Pirelli 2013

[GitanesBlondes]

I knew you would say that. Why don't you write an letter to Ross Brawn and tell him about his mistakes? I'm sure he will appreciate it. After all Schmidt is only reporting the facts and I have just copied and translated the main bits.

Could there be an outside chance that the torque curve of the new engines will actually make a difference to the way the lower gears transmit power to the wheels in comparison with the current cars? So what if they have simply more power in the lower gears than they have now, hence more slip?

The reference to slip is a dead give away that they are concerned with cornering. I don't think the slip under breaking will change so much for the drivers to produce more slip in a straight line. Powering out of corners will be all the difference with a torquier engine. At least that is the story if you listen to drivers who have driven the Audi diesels which also have this characteristic.

I'm afraid xpensive is quite correct with what he has said.

AMuS isn't exactly known for being correct on a great many things.

[WhiteBlue]

I would appreciate it if you could leave the tooth fairy beside and address the points that I have made. The 2013 and 2014 power trains will have different torque curves. There will be roughly the same amount of gears to adapt the gearing over the usable speed and rev ranges. Next year there will be one more gear but you will not have change of ratios between races. The realistic rev range will be similar but lower for the 2013 car. The turbos will have constant torque throughout the rev range. The NA engines have a much more variable torque across the rev range with a peak at 17.000 and lower torque below and above that speed. I'm not speaking about the different amount of peak torque. That would be easy to adapt. I'm talking about the higher torque supply in lower revs due to the flat torque curve.

Edit: I see that you have picked up at least one point. The fuel restriction in lower revs. That may limit how much power is being made in lower revs by higher boosting but it will not stop them having an essentially flat torque curve. The fuel curve is essentially there to force the manufacturers to use more rpm in order to make a more conservative engine noise. Without it we could be seeing engines with 3.5 bar boost running under 9.000 rpm.

[strad]

How do you arrive at a flat torque curve?
No Way...I think they will be peaky as hell and why they need more ratios.

[WhiteBlue]

How do you arrive at a flat torque curve?
No Way...I think they will be peaky as hell and why they need more ratios.

The turbo torque with a waste gate is also flat, it will be no different with the MGU regulating the boost. The top boost will be instantly reached and then it will be flat all the time. The additional gear is for the compensation of the fixed ratios IMO.

[xpensive]

Please refrain from using "torque", that's a concept I think we have difficulties with here, with the constant fuel-flow, the boost will peak at 10500 and then fall off. Consequently the power from 10 500 up to 15 000, or wherever they change gear, will be constant, but up to 10 500, the power will climb dramatically with the rpm as the controlled fuel-flow increases.

Power, and torque if you wish, is all governed by the fuel-flow, ringo made a nice graph of both power and torque earlier.

[WhiteBlue]

Actually the power from the engine alone will also fall from 10.500 rpm upwards as the mechanical friction will increase while the raw engine power remains constant. But that is not the power the gear box has to handle. Potentially you have another 160 horses (120 kW) pushing from the MGU-K. And that will be a big difference at low speed. At high speed it will not make much of a difference if compared to today's engine + KERS.

[GitanesBlondes]

How much of a power loss will there be between 10,500RPM and 15,000RPM?

[xpensive]

How much of a power loss will there be between 10,500RPM and 15,000RPM?

A little difficult to quantify, but as the shear-losses on the oil film goes with the square of the speed, frictional losses should increase between 10 500 and 15 000 Rpm with a factor of almost xactly two, from wherever they were at 10 500.

I'm certain that 10.5 and 15 were not selected at random btw, mechanical engineers are suckers for even numbers.

But this is perhaps the wrong thread.

