21 replies to this topic

[HSJ]

From www.turunsanomat.fi

- On tarkkoja mittauksia. Kun moottorin teho lisääntyy kymmenen prosenttia eli siinä on kahdeksan hevosvoimaa enemmän, auto on heti 0,15 sekuntia kierroksella nopeampi. 80 hevosvoimaa lisää toisi jo 1,5 sekuntia vauhtia lisää, Newey miettii.

My translation:

There are accurate measurements. When engine power increases by 1% [there's a slight error in the original claiming 10%], meaning it has 8 horsepower more power, the car is 0.15sec faster per lap. 80hp would bring 1.5sec more speed, says Newey.

So once again I'm proven (more or less) correct.

Remember how I've been saying, based on my calculations, that 10hp will affect lap time, over a 75sec lap, by .2-.4sec? Well, Looks like Newey pretty much agrees. Not that words (agreement) themselves mean anything. But it is nice to have at least some confirmation. Or has Newey been reading my posts?

[Ghostrider]

Would be a lot of posts on this forum if everyone had to post when one of the things they have claimed is found out to be true.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Ghostrider
Would be a lot of posts on this forum if everyone had to post when one of the things they have claimed is found out to be true.

Yeah, but this is about people thinking I can't analyse how good which car is and so on. So many here claimed after Melbourne that McL is better than Williams. I said the opposite. Which one was correct? I've made the power/lap time claim many times and people have rubbished it. Which one was correct? And so on.

[Ghostrider]

Originally posted by HSJ


Yeah, but this is about people thinking I can't analyse how good which car is and so on. So many here claimed after Melbourne that McL is better than Williams. I said the opposite. Which one was correct? I've made the power/lap time claim many times and people have rubbished it. Which one was correct? And so on.

It is always about the package of chassis, driver, engine, suspension, tyres and so on. Very difficult to pinpoint exaclty the competitiveness of each individual part.

[maclaren]

Well, I have known it long from GP3 editor programs that 10 hp makes a difference of 0.2 sec

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Ghostrider


It is always about the package of chassis, driver, engine, suspension, tyres and so on. Very difficult to pinpoint exaclty the competitiveness of each individual part.

Sure.

yourself too!;)

[HSJ]

Originally posted by maclaren
Well, I have known it long from GP3 editor programs that 10 hp makes a difference of 0.2 sec

Really? That's interesting, but it then makes me wonder why it has been so difficult for some people to accept?

[karlth]

Originally posted by HSJ
From www.turunsanomat.fi
So once again I'm proven (more or less) correct.

Remember how I've been saying, based on my calculations, that 10hp will affect lap time, over a 75sec lap, by .2-.4sec? Well, Looks like Newey pretty much agrees. Not that words (agreement) themselves mean anything. But it is nice to have at least some confirmation. Or has Newey been reading my posts?

So 160 more hp would mean 3 second faster laps? And 320 more hp would mean 6 second faster laps?

No.

Extrapolating from 8hp to 80hp and thus from 0.15s to 1.5s is stupid and there is no way that
Newey would have said something like that without being drunk.

1% more engine power means around 0.15s faster lap on some unnamed circuit, probably
Barcelona, could well be right but it would for example not be 0.15s in Monaco or at Monza.

Where did that finnish paper take Newey's quote from?

[silver]

Those quote were taken from Adrian Newey`s interview done by Giorgio Piola.

Newey also said that McLaren would like to put emphasis on developing rear tyres but Williams and Renault wants to have "better front tyres than rear tyres" which means that McLaren has not been able to run in ideal setup during the whole year.

[karlth]

Originally posted by silver
Those quote were taken from Adrian Newey`s interview done by Giorgio Piola.

In F1 Magazine then?

[Dudley]

IT's nonsence.

Monaco and Hockenheim(old) would not be the same.

And this calculation means that a car with no engine (and thus 0hp) would only be about 15seconds a lap slower.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by HSJ


Yeah, but this is about people thinking I can't analyse how good which car is and so on. So many here claimed after Melbourne that McL is better than Williams. I said the opposite. Which one was correct? I've made the power/lap time claim many times and people have rubbished it. Which one was correct? And so on.

You still cant grasp the fact that some cars perform better on certain tracks than others.
Williams have a power advantage but mclaren have a chassis advantage.

Who has claimed that the mclarens are better than the williams?
I havent read it.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Dudley
IT's nonsence.

Monaco and Hockenheim(old) would not be the same.

And this calculation means that a car with no engine (and thus 0hp) would only be about 15seconds a lap slower.

Note that Ferrari has a 2 s/lap advantadge meaning it has a 120hp advantadge over Williams no wonder a mediocre driver like Schaptzenmaahleudqwugmacher is so much 'better' then the rest

Seriously, for a given car, with a given setup & areo package, on a given track that might be a good rule of thumb. But it's relation with reality is shaky at best (a linear relation between hp and topspeed ) It's a layman's law in other words, so kudo's to HSJ for being a real layman ;)

[maclaren]

Originally posted by Dudley
IT's nonsence.

Monaco and Hockenheim(old) would not be the same.

