Hot blowing for mguh, not for aero reason
Hot blowing for mguh, not for aero reason
I think the best power comparisons come from peak acceleration at medium speeds. Low-speed accel is traction and downforce dependent, and high-speed accel is drag dependent, but at medium speed (100-120 mph?) the car has plenty of traction and the "resistance" to acceleration is dominated by car mass rather than aero drag. Of course when making power comparisons you need to assume similar car mass, so either compare cars during qualifying or during similar times during the race.rogazilla wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017, 17:48Mod: please feel free to move to separate thread since this is a bit OT.
A lot of discussion on GPS data. In my limited knowledge, that's speed at any given part of the track. How do you determine PU performance and Separate that from Aero/Chassis? Wouldn't you just have the comparison from one car to another?
For meaningful comparison, you will assume all Merc teams runs the same PU with same mapping then you can have a meaningful discussion on the Aero/Chassis between the Merc teams. Same can be said for Renault Powered teams. I have a hard time to see it as a meaningful comparison without a constant to make the comparison using GPS data. Obviously I picked PU as constant since it is much less likely to have Aero/Chassis as constant. The only team that can make some good analysis will be Mercedes since they probably know all the PU parameters running a merc engine. Same as the Renault to know PU in all the Renault powered team. However to compare between Merc and Renault, then there must be some 'Assumptions' being made. Am I missing something?
The undercut was only good at Fernando Alonso. The Spaniard came to the pits one lap ahead of Felipe Massa and had his entire energy budget stashed for the one lap after the pit stop. At first the plan seemed to go awry. Massa rejoined Alonso again.
But on the long straights, the McLaren driver then struck. With a Honda engine against Mercedes power. But full-zero battery power, as confirmed by Williams engineering chief Paddy Lowe. The 163 hp difference can not even make up for a Mercedes engine.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 35721.html
Good but I think commenter(or journalist) forgot mgu-h supply on mgu-k. Their lost must not be full of 120 kw power.HPD wrote: ↑28 Nov 2017, 16:14The undercut was only good at Fernando Alonso. The Spaniard came to the pits one lap ahead of Felipe Massa and had his entire energy budget stashed for the one lap after the pit stop. At first the plan seemed to go awry. Massa rejoined Alonso again.
But on the long straights, the McLaren driver then struck. With a Honda engine against Mercedes power. But full-zero battery power, as confirmed by Williams engineering chief Paddy Lowe. The 163 hp difference can not even make up for a Mercedes engine.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 35721.html
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/article?a ... a-moto&p=1Honda's Yusuke Hasegawa who finished the last race weekend without trouble told F1 general manager with a relieved expression.
It was like three years walking in a long tunnel where the light of the exit could not be seen easily, but at last it was able to race with the potential of the current machine called MCL 32 fully drawn out. I was relieved and satisfied with that.
The troubles centered on MGU - H (*) which has been plagued many times have also taken measures against the hardware side many times during the season and also found measures to suppress the occurrence of problems with the software aspect (how to use) By disappearing by disappearing. To make drastic measures, it is necessary to make a major design change, and measures using Honda Jet's technology are being advanced for the next season, he says.
100% agree. I bet teams have very sophisticated hardware and software that help them determine all this. Here we say impossible and MB is speaking out of step- but i bet you teams have very clever tools we the general public do not know of. Let's say for a moment what MB said is true. Honda need to find 10% power + whatever power gain the competition gain this winter. FMLMrPotatoHead wrote: ↑28 Nov 2017, 15:23The teams spend as much time analyzing the performance of others as they do their own.
This way they can always track where they are on setup and especially how the relative speed changes over the weekend with setup changes here.
You can be sure that the top teams know the power the other teams are making to within 10HP.
If you think about it purely in time + testing miles.easydolezip wrote: ↑29 Nov 2017, 04:29100% agree. I bet teams have very sophisticated hardware and software that help them determine all this. Here we say impossible and MB is speaking out of step- but i bet you teams have very clever tools we the general public do not know of. Let's say for a moment what MB said is true. Honda need to find 10% power + whatever power gain the competition gain this winter. FMLMrPotatoHead wrote: ↑28 Nov 2017, 15:23The teams spend as much time analyzing the performance of others as they do their own.
This way they can always track where they are on setup and especially how the relative speed changes over the weekend with setup changes here.
You can be sure that the top teams know the power the other teams are making to within 10HP.
And this is part of the reason that I enjoy F1 now because so much interesting stuff comes up. It's bound to be ruined by the noise breathers though :/godlameroso wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 01:46This formula is doing something very interesting that we never get to witness, combustion modeling is more interesting than aero CFD in my opinion. The combustion process requires top level input from a variety of sources, chemists for the species propagation endo and exothermic reactions(ie fuel vaporization rates), and that's just the start of it. Aero CFD specialists that work LES, and have experience with custom meshing to model the induction system, fuel mixing, and generally the rest of the combustion process, including the turbo. You need those wildcard engine guys that know how to tweak and optimize stuff. You need good validation engineers to test the new concepts and verify them, and make sure the models do what they're supposed to be doing. Once all that's in place and you have a good concept that you can develop everything should start moving in the right direction. Of course much easier said than done.
Combustion CFD modeling is not something new for your interest, Ilmor used to perform simulations with my Professor in Uni. The amount of secrecy though was unreal even 12 years ago.hurril wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 08:48And this is part of the reason that I enjoy F1 now because so much interesting stuff comes up. It's bound to be ruined by the noise breathers though :/godlameroso wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 01:46This formula is doing something very interesting that we never get to witness, combustion modeling is more interesting than aero CFD in my opinion. The combustion process requires top level input from a variety of sources, chemists for the species propagation endo and exothermic reactions(ie fuel vaporization rates), and that's just the start of it. Aero CFD specialists that work LES, and have experience with custom meshing to model the induction system, fuel mixing, and generally the rest of the combustion process, including the turbo. You need those wildcard engine guys that know how to tweak and optimize stuff. You need good validation engineers to test the new concepts and verify them, and make sure the models do what they're supposed to be doing. Once all that's in place and you have a good concept that you can develop everything should start moving in the right direction. Of course much easier said than done.
I just wish that the manufacturers could afford to be more open about their developments; imagine getting a Honda level of transparency from the others too.