[lebesset]

hamilton's radio comment to his engineer after he passed the chequered flag at hungary ...what a surprise on these tyres

as he had never used them before , presumably true

[marcush.]

hamilton's radio comment to his engineer after he passed the chequered flag at hungary ...what a surprise on these tyres

as he had never used them before , presumably true

clearly they could not know if Pirellis new product would work for them -as they did not test them - and with reference to the amazement of both Hamilton and Brawn you can only conclude that it was not the expertise and development on ercedes side but the new tyre supplied by Pirelli that turned things around in Hungary.
This tyre was build with input from Mercedes ,Hamilton and Rosberg the surprise is only how well the new rubber suits the W04 ...in consequence it does not fit to all the others as good as Mercedes has as always the "other" car and now thats an advantage for once.

[strad]

I think, and I am allowed that, that the engine will be two stroke peaky..the curve won't be a curve at all but more like a ramp and a steep one at that. Your broad torque curve will be where it flattens off like a tabletop

[xpensive]

hamilton's radio comment to his engineer after he passed the chequered flag at hungary ...what a surprise on these tyres

as he had never used them before , presumably true

clearly they could not know if Pirellis new product would work for them -as they did not test them - and with reference to the amazement of both Hamilton and Brawn you can only conclude that it was not the expertise and development on ercedes side but the new tyre supplied by Pirelli that turned things around in Hungary.
This tyre was build with input from Mercedes ,Hamilton and Rosberg the surprise is only how well the new rubber suits the W04 ...in consequence it does not fit to all the others as good as Mercedes has as always the "other" car and now thats an advantage for once.

A most logical analysis imo, while he interesting part will be to see how long it will take before the other teams catch up?

[lebesset]

hamilton's radio comment to his engineer after he passed the chequered flag at hungary ...what a surprise on these tyres

as he had never used them before , presumably true

clearly they could not know if Pirellis new product would work for them -as they did not test them - and with reference to the amazement of both Hamilton and Brawn you can only conclude that it was not the expertise and development on ercedes side but the new tyre supplied by Pirelli that turned things around in Hungary.
This tyre was build with input from Mercedes ,Hamilton and Rosberg the surprise is only how well the new rubber suits the W04 ...in consequence it does not fit to all the others as good as Mercedes has as always the "other" car and now thats an advantage for once.

A most logical analysis imo, while he interesting part will be to see how long it will take before the other teams catch up?

as the tyres tested at the private mercedes test were the steel belted tyres plus prototype 2014 tyres how can it be said that the tyre used at hungary was designed with input from mercedes ? neither the casing nor the tread compounds used at hungary were used

the tyres used at hungary were , in reality , the casings as used by all the teams in 2012 , the only change was the softer 2013 compounds ...how can it be said that mercedes gave input ?

in any case I am frankly yet to be convinced that mercedes are over their tyre problems , one swallow does not a summer make

[turbof1]

The data will probably be useable for next year. This year is, concerning data, a real mess: bonding process changed, belt changed, then tyres with 2012 structures but with 2013 compounds. Testing was with unmarked tyres; at best they can onmy correlate parts of the tyre back to the current ones, but getting data on the internal interaction seems to be very unlikely. The risk is that if you do that, it's highly probable you get the wrong ideas, set up the car wrong and simply ruin your weekend. Mercedes did the correct thing in Hungary: assume nothing, start from the ground up. They made the best with the limited data they got from friday. It only would have only complicated matters if they tried to throw in barcelona data in it.

Why are people having such a hard time to confess Mercedes made a heroic effort to get on top of a very structural problem? It is so obvious that they are geting on top of it due simply hard work. Ultimately, the test was even in their disadvantage for this year because it denied them a chance to test the current tyres like everybody else does. Rebounding from that, winning in circumstances that are normally horrific for them, that is a big feat.

[SectorOne]

Interesting, Pirelli saying the tires is not the cause for Mercedes win.

"[It's] something they have done," said Hembery.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109211

Not sure i´d agree with that, it seems these tires are less sensitive to thermal deg, which was the Merc´s achilles heel.
But i´m no tire expert so maybe they do have found something. Maybe it´s the rubber strip we all talked about pages ago.