Discussion
BrettMRC said:
The DRS flap is linked to the wastegate - when it operates a small rod prevents it from actuating, so they overboost when it's open.
100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
I know you said this as a joke but I do find it remarkable that Red Bull who have the least amount of money to spend on development and the least amount of wind tunnel time, etc, have managed to make a car that is so substantially quicker in a formula whose rules were changed to tighten the field up - which it has successfully done, with the exception of Red Bull.100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
History dictates that cars with such advantage have often been found to be imaginative with interpretation of the technical regs.
PhilAsia said:
I find it strange that Dermot slates PaulG, then goes on to slate Merc, then awkwardly sidesteps a genuine question concerning an apparent DRS advantage in qualifying - which seems to favour Red Bull.
I agree, it does seem to favour RB. But them's the rules everyone is playing by and is Newey's playground.
Newey is still there but by no means full time. He has by some accounts mentored the next gen of Neweys, which might be even more scary for the competition.I agree, it does seem to favour RB. But them's the rules everyone is playing by and is Newey's playground.
StevieBee said:
BrettMRC said:
The DRS flap is linked to the wastegate - when it operates a small rod prevents it from actuating, so they overboost when it's open.
100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
I know you said this as a joke but I do find it remarkable that Red Bull who have the least amount of money to spend on development and the least amount of wind tunnel time, etc, have managed to make a car that is so substantially quicker in a formula whose rules were changed to tighten the field up - which it has successfully done, with the exception of Red Bull.100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
History dictates that cars with such advantage have often been found to be imaginative with interpretation of the technical regs.
BrettMRC said:
Stranger things have happened - or they have found and exploited an unusual aero effect caused as a result of the stall or flow disruption... (remember the coander exhausts?)
The media made a big noise about coanda exhausts, but it's not like they exploited some unknown aerodynamic phenomenon.I would have thought that RB have simply designed an aero package where opening the DRS flap is hugely beneficial to the aero on the rest of the car. This is a bit simplistic, but some teams may design the car's aero almost entirely with DRS closed, then stick a flappy wing on it, whereas RB may devote more time to designing a car with a whole aero package that works very well with the DRS open.
I take it nobody has looked at the actual speed trap numbers then?
In Bahrain they weren't fastest through any of the four speed traps.
In Jeddah they were fastest in all four, but only by 1-2 kmh.
That's using figures from qualifying when DRS is active but nobody gets a significant tow from another car.
In the races, they were not fastest at all in Bahrain, and fastest in only two of four traps in Jeddah, but these will be affected by strength of tow from other cars.
In Bahrain they weren't fastest through any of the four speed traps.
In Jeddah they were fastest in all four, but only by 1-2 kmh.
That's using figures from qualifying when DRS is active but nobody gets a significant tow from another car.
In the races, they were not fastest at all in Bahrain, and fastest in only two of four traps in Jeddah, but these will be affected by strength of tow from other cars.
rallycross said:
To even things up this year when the RedBull drivers press the DRS button the FIA software should then apply 20% brake pedal pressure for 20 seconds to let everyone else catch up.
They could have a system like in touring cars (or formula E I think) where the winners of races then get penalised in the next race by not having so many laps being able to use the electrical boost or DRS? May keep it a more interesting?nordboy said:
rallycross said:
To even things up this year when the RedBull drivers press the DRS button the FIA software should then apply 20% brake pedal pressure for 20 seconds to let everyone else catch up.
They could have a system like in touring cars (or formula E I think) where the winners of races then get penalised in the next race by not having so many laps being able to use the electrical boost or DRS? May keep it a more interesting?StevieBee said:
What separates F1 from other formulae is that it is - or should be - a meritocracy. It is first and foremost a competition of engineering ingenuity which whilst it can be entertaining, should never be entertainment for the sake of it. I think the success linked budget and testing cap falls just the right side of this because it theoretically evens the technical playing field. When you start to influence the on-track sporting dynamic through success penalties, that starts us down a rabbit hole to an altogether different thing for which there are existing examples already, some of which you've already mentioned.
Yes, they came up with the most eloquent way of levelling the field over time, with the cascading limits on wind tunnel (and virtual wind tunnel) time, quite appropriate for a prototype series. The competition is to design and build the fastest car, so the success penalty is to be able to spend fewer design resources in future. The result is that field spread is lower now than it’s even been, even if one team is clearly in front on pace.Limits to engines, PU deployment, or simply addling weight, to a successful car, just isn’t F1. Leave that to spec series or endurance racing, where the point of the competition is something different.
StevieBee said:
What separates F1 from other formulae is that it is - or should be - a meritocracy.
Agreed, my only slight concern with the budget cap is it naturally stops the big teams from throwing the kitchen sink at their problem resulting in no where land for a number of seasons.Who wouldn’t appreciate a 2023 season with Mercedes and Ferrari up with Red Bull if they could manage it?
thegreenhell said:
I take it nobody has looked at the actual speed trap numbers then?
In Bahrain they weren't fastest through any of the four speed traps.
In Jeddah they were fastest in all four, but only by 1-2 kmh.
