 2004 tyres have been than the tyres used today. Sorry OT

Or, just how good the low speed downforce generation was compared to today. That's not surprising - in 2004 they could use the exhausts to generate downforce. Today, they can't.

But they didn't.

Or at least most used top exits for their exhausts.

Using top exits does not mean they weren't using them to generate downforce. They used top exits exactly because they had the biggest benefit that they could find at the time, and as you rightly point out, as far back as the early 90s, the teams were using the exhaust to do interesting things. That didn't change when they put them on top, it just changed what they were doing with them.

[mrluke]

Bhall,

I haven't got all the pieces to fit together in my head yet but you rightly highlight the drag horsepower that I cant argue with so thank you for your time / patience.

[bhall II]

Even if ultimately flawed, I can easily respect independent, reasoned thoughts that don't just parrot what others have said previously.* I think we need more of that. (It's surprising how much of what's currently accepted as fact is actually just widely propagated hearsay.)

Keep daring to be wrong.

*...unless I have a bug up my ass about something. In those cases, I can be a real douche. :/

[SectorOne]

Does anyone have a video of any V10 car from Monza showing the throttle-bar?
Rosberg seems to hit full throttle at about 160 clicks just before he flicks in 4th gear.

[mikeerfol]

Does anyone have a video of any V10 car from Monza showing the throttle-bar?
Rosberg seems to hit full throttle at about 160 clicks just before he flicks in 4th gear.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCaOWC716I&t=1m9s[/youtube]

[PlatinumZealot]

Such speed, much slipstream, so drs.. wow

I would discount DRS as a factor since during teh V10 era cars used very low drag setups. Probably equivalent to the current cars with DRS open.

Pure drivel. Those v10 cars had waaay more drag than these cars today haha. Remeber top speeds increasing in 2009 with same engines but different bodies to 2008.

[PlatinumZealot]

The old v 10 cars were not getting as much downforce from the underbody as todays cars. They had bigger rear wings. Uglier front wings. All sorts of vents and flaps. And guess what? They still had tonnes of downforce. Common sense says they had more drag. I will change my username if someone has irrefutable evidence!

[Sevach]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119307

This is the main reason why i don't like the current engine formula(technical side).

Sporting side (the tokens and partial freeze) is another can of worms.

[bhall II]

Work with me here...

Based on maximum tire diameter, maximum track width, and frontal area of the rear wing, I estimate the total frontal area for a 2004 car to be ~1.38m^2.

According to a somewhat dodgy website, horsepower for the Petronas 04A, which was a re-badged Ferrari Type 053 V10, was 880bhp. (Seems low, but whatever.)

During qualifying for the 2004 Chinese Grand Prix, Felipe Massa set the fastest trap speed at 330.3kph in a C23 equipped with the Petronas 04A.

The importance of these figures is this: if we plug them into the drag acceleration calculator, along with straight length and corner exit speed (based on this track guide), we can solve for drag coefficient (Cd).



This yields a Cd of 0.85 and a maximum speed of 331kph, the latter being indicative of a car set up specifically for that circuit. Why does this matter?

Despite having more total drag (CdA), we can use the Cd of a 2004 car to more or less establish the upper limit for a 2015 car, as long as we account for its reduced frontal area. (That's the "A" in CdA; it's a reference area. For a wing, it's planform. For a car, it's frontal area.)

With DRS engaged, I estimate the frontal area of a 2015 car to be ~ 1.26m^2. If we plug that into the calculator, along with the increased weight of the car, we can use Nico Rosberg's trap speed of 334.6 at the 2015 Chinese Grand Prix to estimate the upper limit of the W06's horsepower.



That gives us 850bhp.

To cross reference, we can plug those figures into the calculator and compare the result to Rosberg's qualifying trap speed at the 2015 Australian Grand Prix (based on this track guide), because Albert Park has very similar downforce requirements.



Close enough for me!

