4040 replies to this topic

[HPT]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does a faulty transponder have to do with speed trap figures?

Surely speed trap figures are calculated independently.

 

How would the speed trap device know which car it is measuring? I'm guessing by using the transponder. I can't be sure though

[Rinehart]

I don't think this season will be as much of a development race as some think. I think that any team still struggling with powertrain issues may be able to make strides by getting on top of them, but I think if a team starts out with a large advantage in aero/pace, it will be *very* hard for another team to just 'outdevelop' them and make the championship a close competition. I'm betting that the race packages teams use wont be drastically different from what they've run in testing. All teams will have been working on these cars for some time now.
 

That sounds like a bizarre and confused theory to me.

 

1. You really think at the start of a new era of F1 car dynamics after a huge rule change - there is less scope to develop now than at the end of an established cycle, such as last year???

2. TEAMS will be in a development race on the engines - which (a) don't fall under their jurisdiction and (b) development is contained by homologation???

3. If a team starts out with a "large" aero advantage, does that not mean there is an area of development for other teams to chase??? According to the law of diminishing returns, it gets harder for teams further into the development cycle to find more advantages.

4. The race packages won't be drastically different to testing??? That's just miles off, lets compare cars in the summer to the ones now. RBR may even have a B spec car by then.

[Gorma]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does a faulty transponder have to do with speed trap figures?

Surely speed trap figures are calculated independently.

I think the transponder just sends out the car's speed at point of the speed trap. 

[Hamm]

So no faster than renault cars.

21 feb, 3 day

[nuripoko]

So we are 20km/h slower than  Mercedes cars    huge difference

[Miggeex]

So we are 20km/h slower than  Mercedes cars    huge difference

 

Sure.

[HPT]

So we are 20km/h slower than  Mercedes cars    huge difference

 

Also 10kph slower than a Sauber with the same Ferrari engine. What does that say?

[Goron3]

So we are 20km/h slower than  Mercedes cars    huge difference

 

It shows we aren't pushing yet, which we already know. Our small sidepods and inlets will massively help with top speed.

[oetzi]

So they are cutting the fuel but are having problems starting it again smoothly?

I doubt that, but adding even a tiny bit of thrust when under full brakes will unbalance the car. Are they allowed to restart with the clutch automatically engaged? From memory, the clutch has to be 100% driver operated. That being the case, it must be a pretty delicate phase, the reintroduction of engine power.

[Ferrari2183]

I think the transponder just sends out the car's speed at point of the speed trap.

Speed cannot be measured instantaneously. It has to be measured over a distance.

I would have thought that the circuit and FOM would have a separate system for speed trapping. How else would they know that a car was speeding in the pit lane if it had a faulty transponder then?

[Gorma]

It shows we aren't pushing yet, which we already know.

With two thirds of the testing done how confident can one be about reliability if "we aren't pushing yet". 

[oetzi]

Speed cannot be measured instantaneously. It has to be measured over a distance.

Yeah, but the car knows how fast it's going. I don't know how the system works, but there's no reason it couldn't just be a 'send' of the current speedo reading. To be fair, I doubt it is. But I don't know. And no reason it couldn't be.

[oetzi]

With two thirds of the testing done how confident can one be about reliability if "we aren't pushing yet". 

Depends what you call 'pushing it'. You can put all systems under full strain without going for laptime. The only thing you might find is that when you max them all at once something unexpected rears its ugly head. But there's limited value in finding that out until you've seen if each one works on its own.

[Cyanide]

So here we are looking at every tiny bit of detail from testing and trying to decrypt what Ferrari were doing. Next thing you know, people will try to see if the car is slow because Alonso didn't take a dump that morning, which made the car heavier. Guess fans are more desperate than the team itself. 

 

Australia can't come fast enough to put an end to these ridiculous analyses. 

Edited by Cyanide, 25 February 2014 - 09:38.

[Ferrari2183]

Yeah, but the car knows how fast it's going. I don't know how the system works, but there's no reason it couldn't just be a 'send' of the current speedo reading. To be fair, I doubt it is. But I don't know. And no reason it couldn't be.

Fair enough but that would mean that a car with this type of faulty transponder couldn't be considered reliable.

If sector times, speed trap figures etc etc are all reliant on a transponder then FOM have big issues. There has to be some kind of failsafe.

[Gorma]

Depends what you call 'pushing it'. You can put all systems under full strain without going for laptime. The only thing you might find is that when you max them all at once something unexpected rears its ugly head. But there's limited value in finding that out until you've seen if each one works on its own.

