A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
This idea of underfuelling cars sounds very strange.
The teams will use software to optimize their race pace, and, while I can't calculate right now what the numbers will be, I would have thought that the optimum strategy will be to give it 100% for the full race distance.
You could save a bit of fuel by easing off in the last few laps, but intuitively the easing off would increase your total race time more than would the extra fuel capacity. After all, it takes many laps of serious economy driving just to save one lap's worth of fuel. But carrying that extra lap's worth will only add a fraction of a second to your laptime.
Lots of talk about how to decide the amount of fuel to put in he car at the start of the race. Maybe reality will be not so predictable.
No doubt some teams will gamble and go a few kilos light but others will assume 100% for the entire distance. My point is that if a team does this and there is a safety car for ....say 5 laps...then you will want to change the engine mapping TO BURN OFF the extra fuel you just saved. The objective is to finish with an empty tank, as light and as fast as you can. The initial thought is teams will be trying to save fuel but there will likely be just as many trying to burn it off. All depends on strategy and circumstances.
I saw Mark Donahue at St. Jovite in a Camero. He won the race, did the cool down lap and they had to push the car to tech inspection because it ran out of gas. That's careful planning.
Personal motto... "Were it not for the bad.... I would have no luck at all."
Ian P. wrote:
I saw Mark Donahue at St. Jovite in a Camero. He won the race, did the cool down lap and they had to push the car to tech inspection because it ran out of gas. That's careful planning.
In the olde days before refuelling, we'd see one or two cars each season run out of fuel on the last laps, or on the return to the pit lane.
On one hand we are more likely to see that now that the safety net of refuelling has been removed. On the other hand, better sensors, telemetry and computers means that it is less of a gamble and unlikely to happen .... unless there is human error.
What would really mix things up would be to restrict the telemetry to remove the precision form some of the numbers . That would remove the control freak element in the pit lane. Drivers would be more on their own out on the track.... hence more variability.
My 2010 predicitions:
- the DDDs will be huge, to make them larger I think they have to put forward the rear suspenison mounting points (to make use of the loophole I think). This means either a longer gearbox to mount them on or they mount them on the engine or chassis.
I think the long term survival of the new teams comes down to 2010 engine strategy.
I respect Cosworth's tradition and ability but they can't compete with manufacturer money. The 2010 Cosworth will be significantly under-powered and over-thirsty. Any Cosworth cars will be in their own class at the back of the field.
What is the survival strategy of the new teams? It comes down to achieving the best performance during 2010 in order to attract sponsors and investors for 2011.
The 2010 strategy choices are--
---> 1. Show you can compete with the big dogs (the existing teams), or
---> 2. Be the best of the new teams.
Strategy 1 requires that you pay Cosworth the full ~5 million Euros owed from the engine contract that the FIA made you sign. Then you do whatever it takes to find ~5 million Euros from somewhere else in your budget and use it to buy a manufacturer engine supply. This will result in your team being clearly faster than the Cosworth teams, but the risk is that you will look unimpresive anyway due to being too far off the pace of the current teams with manufacturer engines.
Strategy 2 is that you actually use the Cosworth lump and try to decisively beat the other Cosworth powered new teams. If you consistently finish ahead of the two teams that are also using the Cosworth then it's clearly impressive and bodes well for 2011 when you will have a manufacturer engine. The risk here is that one or both of the other new teams doesn't show up with a Cosworth due to them getting a manufacturer engine or simply not making it to the grid at all. It's less impresive to beat one other Cosworth team, and the worst case scenario for the Cosworth strategy is that you are the only Cosworth team and end up turning laps by yourself at the back of every race.
What would you do with a 2010 entry, a ~30 million Euro budget for 2010, and essentially no funding or commitment for 2011?
I would have to disagree... the 2010 Cosworth can be worked on up until the first race, massaging it for drivability and fuel milage... the other manufacturers are stuck with what they have essentially since the beginning of 2008 with only the 2009 tuning for 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. See how much the small changes Renault was allowed has allowed RBR to be competitive?
I have every confidence that the power(and driveability) of the Cossie's will be on par and their fuel milage will be better than the current 4 engine manfacterers scheduled to race in 2010
ISLAMATRON wrote:I would have to disagree... the 2010 Cosworth can be worked on up until the first race, massaging it for drivability and fuel milage... the other manufacturers are stuck with what they have essentially since the beginning of 2008 with only the 2009 tuning for 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. See how much the small changes Renault was allowed has allowed RBR to be competitive?