In reality, I suspect current cars have a lower drag coefficient, and thus lower horsepower according to these calculations. But, 850bhp does seem like a reasonable upper limit.

(Note: I gathered figures for a 2004 car back when the conversation involved comparisons between V10s and current PUs. If anyone is inclined to do so, comparing a current car in this manner to a car from 2010-2013 will likely give a more accurate result.)

[Vary]

Work with me here...

Based on maximum tire diameter, maximum track width, and frontal area of the rear wing, I estimate the total frontal area for a 2004 car to be ~1.38m^2.

According to a somewhat dodgy website, horsepower for the Petronas 04A, which was a re-badged Ferrari Type 053 V10, was 880bhp. (Seems low, but whatever.)

During qualifying for the 2004 Chinese Grand Prix, Felipe Massa set the fastest trap speed at 330.3kph in a C23 equipped with the Petronas 04A.

The importance of these figures is this: if we plug them into the drag acceleration calculator, along with straight length and corner exit speed (based on this track guide), we can solve for drag coefficient (Cd).

http://i.imgur.com/m9tn3gT.jpg

This yields a Cd of 0.85 and a maximum speed of 331kph, the latter being indicative of a car set up specifically for that circuit.

The figure also broadly correlates to an estimate of 2012 cars by Road & Track.

Thus, given CDA being about 2015 and A around 2064, I calculate this F1 car's coefficient of drag, its CD, to be about 0.98. With DRS invoked, this diminishes to perhaps 0.81.

(Naturally, I think my estimate is closer, but whatever.)

Why is this important?

Despite having more total drag (CdA), we can use the Cd of a 2004 car to more or less establish the upper limit for a 2015 car, as long as we account for its reduced frontal area. (That's the "A" in CdA; it's a reference area. For a wing, it's planform. For a car, it's frontal area.)

With DRS engaged, I estimate the frontal area of a 2015 car to be ~ 1.26m^2. If we plug that into the calculator, along with the increased weight of the car, we can use Nico Rosberg's trap speed of 334.6 at the 2015 Chinese Grand Prix to estimate the upper limit of the W06's horsepower.

http://i.imgur.com/6J7jGqX.jpg

That gives us 850bhp.

To cross reference, we can plug those figures into the calculator and compare the result to Rosberg's qualifying trap speed at the 2015 Australian Grand Prix (based on this track guide), because Albert Park has very similar downforce requirements.

http://i.imgur.com/fA1Dt1o.jpg

Close enough for me!

In reality, I suspect current cars have a lower drag coefficient, and thus lower horsepower according to these calculations. But, 850bhp does seem like a reasonable upper limit.

(Note: I gathered figures for a 2004 car back when the conversation involved comparisons between V10s and current PUs. If anyone is inclined to do so, comparing a current car in this manner to a car from 2010-2013 will likely give a more accurate result.)

In the "drivetrain loss" do you also consider the tire resistance? If not, on benzing's blog (sorry for always call him ) there's this graph showing the resistance, male with data given directly By Pirelli
http://www.formula1benzing.eu/index_cli ... 7_0001.jpg

[bhall II]

I did not.

The calculator's default value is 20%, and that seemed high. Absent the availability of any solid, reliable figures, I went with the so-called "15% rule." Truthfully, even that seems high for F1. (I've seen claims of 2%, but that seems impossibly low.)

There's also the issue of different front tire widths for 2004 and 2015, which affects rolling resistance, as well as differences in contact patch for grooved and slick tires, not to mention different construction.

You raise a good point. I just don't know how to address it.

[ringo]

Without knowledge on the traction of the cars it's almost pointless to try an guess the difference in power.
From how the cars move around the track, the V10 clearly has more than 100hp advantage, even when considering ERS.
I wont put an exact number to the difference, i just have my simulated calculations from the begining of the thread and they are holding up nicely.
620 to 650 bhp from the ICE. That's it.