Anyone know what is the +- varation of the sensors after calibration and what was the % difference before and after the "switch" that occurred during FP ?

I don't see how they can win that appeal. Even if the sensor was faulty there is a procedure for that and they chose not to follow it.

I think this is just the beginning...if the sensors aren't operating at absolute perfection we will have those kind of irregularites all season long.

Without the flow limit they would have had the option to build an engine that outputs a million hp in Q and turn it down in the race. Those engines would have cost a shitload of money to develop. Fuel flow limit is a cost saving measure.

RSR is back online. :yipee:

Replay of a 1.41.9 (T125@Nurburgring). Scrappy first sector...2 more tenths in it for sure.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

More shortcutting.

My WR was done on the same setup than the P2 guy which is on race department forum.

No cutting my friend. 41s are definitely possible on that setup.

I was at low 44 on the default setup.

Last edited by PhilS13, Mon 3 Mar 2014, 17:46.

Quote from PMD9409 :

It's not really the curbs giving me silly bounces, but instead the random grip and grab I get from the inside curbs in low speed. Maybe it is my imagination, I don't know.

Got that a couple times. Huge grab on T2 inside curb at the nurb, the kind that makes you spin.

The Exos 125 on default set totally feels like a tailhappy version of the F1 car in Ferrari Virtual Academy. I would need to drive them back to back to be sure but still.

Dunno what % of the physics we have now were actually already there in FVA, 4 years ago...

Quote from amp88 :

The 'special' Shell fuel is lighter (as in weighs less). Two fuels: same volume, same energy, one weighs less than the other. Do they have different calorific values (in energy / mass, as I said above)? Unless we can agree they do we're getting nowhere.

Yes this is correct I saw everything the opposite way. Heavier fuel, same energy in smaller volume at constant mass calorific content.

Lighter fuel, same energy in same volume at increased calorific content works too.

Trying to make a race fuel lighter doesn't make any sense at all if you are not increasing the calorific values at the same time so yes Obviously with a lighter fuel you get greater calorific value. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from amp88 :

I don't follow. If Shell were able to make their 100 litres of fuel weigh 2 kg less than 'the other guy' then they have a greater calorific value, right? That is, if their fuel weighs 78kg and their competitor's fuel weighs 80kgs (numbers pulled from the air for illustration purposes) and they both contain the same amount of energy the Shell fuel has a higher calorific value (energy / mass).

So the Mercedes senior engineer who says the engine alone produces around 700hp isn't to be trusted, but some random on the internet is because he appears to understand chemistry. Forgive me, but there's quite the double standard there.

I reject the premise of this statement, so I won't respond to the following calculations, but I do understand what you're trying to say.

Greater calorific value in MJ/Liter yes(not energy/mass). The fuel tank of the "better" fuel would be smaller in volume but it still wouldn't allow you to pump more kgs of fuel per second than your competitor. The flow limit is in kg/hr, not liter/hr. The calorific values are expressed in MJ/kg, not MJ/liter.

Most of the things the random chemist dude say are backed by widely accepted scientific data. Much more value to me than a vague answer to a misleading question.

Unfortunately you are still stuck on the vague answer and reject everything else...that's all right...we've pretty much covered it now...until there's new info coming out there's not much to add.

Quote from amp88 :

Obviously with a lighter fuel you get greater calorific value.

As I said above, none of these give us a real figure that can be used in a calculation. It's not like we can say "Oh, modern F1 fuel has a 5% higher calorific value than pump super unleaded.", but I hope we can agree that modern F1 fuel is likely to be at least different enough from 'pump fuel' for the assumption of 44MJ/kg to be questionable.

Max fuel flow is in kg, calorific content is in kg. Density doesn't matter.

There is a guys who knows chemistry on f1technical who pretty much covered that part. He sees 46 as the absolute highest possible limit with the current F1 rules on fuel but he considers it's more likely the number is close to 44. IIRC. And btw, I understand nothing of what he posts...I just have to trust him...chemistry...

Also, something to consider when you hear efficiency numbers.