If you haven't gone for performance or reliability when you have maxed everything then what is it good for? All you have is confidence of systems in conditions that have no relation to a race weekend. Mercedes was going full throttle in Jerez already. They know they have the performance and they know the have the reliability under race conditions. Ferrari doesn't.

[Gorma]

Fair enough but that would mean that a car with this type of faulty transponder couldn't be considered reliable.

If sector times, speed trap figures etc etc are all reliant on a transponder then FOM have big issues. There has to be some kind of failsafe.

They have multiple failsafes, but the only thing that is needed for completing the race/qualifying session is the time for a full lap. Speed trap infro isn't relevant for that. Pit lane speed is measured with a radar gun

[oetzi]

If you haven't gone for performance or reliability when you have maxed everything then what is it good for?

You have the confidence that everything works as it should in isolation at 100%. Then you check if it all works together at 100%.

[kosmos]

Guess fans are more desperate than the team itself. 

 

 

 

At least from the outside, the teams seems to be very calm, I have the feeling that they know that they will not have the best car in Australia but a competitive one with a good roadmap of updates that this time should work.  People should remember that fuel consumption is very important and we have two great drivers.

 

 

Fans should take it easy at least till the Barcelona race is over.

[JeePee]

309 instead of 336?

 

[Ferrari2183]

They have multiple failsafes, but the only thing that is needed for completing the race/qualifying session is the time for a full lap. Speed trap infro isn't relevant for that. Pit lane speed is measured with a radar gun

Well I'd assume that all speed trap figures are measured by radar gun. That is why speed figures are only given at certain intermediates and not all over the place.

I'm guessing the transponder data is only for FOM to display onboard visuals and for teams to instantaneously analyse performance at any given point. Eg speed carried through turn 1.

[Tenmantaylor]

Red Bull often had amongst the slowest speed trap reading of all teams at races they won over the last 5 years, it's by no means an accurate indicator of lap time or even race performance given the right strategy. Of course, it would look better for Ferrari if they were closer to the ultimate pace but things can change quickly.

 

Plus we don't know Ferrari's program. They may be under running the engine to keep temps down and build up slower than the other Ferrari engine teams. Or fuel saving at the end of the straights where the speed trap is. So many unknowns to draw definite conclusions.

[oetzi]

309 instead of 336?

 

That doesn't belong here 

[sheepgobba]

Fair enough but that would mean that a car with this type of faulty transponder couldn't be considered reliable.

If sector times, speed trap figures etc etc are all reliant on a transponder then FOM have big issues. There has to be some kind of failsafe.

 

But are any other sources reporting that the transponder was faulty? I think it was either James Allen that also mentioned Ferrari were doing 336km/h. 

 

At the moment I'll take it with a grain of salt. 

[Ferrari2183]

But are any other sources reporting that the transponder was faulty? I think it was either James Allen that also mentioned Ferrari were doing 336km/h.

At the moment I'll take it with a grain of salt.

I'm not all that interested in the speed the Ferrari was doing either. I was just stunned that speed trap figures are dependent on a transponder as per that tweet.

[kosmos]

It seems that Ferrari is doing a filming day today in Sakhir, La Gazzetta mention that Alonso will be there, Marc Gene will drive the car (not 100% sure).

Edited by kosmos, 25 February 2014 - 11:18.

[bauss]

actually the 309 makes a lot of sense, explains why Alonso could purple the twisty middle sector and yet be much slower than the McLaren that day. 

 

1st and 3rd sectors are power sectors.

 

So that should be encouraging to Ferrari fans, once they turn the engine up, they should be able to do very good times provided the engine is similar in power to the Merc.

Edited by bauss, 25 February 2014 - 11:20.

[Oho]

Well I'd assume that all speed trap figures are measured by radar gun.

 

I don't, I guess I'd use induction loops buried in tarmac like they do with automatic speed cameras on highways and on the grid to detect false starts, with transponders that should  give you both speed and identification of the car pretty cheap. But I am probably wrong.

Edited by Oho, 25 February 2014 - 11:46.

[Hellenic tifosi]

It seems that Ferrari is doing a filming day today in Sakhir, La Gazzetta mention that Alonso will be there, Marc Gene will drive the car (not 100% sure).

 

Makes sense.

 

If they are preparing upgrades for next week, they can make a shake down now.

[Enzoluis]

actually the 309 makes a lot of sense, explains why Alonso could purple the twisty middle sector and yet be much slower than the McLaren that day. 

