Driver styles/preferences

[mariano]

Does any telemetry exist on Vettel and Hamilton, similar to what we have found with Schumacher?

Can you put this telemetry, please?

Sure,
http://world2talkabout.wordpress.com/20 ... -analysis/

There you have Schumi/Barrichello but the one i talked about was Schumi/Herbert around Silverstone.
(you can find the herbert video in that link)

-

Thank you! Very good article!

[raymondu999]

Do you remember Kimi's 2007 problems?

I don't. Could you remind me?

[gold333]

To all reading the Schumacher telemetry data, a couple of things to remember:

1. Even back in 1991 Schumacher was left foot braking on the 5th and 6th gear corners in S2 in Spa. De Cesaris couldn't figure out what he was doing. Schumacher thought everyone was doing it.

2. The Herbert vs MSC trace is from the B195 which was a very oversteery car (less than B194 but still so) Verstappen said no one but Schumacher could drive those cars. So I don't think MSC particularly liked an oversteer setup.

3. I've heard it said (late nineties early 0's) that MSC (and Mansell), if they had a dripping bucket of paint on their cars, the line would trace the shortest way around the circuit, ergo they are very early turn in drivers, and use their skill in the transition phase to keep from swapping ends.

Ps: the 2 advancing the apex diagrams on p2 of this thread (747heavy) are straight from Senna's own Principles of race driving book. He calls these salvage manouvers that can be used in slow to medium speed corners to be fast.

[gold333]

Jenson Button

"There's going to be a lot of simulator work and running through things that are going to help us put the power down, because I don't think any of us are used to having torque. I've raced in Formula 1 for 14 years and I've never had torque, so it's going to be a new experience.

"

Does anyone have approximate torque values he is talking about? It would be interesting to compare.

I remember that the 3.5L V8-V12 units had variable torque. The lowest torque figure I remember was the last Honda V12 on the 1992 McLaren MP4-7A (RA122E?) it made 297 lb/ft of torque, @11900 but it made 764hp @14400 on normal fuel and 805hp@14400 on the "special" fuels.

But torque wise thats the lowest I came across, the other engines were much higher.

[flmkane]

To all reading the Schumacher telemetry data, a couple of things to remember:

1. Even back in 1991 Schumacher was left foot braking on the 5th and 6th gear corners in S2 in Spa. De Cesaris couldn't figure out what he was doing. Schumacher thought everyone was doing it.

2. The Herbert vs MSC trace is from the B195 which was a very oversteery car (less than B194 but still so) Verstappen said no one but Schumacher could drive those cars. So I don't think MSC particularly liked an oversteer setup.

3. I've heard it said (late nineties early 0's) that MSC (and Mansell), if they had a dripping bucket of paint on their cars, the line would trace the shortest way around the circuit, ergo they are very early turn in drivers, and use their skill in the transition phase to keep from swapping ends.

Ps: the 2 advancing the apex diagrams on p2 of this thread (747heavy) are straight from Senna's own Principles of race driving book. He calls these salvage manouvers that can be used in slow to medium speed corners to be fast.

what's your source for point 1? Not nitpicking, just very curious.

[gold333]

To all reading the Schumacher telemetry data, a couple of things to remember:

1. Even back in 1991 Schumacher was left foot braking on the 5th and 6th gear corners in S2 in Spa. De Cesaris couldn't figure out what he was doing. Schumacher thought everyone was doing it.

2. The Herbert vs MSC trace is from the B195 which was a very oversteery car (less than B194 but still so) Verstappen said no one but Schumacher could drive those cars. So I don't think MSC particularly liked an oversteer setup.

3. I've heard it said (late nineties early 0's) that MSC (and Mansell), if they had a dripping bucket of paint on their cars, the line would trace the shortest way around the circuit, ergo they are very early turn in drivers, and use their skill in the transition phase to keep from swapping ends.

Ps: the 2 advancing the apex diagrams on p2 of this thread (747heavy) are straight from Senna's own Principles of race driving book. He calls these salvage manouvers that can be used in slow to medium speed corners to be fast.

what's your source for point 1? Not nitpicking, just very curious.

Either one of the autosport or motor sport mags I've bought since 1988 or no it was that "Formula One" mag from the late
90's with MSC on the cover I think the headline was "Why is he so fast".

[Holm86]

Jenson Button

"There's going to be a lot of simulator work and running through things that are going to help us put the power down, because I don't think any of us are used to having torque. I've raced in Formula 1 for 14 years and I've never had torque, so it's going to be a new experience.

"

Does anyone have approximate torque values he is talking about? It would be interesting to compare.

I remember that the 3.5L V8-V12 units had variable torque. The lowest torque figure I remember was the last Honda V12 on the 1992 McLaren MP4-7A (RA122E?) it made 297 lb/ft of torque, forgot the rpm, but it made 764hp @14400 on normal fuel and 805hp@14800 on the "special" fuels.

But torque wise thats the lowest I came across, the other engines were much higher.

If the engine has 600 hp at 10.500 rpm torque would be around 410 nm. So the engine torque is much higher than the V8's. But that torque will be offset by gearing because of the lower rpm. Though the torque curve will be much flatter meaning a high amount of torque is avalible at a broader rpm range. That is what will be tricky to manage when going on the throttle out of corners.

[gold333]

Does anyone have approximate torque values he is talking about? It would be interesting to compare.

I remember that the 3.5L V8-V12 units had variable torque. The lowest torque figure I remember was the last Honda V12 on the 1992 McLaren MP4-7A (RA122E?) it made 297 lb/ft of torque, forgot the rpm, but it made 764hp @14400 on normal fuel and 805hp@14800 on the "special" fuels.