And this calculation means that a car with no engine (and thus 0hp) would only be about 15seconds a lap slower.

True, but if we are talking about small changes, 10hp means averagely 0.2sec. Of course on a circuit like Hungaroring it is slightly less, and in old long Hockenheim it could be 0.4 sec. This is not a mathematic formula, this is tested by tests. I have tested it too

Main point is that mostly it is the chassis charasteristics, tyres and setup which makes car go faster or slower on certain tracks. People often overestimate the importance of engine. But we have seen very often that small upgrades from engine manufacturers means nothing on track

[davioissimo]

Originally posted by maclaren
Well, I have known it long from GP3 editor programs that 10 hp makes a difference of 0.2 sec

The first thing to aim for is a high powered engine because it is the source of forward force the rest can be tailoured to suit from there if you look at Toyota they have got it exactly right.
They have got a very powerful engine a basic workable chassis then they went off and stabalised the brakes and made them consistent, mechanically improved that is, now finally they're touching up the aerodynamics. Once this primary program is completed they'll start the second program starting with the engine again. Its the tried and trusted way of jumping into F1 and winning within a couple of years on merit. After all whatever Ferrari in the past they just didn't have a powerful enough engine and that's the first reason they hadn't won championships for ages the next reason the mechanical side then the aero, they had the drivers.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by karlth


So 160 more hp would mean 3 second faster laps? And 320 more hp would mean 6 second faster laps?

No.

Extrapolating from 8hp to 80hp and thus from 0.15s to 1.5s is stupid and there is no way that
Newey would have said something like that without being drunk.

1% more engine power means around 0.15s faster lap on some unnamed circuit, probably
Barcelona, could well be right but it would for example not be 0.15s in Monaco or at Monza.

Where did that finnish paper take Newey's quote from?

The quote was from some Italian paper, an interview with/by Giorgio Piola.

Yes, it is true that strictly speaking you can't linearly extrapolate like that, but when you stick with small (few percents) changes to the original you can do it with negligible errors (some orders of magnitude smaller than the actual effect). So the 1% claim is quite valid, at least in practice, by the 10% is of course a bit silly, though even that is likely to be in the right ball park.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Dudley
IT's nonsence.

Monaco and Hockenheim(old) would not be the same.

Obviously, but I guess it is supposed to be an average. Though you may question the details, it is unlikely they'd just put words in AN's mouth totally out of the blue, so he probably has said something to that effect.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by davioissimo


The first thing to aim for is a high powered engine because it is the source of forward force the rest can be tailoured to suit from there if you look at Toyota they have got it exactly right.
They have got a very powerful engine a basic workable chassis then they went off and stabalised the brakes and made them consistent, mechanically improved that is, now finally they're touching up the aerodynamics. Once this primary program is completed they'll start the second program starting with the engine again. Its the tried and trusted way of jumping into F1 and winning within a couple of years on merit. After all whatever Ferrari in the past they just didn't have a powerful enough engine and that's the first reason they hadn't won championships for ages the next reason the mechanical side then the aero, they had the drivers.

Absolutely. Toyota has explicitly stated (or Brunner, rather) that this year's car is deliberately conservative in order to make it workable for a rookie team. So it really comes down to the engine more than anything else with Toyota at this point, but they sure (seem to) have potential.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by maclaren
Main point is that mostly it is the chassis charasteristics, tyres and setup which makes car go faster or slower on certain tracks. People often overestimate the importance of engine. But we have seen very often that small upgrades from engine manufacturers means nothing on track.

The only use of that 0.15s/8hp rule that I can see is that power output varies with ambient air properties. Hotter air means less power, cooler air means more, and humidity also has an effect. But ambient air affects everybody on the grid the same way. If one team all of a sudden is able to find another 40hp, however, it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be 0.75s up the grid. Chassis, setup, tyres, drivability and driver skill will be decisive for what you'll get for those 40 extra hp.

[karlth]

Originally posted by HSJ
So the 1% claim is quite valid, at least in practice, by the 10% is of course a bit silly, though even that is likely to be in the right ball park.

From an older post:

Mike Gascoyne, Jordan's technical director, wrote an interesting article in F1-Racing a couple of
months ago. In it he described how the team tested the influence of a 10% change in major parts
of the car and how it affected lap times. For example they detuned the engine down 10% and
compared it to a 100% engine run.

The results were that the suspension, engine and aerodynamics downgrades all led to a similar
performance loss while the -10% tyre grip change turned the car into a cow on rollerblades. I can't
remember the exact number but the performance loss was something like x3 or x4 the others.

Now if a 10% power change is around 1.5s what does that say about the tyres? 10% less grip => 5
seconds slower per lap? Hardly.

[maclaren]

Originally posted by karlth
Now if a 10% power change is around 1.5s what does that say about the tyres? 10% less grip => 5
seconds slower per lap? Hardly.

Do you mean it's too much or too few? 10% loss of tyre grip is huge, IMO it is many seconds loss in lap times.

[karlth]

Originally posted by maclaren

Do you mean it's too much or too few? 10% loss of tyre grip is huge, IMO it is many seconds loss in lap times.

I can't remember the exact numbers but it was far below 5 seconds.