IMHO, the 40% target includes the MGU-H. Here's why :
We know that the MGU-K cannot send more than 160 hp at any moment and that a maximum of 4 MJ can be fed from the battery to the MGU-K per lap.
However, there is no limit on the amount of energy than can be fed from the MGU-H directly to the MGU-K and then to the wheels.
So at any moment, you can have an engine delivering 600 bhp at the crankshaft and at the same time using the MGU-H as a "wastegate" (amp88 already said that earlier I believe).
That could generate let's say 45 hp going from the MGU-H to the MGU-K to the wheels without ever touching the battery. To me it's a very important feature and I believe that's included in the 40% target "motor" efficiency the engineer is talking about.

But when you try to calculate peak HP from there you cannot do 600 + 45 + 160. It is still 160 bhp max from the MGU-K no matter if it comes from the battery or the MGU-H. You have to do 600 + 45 + (160 - 45)

So,
Pure engine efficiency target : ±35 %
Engine + MGU-H efficiency target : 40%

Considering that, re-run the calculation even with 46 MJ/kg fuel and you're still stuck at 760 bhp peak everything included

Exactly.

Those are the numbers that make sense. Trying to reach 40% = trying to reach slightly above 800bhp in Q. 850 is still fantasy for now.

Interviewer makes 25 years comparison from an engine that would last 4 laps. Different boost, different rpm, different fuel flow : highly solid valuable data because the engineer responds : "Sure you can see it like that if you want".

He probably smiled while he answered that and thought : "whatever dude go sell your magazines with that."

I'll give what the proper engineering answer should have been : Well you are comparing two very diffrent situations, on one side our engines will have to last more than a handful of laps and you will find the race engines of that time had way less power. However, we had many advancements in technology which will surely help us while we try to get to those numbers.

As long you are stuck with the whatever dude answer I see why we can't agree

Quote from amp88 :

I'm trying to explain where the improved fuel efficiency and where the greater peak power output come from.

BTW, you do realise that the Mercedes 700 horsepower peak output is at around 10,500rpm, don't you (as opposed to the ~12,500rpm of the RA-168E). What do your calculations say about 3.5 bar of boost @ 10,500rpm compared to 2.5 bar @ 12,500rpm with respect to peak power output and instantaneous fuel flow rate?

Yes. Peak at 10500 then very flat until 15000. The different boost and rpm have very little impact on efficiency since they are both operating at peak power.

It is amazing how easily you have accepted the 700 bhp figure coming from the interviewer's qualification engine compared to how you keep throwing crap at me.

How about you look at the first question in the same interview where the answer is : We are trying to reach a thermal efficiency of 40%(coming from the 30% of V8 engines).

That matches what Renault said : 30 to 35 % more efficient from 2013 (including ERS)

30% + (30%of30) = 40% !! He is saying they are trying to reach 40% total efficiency over a lap (including ERS)

The problem is even a fuel only efficiency of 40% wouldn't give 700bhp. It would be 675 without ERS.

A 35-36% fuel only efficiency bumped to 40% by the ERS makes sense. That is 607 bhp without ERS

We should really go in PM if we keep discussing. This is boring stuff for almost everyone.

Quote from amp88 :

Incidentally, here is another interesting piece of information. It comes from the start of the 2011 season, so I'm not suggesting it's directly related to exhaust blowing fuel usage in 2012 or 2013.



That is to say that at that time the Renault-powered teams were burning 10% more fuel just to blow the diffuser and produce more downforce.

That is interesting and would seem to hurt my "unsound" calculations at first sight.

BUT, it is widely accepted that the Renault engine was down on power vs his rivals at that time. How much down and how much of that "less hp" played part in that 10% better economy ?

It's easy to burn less fuel when you produce less hp. Doesn't mean your fuel efficiency is better than anyone. At all.

• 2014 max boost levels are likely to be higher than 2.5 bar (Renault suggests 3.5 bar as a maximum)
  

Once you're in boost territory, those kind of gaps have very little impact on fuel efficiency

• Aerodynamic changes in the last ~25 years mean you can't assume the overall drag and drag/lift ratios of the 1988 and 2014 cars will be close enough to be comparable. Obviously the drag level plays a large role in fuel consumption.
  

Eh. No. The engine has NO idea it's even in a car. The drag level has zero impact on the peak power output of an engine. Irrelevant

• Cylinder deactivation/cut was not employed in the 1988 Honda engine (AFAIK). In 2014 cylinder cut will be used even more aggressively than it has been in previous years, due to the reduced requirement for exhaust blowing.
  