But torque wise thats the lowest I came across, the other engines were much higher.

If the engine has 600 hp at 10.500 rpm torque would be around 410 nm. So the engine torque is much higher than the V8's. But that torque will be offset by gearing because of the lower rpm. Though the torque curve will be much flatter meaning a high amount of torque is avalible at a broader rpm range. That is what will be tricky to manage when going on the throttle out of corners.

Now I'm confused. 410 nm is only 302lb/ft. Which is near enough identical to the last Honda V12 to race in F1, which had far less torque than an equivalent V10 or V8 at the time, e.g. Renault RS, Ford Zetec R, HBV8, etc.

By comparison I remember a Honda SAE paper on the 1986 V6 1.5L Turbo listing race hp at 994hp (742kW) @12400rpm and torque close to 700nm @9800rpm.

If in 2014 302lb/ft is considered high torque I wonder what the even lower values were that Jenson is referring to in his years gone by.

[timbo]

Now I'm confused. 410 nm is only 302lb/ft. Which is near enough identical to the last Honda V12 to race in F1, which had far less torque than an equivalent V8 at the time, e.g. Ford Zetec R, HBV8, etc.

By comparison I remember a Honda SAE paper on the 1986 V6 1.5L Turbo listing race hp at 994hp (742kW) @12400rpm and torque close to 700nm @9800rpm.

If in 2014 302lb/ft is considered high torque I wonder what the even lowes values were that Jenson is referring to in his years gone by.

The torque on race engines is almost directly proportional to capacity, and for turbo you can estimate for "effective" capacity adjusted for pressure. So that 700nm per 1.5L per 4bar gives ~117nm/L*bar, and 410nm per 3.5 and 1bar gives same ~117 figure.

[gold333]

Now I'm confused. 410 nm is only 302lb/ft. Which is near enough identical to the last Honda V12 to race in F1, which had far less torque than an equivalent V8 at the time, e.g. Ford Zetec R, HBV8, etc.

By comparison I remember a Honda SAE paper on the 1986 V6 1.5L Turbo listing race hp at 994hp (742kW) @12400rpm and torque close to 700nm @9800rpm.

If in 2014 302lb/ft is considered high torque I wonder what the even lowes values were that Jenson is referring to in his years gone by.

The torque on race engines is almost directly proportional to capacity, and for turbo you can estimate for "effective" capacity adjusted for pressure. So that 700nm per 1.5L per 4bar gives ~117nm/L*bar, and 410nm per 3.5 and 1bar gives same ~117 figure.

Are you sure? I believe Holm86 was referring to the 2014 turbos when he said 410nm and not the old 3.5L units as in your calculation example.

In anycase I find your statement that the torqur on race engines to be directly proportional to capacity to be suspect. In the early 90's when we had V8's, V10's and V12's driving around, all at 3.5L capacity, it was common knowledge that high hp low torque cars like the V12's were more suited to certain tracks (Hockenheim, Monza, Imola) and lower hp higher torque cars Benetton V8 were more suited to tracks like Interlagos, Jerez, etc.

[timbo]

Are you sure? I believe Holm86 was referring to the 2014 turbos when he said 410nm and not the old 3.5L units as in your calculation example.

In anycase I find your statement that the torqur on race engines to be directly proportional to capacity to be suspect. In the early 90's when we had V8's, V10's and V12's driving around, all at 3.5L capacity, it was common knowledge that high hp low torque cars like the V12's were more suited to certain tracks (Hockenheim, Monza, Imola) and lower hp higher torque cars Benetton V8 were more suited to tracks like Interlagos, Jerez, etc.

Of course it's not a law but rather a tendency. Surely, different engine configurations have different characteristics, but anyway, when comparing 3.5L engines to 3.0L to 2.4L we had over time setteled to similar power figures (2.4 never reached 3.0 of course, but maybe without freeze they'd get closer and they are definitely on par with earliest 3.0s), but the torque figures never progressed as much and all the power came from revs.

[mariano]

Do you remember Kimi's 2007 problems?

I don't. Could you remind me?

The traction control was very aggressive for Kimi (remember that the Ferrari steering wheel was very complex, developed by Michael Schumacher; McLaren´s one was surprisingly simple) and his car didn´t reacted as quickly as he would liked. With the help of his engineer, Chris Dyer, he stiffed the front springs and put less traction control from the US GP onwards.

From: the return of the real Kimi, by Peter Windsor, for F1 Racing October 2007.

[mariano]

Do you remember Kimi's 2007 problems?

I don't. Could you remind me?

In 2007, until USA GP, Kimi Raikkonen struggled with traction control and secondary steering input (anyone knows what´s that?). In 2005 and 2006, Montoya had understeer because he brakes almost in a straight line and turns in a very sharp line.

[mariano]

Schumi liked a "slippery" rear end and turned in a bit late with oversteer. Is like Hamilton´s.

[Kansas]

Do you remember Kimi's 2007 problems?

I don't. Could you remind me?

The traction control was very aggressive for Kimi (remember that the Ferrari steering wheel was very complex, developed by Michael Schumacher; McLaren´s one was surprisingly simple) and his car didn´t reacted as quickly as he would liked. With the help of his engineer, Chris Dyer, he stiffed the front springs and put less traction control from the US GP onwards.

From: the return of the real Kimi, by Peter Windsor, for F1 Racing October 2007.

the traction control makes the car dull during turn in. Kimi is not as aggressive as others in steering input.

Regarding the power steering, i remember it was the same issues he had with Lotus. Albeit ferrari sorted it out asap, while lotus couldn't in two years period.