I have every confidence that the power(and driveability) of the Cossie's will be on par and their fuel milage will be better than the current 4 engine manfacterers scheduled to race in 2010
nope, the coswroth engines will be same as yr 2006...no work can be done on it
it was homologised back then, maybe a few FIA allowed tuning
and Renault was allowed a special change to their engine ,not just 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. Honda was also allowed to do this
ISLAMATRON wrote:I would have to disagree... the 2010 Cosworth can be worked on up until the first race, massaging it for drivability and fuel milage... the other manufacturers are stuck with what they have essentially since the beginning of 2008 with only the 2009 tuning for 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. See how much the small changes Renault was allowed has allowed RBR to be competitive?
I have every confidence that the power(and driveability) of the Cossie's will be on par and their fuel milage will be better than the current 4 engine manfacterers scheduled to race in 2010
nope, the coswroth engines will be same as yr 2006...no work can be done on it
it was homologised back then, maybe a few FIA allowed tuning
and Renault was allowed a special change to their engine ,not just 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. Honda was also allowed to do this
Work is allowed on the engine. They've dropped the revs and are working on reliability. Also on tuning the engine to 18k revs
"Our position is that we are completely happy with this concept of reducing the revs to 18,000rpm but we only have a finite amount of time before we have to deliver engines," explained Routsis.
"There is not enough time for us to do a re-tune and extend the life of the engines. So we need to stay with the agreed number of eight engines."
"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
ISLAMATRON wrote:I would have to disagree... the 2010 Cosworth can be worked on up until the first race, massaging it for drivability and fuel milage... the other manufacturers are stuck with what they have essentially since the beginning of 2008 with only the 2009 tuning for 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. See how much the small changes Renault was allowed has allowed RBR to be competitive?
I have every confidence that the power(and driveability) of the Cossie's will be on par and their fuel milage will be better than the current 4 engine manfacterers scheduled to race in 2010
nope, the coswroth engines will be same as yr 2006...no work can be done on it
it was homologised back then, maybe a few FIA allowed tuning
and Renault was allowed a special change to their engine ,not just 18K rpm(only fuel injectors & intake runners) changes. Honda was also allowed to do this
You are wrong, again, it is a whole new homologation, called the CA2010, no need to change the block but they can change whatever internals they wish. Yes I know know about the Renault changes, and referred to them in my post, and if those minor changes made it good enough for the RBR to win races just imagine what can be done with the CA2010 which will be focused for the 2010 regs unlike any of the other manufacturer lumps.
My point is that the 4 manufacterers have already had their engine homologated where as the Cossie isnt until it runs its first races in 2010. Long ime for improvement, especially in F1.
The FIA either executed the freeze very badly or never intended it to be a functional freeze.
The original restriction was that teams couldn't do development for power increases but they could do development for reliability and cost savings. Teams made many requests for FIA approval to do engine modification on the basis of reliability and cost, and the FIA approved most of these. Surprise!!, all the cost and reliability improvements also happened to increase power.
At the beginning of this freeze era the Renault engine was considered the best or almost the best for power. Then they did little or no development during the freeze, and after two years (by early 2008) it was clear the Renault was well short on power. Then the FIA gave them permission, with no apparent rule justification, to "catch their engine up" to the others. This was partly responsible for Renault's big improvement in form during the second half of 2008, and it was also partly responsible for why Red Bull was slower than Toro Rosa in 2008, but faster in 2009. Honda was also given a magic "catch up" dispensation last winter but we never got to see the results, Brawn simply switched to the Mercedes engine which was already caught-up.
The other giant loophole was that engines could be "retuned" or "re-optimized" for the lower rev limits in 2008 (19K rpm) and 2009 (18K rpm). This resulted in completely new spec engines.
Cosworth is now being given catch-up permission but they're limited by money. All V-8 engines started out highly optimized, so further improvements only occur through massive funding of development. Cosworth can only fund development out of their total income from leasing engines to 3 teams for ~ 5 million Euros per year per team. If total income is 15 million Euros per year then how much is available for development? In the meantime the manufacturers have each been spending around $100 million per year on engine programs, most of that being spent on new development projects as opposed to the cost of making race engines. The Cosworth economics are not even close.
The Cosworth was quite competitive when it first came out (2006?), but it's had no development money, it has to be cut back to 18K rpm, and Cosworth has to figure out how to greatly increase engine life to comply with the current 8-engines-per-season rule. Patrick Head also made a recent public comment that the Cosworth teams will have to start every race with ~ 15 kgs more fuel due to worse fuel consumption.
