Jenson Button has added one to his tally of Formula One victories after dominating the Turkish Grand Prix. As soon as he got into the lead in lap one, there was nobody who could really do anything about him. Red Bull's Mark Webber finished second while Sebastian Vettel is third.
senna-toleman wrote:A quote from Ross Brawn about the relative strengths of the car...
...Brawn is not presuming a sixth victory in Turkey on 7 June. "Turkey is a very aerodynamic circuit," he said. "If you look at the balance of the car's strengths, [it's good on] low speed and medium speed corners, it has a very good chassis performance, the aerodynamics are strong and they are getting stronger. The area of high-speed performance is where we know we are not quite as good as Red Bull. We've got some idea of how to fix that and hope to have it in place by Turkey."
Why would the Brawn suffer in comparison to the Red Bull in high speed corners when it is so good in the medium speed stuff? The DDD increases available downforce, wouldn't it be more effective as the speed of the corner increases?
ISLAMATRON wrote:Is turn 11 flat? thats the one they call faux rouge right?
edit:watched the vid, I guess it is flat out.
Think youre right, its flat out at arround 160mph, its downhill on the entry, going up hill on the exit whitch catches cars out with bottoming out as they are running so low to the ground here. Same problem goes for Turn 8 as well as its actually 4 smaller corners that make a full corner that goes up and down all the time. Last year there was alot of underside plank that was left at both corners.
Some pics to proove that ride hight is really important;
Trun 8:
Turn 11:
I think Ross Brawn is trying to pull a fast one here as i think that Istanbul Park is really quite a demanding mechanical setup track than aero.
And some saftey car action may be used, as Turn 1 always has some problems at it:
Being a Webber fan im optimistic that the rb5 will go well and i expect a podium for one or both of our guys, im hoping Mark...but studying the track and playing it on the PS3 there are enough slow sections that you cant ignore the fact that the Brawn will still be the fastest car out there.
I would assume that you begin to get aero effect/dowforce/performance above 100kph, anything below that your aero set up has little effect on. So basically you would expect the Brawns to get around these below 100 kph corners faster than RBR, but when you come to the fast corners you would think th rb5 would have the edge...and in turn the mid speed ones should be similar.
Very simplistic but humour me:
T1 Should be even here 141kph so should be ok for both cars but will be affected by T14..so Brawn then.
T2 RB5 232kph
T3 RB5
T4 Brawn 99kph
T5 RBR
T6 RBR
T7 Pretty even 140 odd kph
T8 RBR very fast and long..but tyre wear will be the issue here, esp if BRawn manage theirs better.
T9 Even
T10 Even
T11 RBR but hard to gain time here so even
T12 Brawn
T13 Brawn
T14 Brawn
Now that is massivley simplistic and does not take into account has the corners will effect the subseqent straight, as well as tyre wear etc... but does give some insight.
So looking at that its about 5 corners to favour RBR and 5 to favour brawn wiht 4 that will be either way.
Ther are then two further points to come from that, where do you gain more time, in the slow corners or in the quick ones? ie is it a greater advantage to be beter in the fast corners or better in the slow ones?
And then looking historically at what type of car has done well here, Ferrari. Over the past several years Ferrari have been better aerodynamically than Macca (or in the faster tracks) and Macca have been better in the slower stuff. So basically a similar equation with RBR and Brawn.
So weighing all those things up i would have to say the rb5 'may' have the edge but its going to be tough. I dont think Ferrari will be as quick here as in Monaco, when rbr were probably a little faster than them, it should be more of a similar pace to Spain where teh rb5 clearley was faster than Ferrari but they had KERS/Track position.
The key will be quali, whever puts 2 car between them and the ferarri will win thet race. Whilst passing is possible here it will be hard for ferrari to make spots as they ahve to carry the KERS through turn 8 in order to use it down at 11, and the higher CoG should make it harder to stay close to RBR through there, but in turn if we are behind them they can still use it defensivley...unless we can somehow get the pass done in T9...(pretty impossible)
ringo wrote:I hope Mclaren brings their A game, i dont want to see another Barcelona. This track seems to suited for cars with good aero, similar to Barca with its high G corners. I really hope they get some downforce.
Sorry, they can bring their A game and A team and best mate's A granny - they will still suffer. As I recall, it is a circuit with long fast corners and so far they have suffered on those circuits. Expect another Barcelona performance.
From what I hear and what the Press releases said here is some of what we can expect from the cars in turkey.
Brawn
Ross said “A new front wing”, which I hear is expected to dispense with the strakes on the nose cone and Ross also mentioned “new rear suspension elements”. BTW Brawn have been running Sachs rotary dampers, These have been tried and dropped By Ferrari and Spyker in the past, as they haven’t provided enough damping control in low speed turns. But Brawn Monaco proved they have got good low speed pace out of them.
Ferrari
Dominicali said they “have a small step with the car”, I think this might not even be a visual change. After the strategic and driver problems in Spain clouded their true fast track pace, we should see if they have found their pace this weekend.