Those things never happen at full load. Never happen at peak power. Irrelevant.

• The 2014 engines use direct fuel injection (fuel efficiency improvement).
  

Yes. major improvement. 40%? Not so sure. I can look more into it

• The 2014 power units will use the MGU-H to spool the turbo, reducing the need to waste fuel spooling it as was done with the twin Honda turbos.
  

At peak power you are not "wasting fuel to spool the turbo". You are at peak power the turbine is spinning well enough already

• You have assumed that fuel flow rate has a perfectly linear relationship with maximum output power ("611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp")
  

You don't get the equation. I was reporting the 129 kg/hr at peak power from 1988 to the 100 kg/hr of 2014. No linearity involved here.

• Rather than having a wastegate as a means of dumping excess boost pressure this will be recovered by power unit.
  

zero impact on peak power output. Irrelevant

• We don't know enough about the properties of the tyres (e.g. rolling resistance) to compare them like for like.
  

Tyres really ? zero impact on peak power. Irrelevant.

• There have, of course, been improvements in manufacturing (better precision in engine parts, better tolerances), lubricants and fuel in the last 25+ years.
  

Yes. Fuel probably has a bit more energy per kg. Better lubricants, better parts less friction and all, yes. 40%? Not so sure.


You took a bunch of things that will affect fuel consumption over a race and tried to break apart my peak power comparison. None of these things affect the peak power output of an engine. Two of your bullets make sense, the rest makes me think you have no idea what I'm trying to show here

I think I get why you don't see my point...you think that when you hear 100 kg/hr max it means 100 kgs of fuel max during an hour of racing ?

It's not. It's the maximum fuel flow that can go in the engine at any given moment. kg/hr is just the unit. Could be kg/seconds kg/milliseconds if you like.

Peak power of the 2014 engines IS limited by constantly monitored fuel flow. Not fuel flow over a race. Instant fuel flow.

"Racing" power of the engines will then be also limited(not physically limited but by management) by 100L max fuel tank and that's a completely different thing.

Most of the bullets in your last post are irrelevant considering that all I've been trying to show is that no one is pulling 850bhp peak at the moment.

Quote from Mustafur :

Considering the turbos were using significantly more fuel than the N/As of the era 40% sounds about right if not more.

Considering these engines are 30% more efficient then the V8s which give or take at the worst would be around the same figure as those at that period.

When the engineers are saying that the 2014 engines are 30%-35% more efficient than the V8s they are talking over a full lap with both ERS included in the calculation. With that the 30-35% makes sense.

I'm talking pure burning fuel efficiency.

In order for a 2014 engine to output 700 bhp, it needs to be 40% better at extracting power from a certain amount of fuel than a 1988 engine was able to do.

If you want to compare 1988 N/A vs 2013 N/A you will not find a 40% increase in fuel burning efficiency. Most of the increase in power in the last 30 years came from unlocking revs which enables you to pump more fuel in, not burn it "better".

Edit : btw my calculation is the same as what the interviewer did to get 700 bhp and everyone accepted that as "proof" for 700 bhp. I just used more credible number from two years later on an engine that was lasting more than 6 laps. Quite different results...

Last edited by PhilS13, Mon 24 Feb 2014, 11:44.

Quote from amp88 :

Close to the top speeds in the first Bahrain test of the season as at Monza in qualifying last year. Obviously this alone doesn't prove that in 2014 the engines will definitely be producing more power than last year (during most of the full-throttle running of the race), but I see it as a positive sign.

Apart from nay-saying, can you provide any sources or evidence to support your belief?

Oh hell yeah the power they are producing is amazing and it's good news...but spreading that 850 bhp has been acheived is bad info. I think so far I've done ok debunking that with only basic common sense nay-saying but I can work out some numbers.

http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Egs_69_70_71_Honda.pdf

1988 honda limited at 2.5 bar race trim

611 bhp @ 12500 rpm
Specific fuel consumption at peak power : 0.467 lb/(BHP*hr) -> 129 kg/hr

Bring that to 2014 at 100 kg/hr considering the fuel efficiency is the same

611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp

-Engines have to last multiple races vs one in 1988
+Better technology

Does the improvement in technology in the last 30 years in an F1 internal combustion engine warrant an increase from 473 bhp peak to 700 bhp peak. (+40%)

You think what you want. I think the impressive speed is coming first from the wide flat powerband and the use of KERS for most of the straight instead of only the first 2 seconds. Not from 850 bhp peak.