I genuinely respect and admire Cosworth, but their F1 lump for 2010 is going to be a competitive turd. In 2010 there will be no possibility of a good Cosworth team being as quick as a bad team with a manufacturer engine.
Ironically, I really hope all three new teams make it to the grid with Cosworths because then we will have an interesting sub-class. In 1988 I remember a very interesting sub-class between the naturally aspirated engines. These teams never ran up front with the turbo engines, but they really had a good quality competition going amongst themselves. At the end of the year the winner of this non-turbo class was given an award called (I think) the Jim Clark award. A similar recognition should be given to the winner of the 2010 Cosworth sub-class, but F1 takes itself too seriously nowadays to recognize any achievement from the back of the pack.
Also, since Zytek has announced that it supplies the McLaren KERS system, will anyone else get it from Zytek in 2010? One of the new teams that is not restricted by the silly FOTA "ban" on KERS, or perhaps one of the current non-FOTA teams?
Given the 2010 increase in minimum weight and the tire change to make them more friendly to rear weight bias, I would think the Zytek system would be an easy laptime reducer.
There are always political issues of course. If any non-FOTA team gets engines or transmissions from a FOTA team then they will probably have to "agree" to a KERS ban as well. I'm all about respecting private contracts, but I'm not comfortable with one sporting entity dictating to another how they are allowed to compete.
bill shoe wrote:
Cosworth is now being given catch-up permission but they're limited by money. All V-8 engines started out highly optimized, so further improvements only occur through massive funding of development. Cosworth can only fund development out of their total income from leasing engines to 3 teams for ~ 5 million Euros per year per team. If total income is 15 million Euros per year then how much is available for development? In the meantime the manufacturers have each been spending around $100 million per year on engine programs, most of that being spent on new development projects as opposed to the cost of making race engines. The Cosworth economics are not even close.
True, there isnt enough money to do good development
Patrick Head also made a recent public comment that the Cosworth teams will have to start every race with ~ 15 kgs more fuel due to worse fuel consumption.
im sure Head dont know the future, that it was the casue in 2006 doenst mean it will be in 2010, cosworth has all the time to make the engine more reliable and more fuel efficient, wich other temas cant, so they have a significant gain here, if they do it right and one of the teams make a really good chassis you cna see it at the top, as thy have a huge gain due to a lighter car.
I genuinely respect and admire Cosworth, but their F1 lump for 2010 is going to be a competitive turd. In 2010 there will be no possibility of a good Cosworth team being as quick as a bad team with a manufacturer engine.
Im not so sure about that, they have all the time to make gains to the 2010 rules, i believe the mcoswort wasnt actually good on packaging, the williams sidepods were pretty big, so they can make gains here, the engine was already pretty reliable.
Ironically, I really hope all three new teams make it to the grid with Cosworths because then we will have an interesting sub-class. In 1988 I remember a very interesting sub-class between the naturally aspirated engines. These teams never ran up front with the turbo engines, but they really had a good quality competition going amongst themselves. At the end of the year the winner of this non-turbo class was given an award called (I think) the Jim Clark award. A similar recognition should be given to the winner of the 2010 Cosworth sub-class, but F1 takes itself too seriously nowadays to recognize any achievement from the back of the pack.
bill shoe wrote:The Cosworth was quite competitive when it first came out (2006?), but it's had no development money, it has to be cut back to 18K rpm, and Cosworth has to figure out how to greatly increase engine life to comply with the current 8-engines-per-season rule. Patrick Head also made a recent public comment that the Cosworth teams will have to start every race with ~ 15 kgs more fuel due to worse fuel consumption
It's worth noting that the 15kg of race fuel would've been from running at 20k rpm not at 18k rpm. That's where the "worse fuel consumption" is. So fuel consumption is more on-par with what the other engines are at now. Cosworth also suggest that the re-tuning thay they can do will make the engine competitive. At least in dyno tests, As stated in my previous comment with the link to the statement from Cosworth.
"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
OK, it does make sense that the 15 kgs figure was at the previous 20K rpm. Thanks for pointing that out. I still think Cossie doesn't have a chance, and I'll root for them anyway. Maybe being a Cosworth fan in 2010 will have a trendy contrarian image similar to being a Minardi fan a few years ago.
I would love to know what the tank capacity for the 3 Cosworth teams is, and for that matter how much do they actually fill them at the start of each race. If refueling is banned then this would not be giving away any race tactics.
