17 replies to this topic

[marion5drsn]

Victory at Hungarian Grand Farce.

A slight bit of simple arithmetic about the distance behind that the third place car came in.
112.08 m.ph. =591782 f.p.sec. divided by 3600 seconds = 164.384 f.p.sec. times the interval in seconds 13.355 sec. =2195.3feet behind (669.2 meters). This was done in less than 500 dinky kilometers. This is not a contest it is a farce. I do not mean to imply that there is something going on behind the scenes such as the bargeboard incidence but it makes one wonder. Its no wonder that I don’t watch as enthusiastically as I once did! Does anyone except the Ferrari crowd. M.L. Anderson

[BertlF]

This calcualtion is, despite being mathematically correct, no true reflection of the actual race outcome. I'm quite sure. the Ferrari's didn't drive "full speed" until the end and maybe Ralf also lifted his right foot a bit when it came towards the end and he realized that he will never catch the frontrunners and had no immediate threat from behind. I'm sure if the Ferraris's would have gone flat out until the end, the advantage would be considerably bigger....

But I do agree, that it becomes more and more a farce. More than 600 m more distance in just 300 kms! Makes one think....

Bert

[Ross Stonefeld]

The pole sitter won the race. He was followed to the finish by the second fastest qualifier, who was followed by the third fastest qualifier. Whats the issue in this?

[desmo]

All due credit to the Maranello team. And shame on the others for losing the plot. I doubt that there is any single factor explaining the disparity in performance, more like a thousand smaller things. (BTW the bargeboard reference is flawed by the fact that the general consensus among the technically proficient is that the bargeboard in question's dimensional minutiae had no real effect on performance) The boys in red simply seem to know more about building and preparing F1 cars than the others at the moment. I think the fact that they do so much of the production in-house compared to most other teams is finally paying dividends. It's the hard way to go (ask Renault and Toyota), but it can take you further as well (Ask Newey).

[Ross Stonefeld]

If there's one single issue that had to be pinpointed, id say tire synergy. The Michelin could be better than the Bridgestone in most cases. But the Michelin is not better than the FerrariBridgestone. Having a car and tire built to each other's specifications is an advantage that no one other than Ferrari have, and one that Ferrari wont lose.

[Ben]

I have always said for a while that modern F1 is about systems engineering more than anything else.

Ross's point on tyres is well made - the Williams and McLaren work optimumly with completely different tyres. Dupasquier's between a rock and a hard place. Bridgestone on the other hand have only one team capable of winning so that's where the time and money goes.

The success of Ferrari shows the skill of a well managed engineering team and good systems integration. People moan about the lack of innovation in F1, but in the past rapid innovation allowed concepts such as ground effect for example to beat the field in a crap car (Lotus 79) when the paradigm shifts aren't available a different sort of engineering has to kick in, and most of the F1 field is trailing in Ferrari's wake in this regard.

I just see the current dominance as an opportunity - the other teams must be looking for some new engineers right?

Ben

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by BertlF
This calcualtion is, despite being mathematically correct, no true reflection of the actual race outcome. I'm quite sure. the Ferrari's didn't drive "full speed" until the end and maybe Ralf also lifted his right foot a bit when it came towards the end and he realized that he will never catch the frontrunners and had no immediate threat from behind. I'm sure if the Ferraris's would have gone flat out until the end, the advantage would be considerably bigger....

But I do agree, that it becomes more and more a farce. More than 600 m more distance in just 300 kms! Makes one think....

Bert

600 metres in 300,000 metres: my calculator says 0.2%.

I think that the Ferrari is more than 0.2% better than the Williams this year.



VAR1016

[swoopp]

Ross Stonefeld
If there's one single issue that had to be pinpointed, id say tire synergy. The Michelin could be better than the Bridgestone in most cases. But the Michelin is not better than the FerrariBridgestone. Having a car and tire built to each other's specifications is an advantage that no one other than Ferrari have, and one that Ferrari wont lose.

That's true. So why did McLaren switch to Michelin tires this year. McLaren was never going to benefit from that move, it was only going to give Ferrari an advantage in tire performance relative to McLaren and Williams. Right?

[12.9:1]

Wheel to wheel competition should be the coal of F1! Most Atlas BB posters would shout this to the heavens,
Though some of us here at the Technical forum may not agree.

I propose, that but for two factors we would nearly be there !

First and obviously, the tire war is a disaster, a spec tire – not designed to any teams specifications, but a true standard tire emphasizing consistency, would quickly lead to closer racing.

Secondly, a quirk in race team traditions.
Aerodynamics is the most impotent factor in F1 ! Or is it ? Clearly a race car is the epitome of a synergistic machine, - nothing happens if some part is missing. This is easy for us (on the outside ) to see.

What if your team had a tradition of buying your engines from out-side suppliers – delivered in crates
And bolted into your cars. If a power-plant did not measure up, you would go shopping.
So then, your chassi designer would like a lower c/g in the rear, and your Aerodynamicist would like
That rear deck a few centimeters lower, - you tell your supplier to send out a lower engine, no arguments.

At another team, one with a long tradition of building their own engines.
The chassi designer, and the Aerodynamicist make their Requests, - What ! says the Engine Director,- and sacrifice reliability,! and power ? Never ! !
Every one present nods their heads – of course not !

Im suggesting that the move to wide V engines has been a costly mistake.
Ferrari’s announcement that their 2003 engine will have an 88deg V angle, has finally convinced me that desmo has been correct all along – V10 crankshaft harmonics, are a critical factor in power and reliability.

Of course my scenarios do not account for Renault, but then they are French.


.

[Scoots]

Originally posted by 12.9:1
Wheel to wheel competition should be the coal of F1! Most Atlas BB posters would shout this to the heavens,
Though some of us here at the Technical forum may not agree.

Aerodynamics is the most impotent factor in F1!

"Impotent"

Wheel to wheel is what NASCAR delivers and, I'm sorry NASCAR fans, it's crap. NASCAR used to allow techinical innovation, they no longer do.

If you want strict wheel to wheel racing watch a spec series and leave F1 alone.

Tradition is not without it's merit. In F1 the tradition is to do it better than anyone else and you win, and it's damn near the last place that can apply anymore. I want them to open up the rules and have some simple restriction to control speed and safety, but allow technology for technologies sake and allow any team who does it right to dominate.

Whew ... I feel better now.

-S

[VAR1016]

Well said Scoots.

Give them say 150 litres or 200 litres of fuel; specify weight minimum, etc., and let them get on with it.

If someone wants to run a flat twin, turbocharger, 16 cylinders (please!!) whatever, I say let him do it

PdeRL

[Ross Stonefeld]

'unlimited' tech rules would make F1 even worse. You'd have a turbo charged T-18 Ferrari vs a 2litre 4 cylinder Minardi, just going on relative budgets.

[Scoots]

The 107% rule will keep the disparity from being outrageous. Minardi can't afford to not make the 107 so they would find a way to do it, but with more open rules there is the possibility that Minardi will come up with something new that will put them in front and that is all but impossible now.

We could have an engine buy rule ... any team can buy the engine of any competitor for $1M (per engine) just like the old SCCA IT rules

-S

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
'unlimited' tech rules would make F1 even worse. You'd have a turbo charged T-18 Ferrari vs a 2litre 4 cylinder Minardi, just going on relative budgets.

Quite so - but still only 150 litres of fuel!

Another possible refinement would be to reflect what has been done in motorcylce racing - with capacity and the number of cylinders being inter-related. Or perhaps weight limits might be adjusted.

I am sure that things could be arranged to allow a little more technical interest.

PdeRL

[desmo]

That turbo Ferrari wouldn't make half race distance I reckon. The Minardi would win.

[Ross Stonefeld]

They'd be so far ahead by the 2 hour timelimit they could DNf and still be leading, though there is that tricky finishing under your own power rule....

[Scoots]

Originally posted by VAR1016

Another possible refinement would be to reflect what has been done in motorcylce racing - with capacity and the number of cylinders being inter-related. Or perhaps weight limits might be adjusted.

WSB and MotoGP have abandoned the displacement / cylinder count restriction and replaced it with minimum weight / cylinder count.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Scoots


WSB and MotoGP have abandoned the displacement / cylinder count restriction and replaced it with minimum weight / cylinder count.

Excellent Scoots!

Quad erat demostrandum!

PdeRL