 

1st and 3rd sectors are power sectors.

 

So that should be encouraging to Ferrari fans, once they turn the engine up, they should be able to do very good times provided the engine is similar in power to the Merc.

 

Also make more sense with the statements of the Ferrari team members that didn´t make qualy laps and were always fueled.

[Gilles4Ever]

It seems that Ferrari is doing a filming day today in Sakhir, La Gazzetta mention that Alonso will be there, Marc Gene will drive the car (not 100% sure).

Scuderia Ferrari @InsideFerrari

Ecco come suona la #F14T! Here is how the #F14T sounds! #FilmingDay #ForzaFerrari youtu.be/CcQmWozDV3I

 

 

Don't know if the #FilmingDay tag means it's from today

[JeePee]

No pitot tube on top, so I guess so.

[bauss]

Also make more sense with the statements of the Ferrari team members that didn´t make qualy laps and were always fueled.

 

I suspect the always fueled part was not said and is not true... except the Ferrari is an absolute bullet, there is no way they'll purple sector 2 on fullish tanks, go faster than the McLaren with KM  on supersofts n lowish fuel (when he set his 34.9).

 

and adding that to Kimi's statement 

 

 

"It's not too bad. Power-wise we will have to see next week what we can do, but it's not any major issue," he added.

 

I strongly suspect, engine wise is the main place Ferrari have held back so far.

 

We will see how they go in 2 /3 days time when they bolt the new upgrades and turn up the engine.

 

I suspect it is a good car, similar to last year... not bad but not out of this world either.

[Antonov]

is the line-up known for the final 4 testing days?

[kimister]

is the line-up known for the final 4 testing days?

 

@LorenzoDL83:   #F1 #Kimi to drive on Day 1 and Day 3, Alonso day 2 and day 4 via @turunsanomat

 

https://twitter.com/LorenzoDL83/status/438239219702857728

Edited by kimister, 25 February 2014 - 11:47.

[Antonov]

seems about fair.

 

can't say, as a big Kimi fan, that I caught Ferrari on giving preferential treatment to either driver

[Ferrari2183]

I don't, I guess I'd use induction loops buried in tarmac like they do with automatic speed cameras on highways and on the grid to detect false starts, with transponders that should give you both speed and identification of the car pretty cheap. But I am probably wrong.

This makes sense but it doesn't explain how a faulty transponder can lead to incorrect speed trap figures.

[oetzi]

except the Ferrari is an absolute bullet, there is no way they'll purple sector 2 on fullish tanks, go faster than the McLaren with KM  on supersofts n lowish fuel (when he set his 34.9).

 

 

Why not? The bloke's only just sat in an F1 car properly. New formula, new driver, and testing. Lots of unknowns there.

Edited by oetzi, 25 February 2014 - 12:01.

[Ferrari2183]

actually the 309 makes a lot of sense, explains why Alonso could purple the twisty middle sector and yet be much slower than the McLaren that day.

1st and 3rd sectors are power sectors.

So that should be encouraging to Ferrari fans, once they turn the engine up, they should be able to do very good times provided the engine is similar in power to the Merc.

This assumes that the speed trap figure and purple sector was done on the same lap/run...

We will get a better idea in a few days.

[oetzi]

This assumes that the speed trap figure and purple sector was done on the same lap/run...

We will get a better idea in a few days.

Stop applying sense.

Edited by oetzi, 25 February 2014 - 12:02.

[Torsion]

@LorenzoDL83:   #F1 #Kimi to drive on Day 1 and Day 3, Alonso day 2 and day 4 via @turunsanomat

 

https://twitter.com/LorenzoDL83/status/438239219702857728

 

Probably means that they are going to bolt on the upgrades for the last two days?

[bauss]

This assumes that the speed trap figure and purple sector was done on the same lap/run...

We will get a better idea in a few days.

 

em, the maximum speed trap figure Alonso did that day was reportedly 309, so regardless what he hit on that run, he didnt go above 309.

 

For the rest, we will get a better idea later indeed...

but I've been following testing closely for years and i can happily say my conclusions based on gleaning info here or there have always been in the ballpark come Melbourne

[oetzi]

This makes sense but it doesn't explain how a faulty transponder can lead to incorrect speed trap figures.

And thinking about it, it really doesn't explain how that corrects the reading to 309 from 33?, or how anyone outside the team can be confident that or any of the other readings were right.

 

Odd story.

 

Can you sabotage your own transponder? 