McLaren
Whitmarsh said “Minor upgrades” Everyone agrees the Mac should be as terrible around Turkey as it was in Spain, let’s see if that proves right. Race competitiveness should be better than qualifying.
BMW
Rampf said they will have the “double diffuser”, as we saw in Spain they have already modified the rear end to accommodate it. There’s been no mention of a return to KERS. Plus Rampf added “modifications to the front wings, side bargeboards, rim shields and the rear part of the engine cover”. This update needs to finish off the near B-spec of the Spanish update, to provide the team with the same boost Ferraris Spanish step.
Renault
Symonds said ”Front wing changes and suspension changes”. These suspension changes will not the geometry but the way the car is set up. After their boost in China and Spain, might see a strong performance in turkey, but they still seem a little lost this year.
Toyota
No mention of any updates, but Howett admitted they struggle with traction and straight-line tests have helped them. This won’t be good for the last sequence of turns ahead of the start\finish straight in Turkey.
Red Bull Tech
Essentially be in the same specification as in Monaco, with a few minor aero updates. The cars propensity to wear its tyres out, might hinder their race pace. Much Like McLaren in recent years the front weight bias might overstress the fronts too.
Williams
No mention of any updates. Head mentioned the 35Kg electric\flywheel KERS being the size of a toilet roll! If the Flybrid flywheel-only solution come in at less than 25Kg with 5Kg of that being the flywheel it makes you wonder what Williams are making it out of!
Force India
Mallya said “new front wheel spinners and a small modification for the rear suspension, plus the rear wing we ran in Monaco will also undergo some slight changes to suit the downforce level in Istanbul” with the big update due for Silverstone.
scarbs wrote:Williams
No mention of any updates. Head mentioned the 35Kg electric\flywheel KERS being the size of a toilet roll! If the Flybrid flywheel-only solution come in at less than 25Kg with 5Kg of that being the flywheel it makes you wonder what Williams are making it out of!
Reading something about Williams flywheel KERS system recently, I think he meant the entire system(Flywheel, MGU & control unit) weighed in at around 35 -40 kg with just the MGU being around the size of a toilet roll. The flywheel was obviously bigger than a toilet roll in the pic that accompanied the article.
I also meant the total system weight of 35Kg, the whole Flybrid (controller and flywheel) or McLaren KERs (MGU, controller and battery) weigh just 25Kg.
I understand the Williams system is a flywheel\electric. Thus it has two MGUs and one flywheel, one MGU on the engine and one on the flywheel (totalling three toilet rolls?). With the whole system being mounted in the fuel tank area (Sam Michael confirmed this to me) the complexity of the system is of no benefit to packaging compared a straight flywheel or chemical battery.
I think only 1 MGU on the engine and then they impregnated iron? i think into the flywheel so that it acts as its own MGU without the need for an external one. I believe he also mentioned an inverter, analogous to what the other teams have been calling a control unit.
Flywheel technology by Williams Hybrid power
WHP has taken the electrically powered integral motor - effectively a flywheel with integrated motor - design and radically improved its performance characteristics by incorporating Magnetically Loaded Composite (MLC) technology. The MLC technology was developed in the nuclear industry by Urenco and has been licensed by WHP.
In WHP’s Magnetically Loaded Composite Flywheel Energy Storage System (MLCFESS), the permanent magnets of the integral motor are incorporated into the composite structure of the flywheel itself. In the event of a burst failure, the containment has to withstand only the crushing force of the composite material, which is less than the load of discrete metallic fragments. The reduced containment requirements minimize the overall weight of the system. The magnetic particles in the composite are magnetised after the rotor is manufactured which means that it can be magnetised as a Halbach Array; avoiding the need for backing iron to direct the flux.
As the magnets in an MLC system are comprised of tiny magnetic particles and there is no additional metal in the structure, the eddy current losses of the machine are significantly reduced. This can result in one-way efficiencies of up to 99%. The ultra-high efficiency means thermal management of the system is easier and it can be continuously cycled with no detriment to performance or reduction in life.
Its final version for Formula One will have a high specific power of more than 5kW/kg which is possible by spinning the wheel to more than 50000rpm. Even more so, because the system is fully contained and doesn't require an external motor, it is probably the most compact F1 KERS solution and proves suitable for volume production to other appliances.
My understanding is that Islamatron is right. A second MGU would not make sense if they succeeded in fitting this feature to the flywheel.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
I believe the BGP rear suspension is an update to the lack of droop they had in China where it was exaggerated in high speed corners. Ross said it was due to the last minute engine change to Mercedes which raised their gearbox mounting slightly.
Last edited by sticky667 on 03 Jun 2009, 23:28, edited 1 time in total.
ringo wrote:What's the strategy for the KERS cars?
Dump most of the KERS out of 10, I'd think. Seems the most logical place as it'd get them to top speed faster between corners 10 & 12.
In terms of other strategy. Identical to almost everyone else I can't see them doing anything differently in terms of pits or tyres.
"It could be done manually. It would take quite a while, but it could be done. There is however a much more efficient and accurate way of getting the data. Men with lasers." Wing Commander Andy Green
I can't see them doing anything differently in terms of pits or tyres.