Quote from amp88 :

Source

This is THE ultimate source of that bullshit, the rest is just poor journalism repeated over and over until it is made the truth.

http://www.auto-motor-und-spor ... -wie-frueher-8032979.html

Question from Automotorundsport

Let us dare to following calculation: 30 years ago there were from 1.5 liters in five bar and 200 kg of fuel per hour peak performance of up to 1,400 hp. As would at half as much gasoline per hour without the contribution of the electric motor 700 hp but be in it?

Answer from Mercedes dude:

Cowell: Correct. So you can expect.

There you go. If you accept that sort of question and answer as a proof that they have 700 bhp without ERS. I can't help you.

Shady numbers(of a kleenex Q engine btw) divided by 2 = more shady numbers. Not the truth, sorry.


Edit : you already had the original...I really can't help you.

Last edited by PhilS13, Mon 24 Feb 2014, 01:57.

Ludicrous all you want, his numbers are about right.

BTW Go and check last year's pole, 312 kph top speed. The car was on the revlimiter for a full 2 seconds and don't worry it was still massively accelerating when it got there. That's where you got your 850 bph from ? Start over.

Quote from Mustafur :

FIA really under estimated the power of whats possible from the turbo engines combined with ERS, considering the extra weight they are definetly pulling more power then with the V8s, 800-850hp is around whats happening now.

No.

Around 600 hp peak + the ERS(160hp). What is happening is instead of having a pointy air restricted V8 power peak, you have a maybe 3500-4000 rpm wide flat fuel flow restricted boosted V6 power peak.

From 10500 to 15000 rpm the fuel flow limit is the same. You have peak boost at 10 500 rpm and then the boost HAS to go down with increasing rpms.

You can have that fuel limited maximum power over a wide range of rpm and that makes the car incredibly quick but that is in Q trim...the word at the moment is they will have to manage fuel to get to the end of a race.

Last edited by PhilS13, Sun 23 Feb 2014, 22:49.

Soooo Lotus clearly wins the rule interpretation contest so far.

I'm probably not the only one who has to explain the penises to coworkers & friends. Any tips ? When I try to do that the nicest conclusion I can come up with is that the ones who wrote the rule are dumb as shit compared to the ones drawing the cars.

How could they not see this coming? Especially after the stepped nose crap we had the last two years.

Quote from PMD9409 :

NASCAR. Ruined it all

They should do a 24H qualification race and then a 6 lap sprint for the watches. GREEN-WHITE-CHECKERED of course if needed.

Except, in real life, a paint color separation doesn't magically create a radius on the surface beneath.

If you don't see it, what I mean is the photoshop is wrong and makes it look a lot better than it would.

Is it likely that the only difference between LFS and AC physics is down to the tires?

Aren't the forces at the wheel hub are relatively easy to calculate for a programmer who wants that have that part properly done? A infinitely rigid body, infinitely rigid suspensions links with known geometry and mass at each corner, CG position, dampers and springs...it's a lot of work maybe but it's quite basic mathematics otherwise. Chassis or suspension flex is another game but I don't think we're there yet in both sims. I would bet any serious sim will get the same numbers at the wheel hub.

But then you have the tires and...oh boy... that's a completely different world. I have a headache just thinking about how messed up that world is. Now you can get completely different results.

Of course aero is heavily simplified and will always be IMO but that's ok. It's not supposed to change how an E30 feels.

Quote from sinbad :

Does nobody else find that stepped drop off of aligning forces if you turn the wheel two degrees past optimum front end grip just weird feeling? To me it feels like you're suddenly on a low grip surface, it's too much.

I think they've turned that effect up with this version.

Which car ? M1 has a huge drop off for no apparent reason but in the other cars I've tried it only feels a just a tiny bit too much, nothing dramatic.

any word from RSR that they'll reset the rankings? Formula Abarth ranking is pretty much useless now with all the drag added