[Ferrari2183]

em, the maximum speed trap figure Alonso did that day was reportedly 309, so regardless what he hit on that run, he didnt go above 309.

For the rest, we will get a better idea later indeed...
but I've been following testing closely for years and i can happily say my conclusions based on gleaning info here or there have always been in the ballpark come Melbourne

The max speed, as per AMuS, reported by Alonso that day was 336 Km/h. It is only now that the 336 is being disputed and a figure of 309 given due to a faulty transponder.

[Ferrari2183]

let's not make this more complicated then it is:

AMuS hat the story on the 3rd day, but if you read the article, it states clearly that the speed trap figures are from day two:


So Alonso's speed of 336,4 km/h is from day two, while the twitter pic posted states vmax day three
And AMuS reported in their interview with Bottas, that Williams where on top of the speed charts this day - no controversy,
different day, different program - more less downforce setting, with/without DRS - who knows

The tweet I'm talking about is linked on this page or the previous. Not talking about the VMax image.

Here is the tweet

Edited by Ferrari2183, 25 February 2014 - 13:00.

[fabr68]

If the speed is wrong, then likely the timing was too (purple). Sorry Sean.

How strange the speed was 336 and not 14 or 567? You would think if this thing fails you would know for sure.

Hopefully this speed error does not throw the development plan off by giving false sense of confidence that certain parts/setup was better, when in fact the speed was wrong (i.e. slower than previous day setup)

[RoutariEnjinu]

If the speed is wrong, then likely the timing was too (purple). Sorry Sean.

If what TC3000 said is true, then the speed trap result could be wrong but the sector times still correct.

How strange the speed was 336 and not 14 or 567? You would think if this thing fails you would know for sure.

I haven't a clue how a transponder works, but if it's an active system, and it's strength of transmission/reception wasn't constant, but fluctuating, then those peaks in signal that TC3000 mentioned could have been a bit sooner than they should have been, giving a shifted result, rather than a completely spurious one.

[oetzi]

How does this guru/spammy retweeter know there was a problem?

[Seanspeed]

So it's only 309 and the 336 was due to transponder malfunction? It's that what it says?

This, unfortunately, makes a lot more sense. It was hard to reconcile how Ferrari set the fastest middle sector(the twisty bits) and was down on the other sectors to such a large degree while having such a high top speed.

And its definitely worrying that the Mercedes powered cars are all a good deal faster. This is hopefully just because Ferrari is behind on their program and isn't running anywhere near full power and not because its an inherently inferior engine.
 

That sounds like a bizarre and confused theory to me.
 
1. You really think at the start of a new era of F1 car dynamics after a huge rule change - there is less scope to develop now than at the end of an established cycle, such as last year???
2. TEAMS will be in a development race on the engines - which (a) don't fall under their jurisdiction and (b) development is contained by homologation???
3. If a team starts out with a "large" aero advantage, does that not mean there is an area of development for other teams to chase??? According to the law of diminishing returns, it gets harder for teams further into the development cycle to find more advantages.
4. The race packages won't be drastically different to testing??? That's just miles off, lets compare cars in the summer to the ones now. RBR may even have a B spec car by then.

Why compare summer packages when I'm talking about the start of the season? :/

And I never said there is less scope to develop, I just don't think the cars will be gaining like seconds with a new package or anything. Nothing will transform a mediocre package into a race winner or anything. Like I said, the cars are probably already at a somewhat developed stage.

As for the whole diminishing returns thing, it sounds good on-paper, but seemingly gets proven wrong almost every year. If it were true, the field would all slowly converge and the leaders would continually have a smaller and smaller lead over the next best team. And that just doesn't happen all that often. This is likely because each team has a different car and different development potential. If everybody all had the same car and the race was to see who could develop it the fastest and there was only one general development path to go down, maybe *then* you'd see these diminishing returns fairly regularly, but its just not like that.

Edited by Seanspeed, 25 February 2014 - 14:04.

[Ferrari2183]

If what TC3000 said is true, then the speed trap result could be wrong but the sector times still correct.


I haven't a clue how a transponder works, but if it's an active system, and it's strength of transmission/reception wasn't constant, but fluctuating, then those peaks in signal that TC3000 mentioned could have been a bit sooner than they should have been, giving a shifted result, rather than a completely spurious one.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Speed is measured by distance divided by time. That is why you have 2 timing loops with a set distance.

The only thing I can think of (and this is pushing it) that would lead to incorrect speed readings is if the timing loop was unable to identify a transponder or giving the speed of 1 car to another.