That's using figures from qualifying when DRS is active but nobody gets a significant tow from another car.
In the races, they were not fastest at all in Bahrain, and fastest in only two of four traps in Jeddah, but these will be affected by strength of tow from other cars.
In an earlier post I agreed with that - I suspect the top speed is gear limited... it's how quickly the are getting there thats interesting In Bahrain they weren't fastest through any of the four speed traps.
In Jeddah they were fastest in all four, but only by 1-2 kmh.
That's using figures from qualifying when DRS is active but nobody gets a significant tow from another car.
In the races, they were not fastest at all in Bahrain, and fastest in only two of four traps in Jeddah, but these will be affected by strength of tow from other cars.
Merc did great engines and won as a result. RB do great aero and win as a result.
There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
StevieBee said:
I know you said this as a joke but I do find it remarkable that Red Bull who have the least amount of money to spend on development and the least amount of wind tunnel time, etc, have managed to make a car that is so substantially quicker in a formula whose rules were changed to tighten the field up - which it has successfully done, with the exception of Red Bull.
History dictates that cars with such advantage have often been found to be imaginative with interpretation of the technical regs.
Red Bull have the same budget for development as Ferrari and Mercedes. The fine does not come out of the spending cap. Regulations 3.1.mHistory dictates that cars with such advantage have often been found to be imaginative with interpretation of the technical regs.
PhilAsia said:
Merc did great engines and won as a result. RB do great aero and win as a result.
There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
The secret to the Mercedes engines during the early stages of the hybrid era wasn't that they "did great engines" but in the way that they packaged the power unit.There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
They alone managed to unlock the means to site the MGU-H within the vee of the engine, and separate the two halves of the turbo. In doing so they were able to site the "cold" (intake) part of the turbo at the front of the engine, closer to the sidepods, resulting in shorter pipe runs to and from the intercoolers, which could themselves be smaller, as they weren't having to cool superheated air, giving an aerodynamic benefit (smaller sidepods).
This arrangement also enabled to MGU-H to run slightly cooler, and it quickly became apparent that for those teams running a conventional turbo with the MGU-H directly attached to the exhaust (hot) side of the turbo, heat soak was damaging the MGU-H and resulting in reduced performance and inevitably, grid penalties.
I think were now at a point where we should start to look for the end to DRS - but first a change in the usage.
I've spoke about it at length for the last year with a colleague and the best we thought would be for it to a 1 time usage each lap, provided you're within the 1 second mark at the start line. (Or a DRS detection line to be decided on a circuit basis).
It gives the Cat and Mouse affect across the whole lap and the added drama to the viewer of when they're going to deploy it (Some circuits may be obvious) and the drivers the drama of when they need to try and attack/defend.
The whole regulation changes were to allow for closer following, now we have it let them fight, DRS trains aren't enjoyable and that's what I see happening a lot this year, I would imagine a change like above could reduce that!
I've spoke about it at length for the last year with a colleague and the best we thought would be for it to a 1 time usage each lap, provided you're within the 1 second mark at the start line. (Or a DRS detection line to be decided on a circuit basis).
It gives the Cat and Mouse affect across the whole lap and the added drama to the viewer of when they're going to deploy it (Some circuits may be obvious) and the drivers the drama of when they need to try and attack/defend.
The whole regulation changes were to allow for closer following, now we have it let them fight, DRS trains aren't enjoyable and that's what I see happening a lot this year, I would imagine a change like above could reduce that!
Dermot O'Logical said:
PhilAsia said:
Merc did great engines and won as a result. RB do great aero and win as a result.
There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
The secret to the Mercedes engines during the early stages of the hybrid era wasn't that they "did great engines" but in the way that they packaged the power unit.There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
They alone managed to unlock the means to site the MGU-H within the vee of the engine, and separate the two halves of the turbo. In doing so they were able to site the "cold" (intake) part of the turbo at the front of the engine, closer to the sidepods, resulting in shorter pipe runs to and from the intercoolers, which could themselves be smaller, as they weren't having to cool superheated air, giving an aerodynamic benefit (smaller sidepods).
This arrangement also enabled to MGU-H to run slightly cooler, and it quickly became apparent that for those teams running a conventional turbo with the MGU-H directly attached to the exhaust (hot) side of the turbo, heat soak was damaging the MGU-H and resulting in reduced performance and inevitably, grid penalties.
From what I have read their speed also came from a particularly good aero package too. Whilst everyone was pointing at the MGU, they kept very quiet about aero and watched on whilst other teams copied the high rake Newey profile. That is, until the Pink Merc.v.2 showed how well the overall package worked together.
PhilAsia said:
Dermot O'Logical said:
PhilAsia said:
Merc did great engines and won as a result. RB do great aero and win as a result.
There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
The secret to the Mercedes engines during the early stages of the hybrid era wasn't that they "did great engines" but in the way that they packaged the power unit.There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
They alone managed to unlock the means to site the MGU-H within the vee of the engine, and separate the two halves of the turbo. In doing so they were able to site the "cold" (intake) part of the turbo at the front of the engine, closer to the sidepods, resulting in shorter pipe runs to and from the intercoolers, which could themselves be smaller, as they weren't having to cool superheated air, giving an aerodynamic benefit (smaller sidepods).
