17 replies to this topic

[HSJ]

I was wondering about exactly how much a good engine is worth to a team/car. Now, I've come up with a figure of 0.2-0.4 sec per lap per 10 horsepower for a 75 sec lap, based on a simplistic order-of-magnitude calculation. (Should be found somewhere on this forum, maybe about one year ago or a bit more. I had a debate with Todd about it.) Of course there's much more to an engine than just raw power.

So it got me thinking... Couldn't we use year-old customer engines that Sauber gets from Ferrari as the gauge? I mean it would give us a decent clue about how much the engine package, improved over one year, makes a difference. I didn't come up with a good idea how to gauge the chassis part, which would be quite critical actually, but anyway maybe we can still say something about this.

Here are some qualifying results between Ferrari and Sauber in 2001. If someone can do the whole lot, and even better add other seasons as well, that would be great. Right now I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'll just get this thread started. I tried to get some fast and slow tracks on the list. Power tracks Hockenheim and Monza are naturally included, as a slow tracks Monaco and Hungaroring so that we can have some idea about the engine vs. chassis.

Melbourne:
1 M.Schumacher Ferrari 1'26.892
2 R.Barrichello Ferrari 0.427
10 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 1.983
13 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 2.418

Ferrari average (about) .2 from pole, Sauber average (about) 2.2 from pole.

--------------------

Imola:
4 M.Schumacher Ferrari 0.649
6 R.Barrichello Ferrari 0.881
10 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 1.947
12 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 2.351

Ferrari aver .7 from pole, Sauber aver 2.1 from pole.

----------------------

Monaco:
2 M.Schumacher Ferrari 0.260
4 R.Barrichello Ferrari 0.550
15 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 3.424
16 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 3.656

Ferrari aver .4, Sauber 3.5.

-----------------------

Silverstone:
1 M.Schumacher Ferrari 1'20.447
6 R.Barrichello Ferrari 1.576
7 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 1.959
9 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 2.208

Ferrari .8, Sauber 2.1.

-----------------------

Hockenheim:
4 M.Schumacher Ferrari 0.840
6 R.Barrichello Ferrari 1.595
7 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 1.839
8 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 1.993

Ferrari 1.2, Sauber 1.9

------------------------

Hungaroring:
1 M.Schumacher Ferrari 1'14.059
3 Barrichello Ferrari 1.207
7 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 2.268
9 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 2.494

Ferrari .6, Sauber 2.4.

------------------------

Monza:
2 R.Barrichello Ferrari 0.379
3 M.Schumacher Ferrari 0.496
8 Nick Heidfeld Sauber/Petronas 1.461
9 Kimi Raikkonen Sauber/Petronas 1.677

Ferrari .4, Sauber 1.5.

-----------------------------

So it seems like Sauber was under two sec from pole at power tracks Monza and Hockenheim, while being further from pole on slower tracks.

Comments?

I will continue this later on when I have more time, I hope.

[Ali_G]

Not quite sure.

I just remember one good thread in tech but I can't remember what it was called.

They worked out that a 10 % increase in BHP will cut lap times more than either a 10 % increase in aero efficiency or a 10 % increase in mechanical grip.

I'll have a go and try to find it.

Niall

[TAB666]

Originally posted by HSJ
I was wondering about exactly how much a good engine is worth to a team/car. Now, I've come up with a figure of 0.2-0.4 sec per lap per 10 horsepower for a 75 sec lap, based on a simplistic order-of-magnitude calculation. (Should be found somewhere on this forum, maybe about one year ago or a bit more. I had a debate with Todd about it.) Of course there's much more to an engine than just raw power.

0.2-0.4 sec per lap per 10bhp ..... then explain the 94 season for me.

[KenC]

No engine = No go

I'd say an "engine's power is worth" alot!

The other thing I'd say is that the relationship between HP and laptimes is not linear, and at best, an approximation.

Also, I'd wager this thread gets moved to the Tech Forum.

[Sith]

The 94 season?

That equation is simple to explain! You had a Renault powered Williams, against a much less Ford powered Benetton. For every 10 b.h.p the Renault had over the Ford, was lost in the talentless driver in the cockpit! The "pretend" World champion of the 90's, Damon Hill!

With the resulting shake up that F-1 experienced when Ayrton Senna died, he did take pole in the 1st 3 races of the season, does anybody remember where Hill Qualified in those events? I'll give to the tip, no where near the front row!

The greatest example I recall of what horsepower is worth was at the 1989 Portugese G.P. The Mclarens of Senna and Prost were on the front row by over a second to the Ferrari's of Mansell and Berger! Come the race the Ferrari's turned the table's and were easily in the the lead within a few laps. That 639 "chisel nosed" Ferrari was more than 50 b.h.p down on the Honda that year! But at Estoril that classic John Barnard trait (exceptional chassis) came to the fore!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Power is nothing without control. By all accounts the 1994 Ford V8 had better driveability than the Renault V10

[HSJ]

Looks like people are not terribly interested in this topic, so I'm not sure whether I should bother continuing...

[maclaren]

IMO the difference between Ferrari and Sauber is 10% from engine, 20% form drivers, and 70 %about chassis.

But as far as the physics of Grand Prix X games are close to realism difference of 10 hp is ~0.15-0.25 sec per lap, definitely not 0.5

Of course it's not linear approximation, so you cannot judge difference of 100 hp is 1.5-2.5 sec, it's definitely a lot more

[HSJ]

Originally posted by maclaren
IMO the difference between Ferrari and Sauber is 10% from engine, 20% form drivers, and 70 %about chassis.

But as far as the physics of Grand Prix X games are close to realism difference of 10 hp is ~0.15-0.25 sec per lap, definitely not 0.5

Of course it's not linear approximation, so you cannot judge difference of 100 hp is 1.5-2.5 sec, it's definitely a lot more

Actually your last comment shows the opposite. It is not linear, you got that right, but it goes in the other direction: let's say 10 hp is worth .1 sec, then 100 hp is NOT worth 1.0 sec, but less. It is because air resistance (drag) increases as v^2, or v^3, or some other power greater than one, which means you have to take at least a square root of the power (hp; let's not get into the time derivative/integral etc. etc.) to get speed, so sqrt(10) is a bit more than 3, while sqrt(100)=10. You see that ten times the power does not convert into ten times the speed. Now, you DO get closer to the linear increase because we're not talking about 10hp engine vs. 100hp engine, but rather for example 810hp vs. 900hp, and when you do it as a series expansion you can see how it is closer to the linear the smaller the difference in hp is in relation to the 'base' figure (e.g. 800hp). So if 10hp difference around 800hp 'base' is .1sec, then 100hp might be e.g. .5-.8sec, something below 1.0sec.

[maclaren]

Originally posted by HSJ
Actually your last comment shows the opposite. It is not linear, you got that right, but it goes in the other direction: let's say 10 hp is worth .1 sec, then 100 hp is NOT worth 1.0 sec, but less. It is because air resistance (drag) increases as v^2, or v^3, or some other power greater than one, which means you have to take at least a square root of the power (hp; let's not get into the time derivative/integral etc. etc.) to get speed, so sqrt(10) is a bit more than 3, while sqrt(100)=10. You see that ten times the power does not convert into ten times the speed. Now, you DO get closer to the linear increase because we're not talking about 10hp engine vs. 100hp engine, but rather for example 810hp vs. 900hp, and when you do it as a series expansion you can see how it is closer to the linear the smaller the difference in hp is in relation to the 'base' figure (e.g. 800hp). So if 10hp difference around 800hp 'base' is .1sec, then 100hp might be e.g. .5-.8sec, something below 1.0sec.

Yep, it surely is somehow linear around 800hp. With no-linear I meant you cannot do laptimes around 2 minutes with 0 hp engine ;) as you pointed out ...

[Car no.27]

Mostly of course as people have pointed above it's the combination of power and driveablilty which produce a good car ala F2002.

But engine powe makes a difference too. For example engine power had a lot to with Williams taking the runners up spot this year. The BMW being the most poweful engine. If McLaren and Williams were equal in the power stakes, I personally feel McLaren would have taken 2nd place.

[masterhit]

Truth is, nobody, even in this age of technology knows "for sure" how much time is down to the engine, how much the driver, how much the electronics, aero, mechanical grip, tyre grip or engine, or god knows what else - because the cars are so complex, because humans are.. human. Because nature is so complex and by no means fully understood. The interplay between the different components are so complex and it is such an experimental field that one can never truly predict these things, to state these things is to be proven wrong, for these are fundamentally unpredictable. For example, the gain in times of the F2002. The f2002 could have been a failure, but proved a huge sucess - even Ferrari themselves must have been quietly delighted at just how much such a small but significant series of changes could have worked so well. Yes, it means that it was pretty optimised and special. But some things, and one hates to say this in these science led days cannot be numbered, for both car and driver are very complex machines indeed, and life is unpredictable by its nature. But if stats are your bag, the often stated numbers are 25 percent for car, tyres, engine, driver.

[AndreasF1]

TAB666 wrote:

0.2-0.4 sec per lap per 10bhp ..... then explain the 94 season for me.

T-R-A-C-T-I-O-N C-O-N-T-R-O-L-

[Sir Frank]

There was an interview on ORF1 with Norbert Haug at the Italian GP and he was asked what improvement the BMW engine was for Williams in terms of lap times. He said that for a sheer increase of HP (other important issues of the engine such as cooling requirements, weight, CoG, fuel consumption...) you would need something like 100-150HP in plus, to get a lap that is 0,5-1,0 seconds quicker.

It is only from my memory and Im not quite sure if I remember correctly, I have it taped but my VCR is cutting my tapes at the moment, so dont take my word for it.

[Amnios]

I think the difference is difficult to quantify, but a good engine can make a car look better than it is, the 2001 (and to an extent to 2002) Williams for example.

There are lots of other factors as well, like drivability, fuel consumption, weight, accelerating power.

I don't know the mechanics of it, but I'm guessing that a more powerful engine can help when accelerating up a hill, like the back straight in Brazil, the hill after the first hairpin at Imola and the main and back straights at Belgium. In places like this a more powerful engine will normally accelerate quicker, it may also mean that the teams can run less compromising gear ratios.

Fuel consumption is another thing. The 98/99 McLaren engines seemed to be more fuel efficient than the Ferrari's, this meant they could run with less fuel and cover the same distance as Ferrari but with much less weight.

But as with everything in F1 the more you have the faster you will go (generally).

Amnios.

[FordFan]

Seems like just too speculative, as (you say) the differences might well be primairly down to chassis issues.

Why don't you compare the F2001 at the beginning of this year, and last year. I believe Ferrari used an uprated engine in the first couple of races with the F2001 this year. While there was no doubt chassis and tyre development too, it might give you some indication of how much the engine was developed as well. (You could average the tyre improvements by looking how much all the teams improved at Aus and Sepang).

[masterhit]

Another way of looking at it, is while it is uncertain exactly how much engine power is worth , any team owner will know exactly how much that engine power costs ... Right to the last dollar...

[TAB666]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
TAB666 wrote:


T-R-A-C-T-I-O-N C-O-N-T-R-O-L-

Traction controll doesnt make it possible to bridge a 50Bhp gap ( or even more).