This arrangement also enabled to MGU-H to run slightly cooler, and it quickly became apparent that for those teams running a conventional turbo with the MGU-H directly attached to the exhaust (hot) side of the turbo, heat soak was damaging the MGU-H and resulting in reduced performance and inevitably, grid penalties.
From what I have read their speed also came from a particularly good aero package too. Whilst everyone was pointing at the MGU, they kept very quiet about aero and watched on whilst other teams copied the high rake Newey profile. That is, until the Pink Merc.v.2 showed how well the overall package worked together.
The car really was several steps beyond most of the rest, who were hobbled by mechanical woes and issues created by the packaging of the power units.
As ever, the team which does their homework most effectively will have an advantage. The Red Bull "DRS" advantage is occupying many of their opponents right now, all frantically trying to find out what's going on. What would be interesting would be the GPS traces of the cars as they leave a corner and accelerate on to the next straight - I have a theory that many, if not all, power unit manufacturers are using the MGU-H as an electric motor to spin up the turbo, and eliminate lag. I've not seen any proof of this, but it seems an obvious step to take. It can't be a coincidence that AMG have developed electrical assistance for their turbochargers on their road cars.
Cheers, Phil!
StevieBee said:
BrettMRC said:
The DRS flap is linked to the wastegate - when it operates a small rod prevents it from actuating, so they overboost when it's open.
100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
I know you said this as a joke but I do find it remarkable that Red Bull who have the least amount of money to spend on development and the least amount of wind tunnel time, etc, have managed to make a car that is so substantially quicker in a formula whose rules were changed to tighten the field up - which it has successfully done, with the exception of Red Bull.100% confirmed, you heard it here first.
History dictates that cars with such advantage have often been found to be imaginative with interpretation of the technical regs.
The puzzle for all teams to solve is to work out how Red Bull is able to stall its drag more than a simple reduction of frontal area drag might be expected to with the DRS.
(can't wait for someone to not understand how a rear wing can influence frontal area
)StevieBee said:
What separates F1 from other formulae is that it is - or should be - a meritocracy. It is first and foremost a competition of engineering ingenuity which whilst it can be entertaining, should never be entertainment for the sake of it. I think the success linked budget and testing cap falls just the right side of this because it theoretically evens the technical playing field. When you start to influence the on-track sporting dynamic through success penalties, that starts us down a rabbit hole to an altogether different thing for which there are existing examples already, some of which you've already mentioned.
Well put, and spot onDermot O'Logical said:
PhilAsia said:
Dermot O'Logical said:
PhilAsia said:
Merc did great engines and won as a result. RB do great aero and win as a result.
There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
The secret to the Mercedes engines during the early stages of the hybrid era wasn't that they "did great engines" but in the way that they packaged the power unit.There is no difference, except Whinger has stopped whinging to the FIA about one team winning everything impacting the numbers of audience watching.
Everyone needs to catch up, which is constrained by budget at the moment and will take a little longer, maybe.
It would be great if, when they all catch up, that the rules remained the same for half a decade, or a decade. That would maximise the efforts made and the audience would see some great close racing between ALL teams/drivers as a result. But F1 has always moved the goalposts.
They alone managed to unlock the means to site the MGU-H within the vee of the engine, and separate the two halves of the turbo. In doing so they were able to site the "cold" (intake) part of the turbo at the front of the engine, closer to the sidepods, resulting in shorter pipe runs to and from the intercoolers, which could themselves be smaller, as they weren't having to cool superheated air, giving an aerodynamic benefit (smaller sidepods).
This arrangement also enabled to MGU-H to run slightly cooler, and it quickly became apparent that for those teams running a conventional turbo with the MGU-H directly attached to the exhaust (hot) side of the turbo, heat soak was damaging the MGU-H and resulting in reduced performance and inevitably, grid penalties.
From what I have read their speed also came from a particularly good aero package too. Whilst everyone was pointing at the MGU, they kept very quiet about aero and watched on whilst other teams copied the high rake Newey profile. That is, until the Pink Merc.v.2 showed how well the overall package worked together.
The car really was several steps beyond most of the rest, who were hobbled by mechanical woes and issues created by the packaging of the power units.
As ever, the team which does their homework most effectively will have an advantage. The Red Bull "DRS" advantage is occupying many of their opponents right now, all frantically trying to find out what's going on. What would be interesting would be the GPS traces of the cars as they leave a corner and accelerate on to the next straight - I have a theory that many, if not all, power unit manufacturers are using the MGU-H as an electric motor to spin up the turbo, and eliminate lag. I've not seen any proof of this, but it seems an obvious step to take. It can't be a coincidence that AMG have developed electrical assistance for their turbochargers on their road cars.
Cheers, Phil!
It's just all come together, just as it did for Merc. It's down to the others to play catch up - provided RB aren't cheating, having big lunches
It's how it's always been, doesn't need to change
Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 22 March 13:56
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff