2014 pace vs. 2004 pace, where, how are they better?

[hollus]

Normally we lose about 15% of power, we’re losing very little now

Were they really losing 15% power? The altitude only results in about 8% less air density.

[Juzh]

Normally we lose about 15% of power, we’re losing very little now

Were they really losing 15% power? The altitude only results in about 8% less air density.

Using this calculator I'm getting up to 20% power loss, which is pretty accurate if we assume average loss is about 5% on "normal" circuits.

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm

Altitude 785m
Air temp 25c
Altimeter Setting 928hpa - taken from F1 live timing
Dew point 20c - taken from this graph: graph img - humidity 67% at the time of race

On Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez NAs lost up to 35% of power.

[Blanchimont]

Year    kg
2013	642
2014	691
2015	701

Whats with the 10 kg addition? are they adding more batteries? I would have expected the second generation turbo cars to be 10 kgs lighter than the previous not more.

I think some teams have or had problems with the current 691kg limit. The 701kg just enables the heavy drivers to use more ballast weights to better balance the car. Or maybe Pirelli once again plans to make the tyres a bit heavier?

Sauber comes to my mind: http://www.planetf1.com/driver/10642/93 ... ose-weight

[Tommy Cookers]

Normally we lose about 15% of power, we’re losing very little now

Were they really losing 15% power? The altitude only results in about 8% less air density.

Using this calculator I'm getting up to 20% power loss, which is pretty accurate if we assume average loss is about 5% on "normal" circuits.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm
Altitude 785m
Air temp 25c
Altimeter Setting 928hpa - taken from F1 live timing
Dew point 20c - taken from this graph: graph img - humidity 67% at the time of race
On Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez NAs lost up to 35% of power.

fwiw the BBC man said yesterday that the NA engines lost 40 hp at Interlagos

we had a thread on this (meteorological effects on power) before
iirc the formula predicts a far greater power loss than eg values quoted by Renault incl Kyalami
the formula is intended to normalise the power measurement for any likely testbed situation in the USA
(so it might not be accurate for more unusual conditions - its predictions are alarming to eg the NA aviator)

and remember (as has been said) that cars are never raced in ideally dry and cool air
altitude is not the only factor eg Singapore is at sea level but has about 8% water vapour in the air
so an NA car does lose power when it leaves the factory and goes to the track

in principle the current engine/fuel rules combination is immune from these power losses

[hollus]

Regarding that calculator; from http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/awebphp/def ... essure.php
"ALTIMETER SETTING: This is the pressure reading most commonly heard in radio and television broadcasts. It is not the true barometric pressure at a station. Instead it is the pressure "reduced" to mean sea level using the temperature profile of the "standard" atmosphere, which is representative of average conditions over the United States at 40 degrees north latitude."

You are not supposed to enter 928hPa. If I use 1013hPa as the "Altimeter setting", a normal sea level pressure, I get the 928hPa at about 750m elevation, in accordance with FIA's reading of actual atmospheric pressure.
Changing the altitude and the pressure in the calculator is like going up 800m twice.

If you only change the altitude, I get a power loss of 10.6%.
Why is an ~9% change in air density transforming into a 10.6% power loss?

[Juzh]

You are not supposed to enter 928hPa. If I use 1013hPa as the "Altimeter setting", a normal sea level pressure, I get the 928hPa at about 750m elevation, in accordance with FIA's reading of actual atmospheric pressure.
Changing the altitude and the pressure in the calculator is like going up 800m twice.

You're right.

If you enter dew point as a value of 18.5 you then get a more accurate relative humidity output of 67% and exactly 10% power loss, which could be in the margin of error? There must be some other considerate variable present though to get up to button's 15%.

[Artur Craft]

This table shows the overall lap record, the fastest time during the 2014 weekend and the differences in [s] and [%]. Australia, Malysia, China, Silverstone and Spa were wet qualifyings if i remember right.

Austral	1:23,529   1:29,375	5,846	7,00%
Malays	1:33,074   1:39,008	5,934	6,38%
Bahrain	1:30,139   1:33,185	3,046	3,38%
China	1:32,238   1:38,315	6,077	6,59%
Spain	1:19,995   1:25,232	5,237	6,55%
Monaco	1:13,556   1:15,989	2,433	3,31%
Canada	1:12,275   1:14,874	2,599	3,60%
Austria	1:07,908   1:08,759	0,851	1,25%
GreatBr	1:29,607   1:34,508	4,901	5,47%
Germany	1:13,306   1:16,540	3,234	4,41%
Hungary	1:18,773   1:22,715	3,942	5,00%
Belgium	1:44,503   1:49,189	4,686	4,48%
Italy	1:20,089   1:24,109	4,020	5,02%
Singap	1:42,841   1:45,681	2,840	2,76%
Japan	1:29,599   1:32,506	2,907	3,24%

I won't even analyse this because I already spotted mistakes and it's pointless to compare when the numbers are wrong.

For instance, Suzuka fastest time ever was 1.28.9 by Schumacher. EDIT: Yeah, I saw now he later corrected it.

Mind you, Suzuka's record is from 2006 from cars that had 100HP less than the peak power of 2014 PUs and FAR less torque(which is even more important)

Also, 10kg accounts for roughly 0,2s in some tracks while roughly 0,4s in others, and the average circuit is around is 0,3s

But, why account for weight correction when you will not correct the 2004 cars with DRS and slick super soft tires that wear after 7 laps(as seen yesterday)

While watching F1 in COTA through the the track side cameras, I was not getting that feeling of speed from the cars around the corners, typical from the past decades, so I was waiting for a chance to confirm that and, during FP2, I saw the speedmeter on one of Rosberg's early race simulation lap, and the cornering speed is the same as Audi's LMP1 during WEC's round in COTA. For instance, around 170kmh on T6, 160kmh at T7, 80kmh on T12, 200 growing to 230kmh from T16-T18 and 90kmh on last corner....

LMP1 cars accelerate a lot slower and reach only 290kmh in top speed versus 330kmh of F1, though. That's where mainly the laptime gap comes from.

2014 cars have less drag than 2004 cars because they can put AoA of the RW at almost 0 and the RW is responsible for some 25-30% of cars total drag. The span was also diminished by 25%.

Vortex generators use were not exactly primitive in 2004 and that won't reduce drag, significantly, either.

2014 cars have much higher top speed because their acceleration is higher as the torque coming from the recovery systems are 100% all the time while combustion engines rely heavily on RPM

Also, in 2004 the parc ferme rules were already introduced(since 2003 IIRC), so same basic setup for race and quali. The FW of 2004 cars were narrower and higher and height is CRITICAL to how much force a wing generates.

[GitanesBlondes]

Great post about the cornering speeds, and acceleration of LMP1 versus F1 Artur.

[Artur Craft]

Tires were much better in 2004. Also much wider, thus negating some of the contact patch deficit. I believe

Nope. Front tires of 2004 had 270mm of total width but grooves account for 56mm, so an effective 214mm width of contact versus current 250mm.

Rear tires had the same width as now : 320mm, so the grooved ones had only 264mm of effective contact width.

So, front tires have now 17% of more width in contact with tarmac, and rears have 21% more

You really cannot compare the 2004 times to the 2014 times because one of the biggest differences besides tires widths and tire manufacture methods, is unless you also know what the state of the tarmac at any circuit is today versus 2004, it's impossible to make even an educate guess as to the impact of surface friction on the times without knowing the abrasion level of any given circuit.

Endless variables out there, that cannot possibly be accounted for from car design, qualifying rules, tire compounds, tire dimensions, surface friction, and so on.

Very good point. Interlagos' new asphault, alone, improved laptime by around 2s based on the times Porsche Cups were doing there in mid year and last weekend.

Gitanes, the F1 vs LMP1 comparison was for race pace. Obviously, the F1 cars is a lot faster than that in qualifying mode as you can see on Rosberg's pole lap speedmeter. But I don't think there was speedmeter in LMP1 cars during qualifying and even if it had, the difference from race pace and quali pace is not that big in WEC

[PlatinumZealot]

Normally we lose about 15% of power, we’re losing very little now

Were they really losing 15% power? The altitude only results in about 8% less air density.

Turbo chargers combined with the fuel flow limit pretty much make altitude corrections moot.

The fuel flow limit is really the limiting factor in this years cars, not the boost pressure ratio. So what you will find is that the Turbo's will run a higher pressure ratio to make up for the lower atmospheric pressure. That gives the same horsepower as before only difference is, your turbo will end up spinning faster. Inter coolers will be slightly more inefficient too, but that is about it. I am assuming that oxygen is still 21% of the air though. I am not sure whether the oxygen concentration is higher or lower at those altitudes.

[Burgess]

Year    kg
2013	642
2014	691
2015	701

Whats with the 10 kg addition? are they adding more batteries? I would have expected the second generation turbo cars to be 10 kgs lighter than the previous not more.

I think some teams have or had problems with the current 691kg limit. The 701kg just enables the heavy drivers to use more ballast weights to better balance the car. Or maybe Pirelli once again plans to make the tyres a bit heavier?

Sauber comes to my mind: http://www.planetf1.com/driver/10642/93 ... ose-weight

I heard a lot of panic about drivers being too thin at the start of the year and how they'd all feint and die as soon as they went around a corner, but now I think everyone is on top of the weight or at least enough for it not to be a factor.

[Blanchimont]

hollus, if you still want to correct the times for weight, Lotus provides some information on this since Spa.

Spa: 0,42 s/10kg
Monza: 0,30 s/10kg
Singapore: 0,33 s/10kg
Suzuka: 0,35 s/10kg
COTA: 0,37 s/10kg
Brazil: 0,29 s/10kg

from:
https://www.facebook.com/LotusF1Team/ph ... tos_stream
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lotus_f1team/

[Tommy Cookers]

Turbo chargers combined with the fuel flow limit pretty much make altitude corrections moot.
The fuel flow limit is really the limiting factor in this years cars, not the boost pressure ratio. So what you will find is that the Turbo's will run a higher pressure ratio to make up for the lower atmospheric pressure. That gives the same horsepower as before only difference is, your turbo will end up spinning faster. Inter coolers will be slightly more inefficient too, but that is about it. I am assuming that oxygen is still 21% of the air though. I am not sure whether the oxygen concentration is higher or lower at those altitudes.

water vapour concentration (absolute humidity) tends to fall with altitude
it's absolute humidity that lowers oxygen content (why hot, humid countries cause those unaccustomed to feel breathless}
eg 8% absolute humidity displaces 8% of the oxygen and 8% of everything else (compared with dry air)
so 2014 Singapore should show better relative to 2004 than 2014 Abu Dhabi relative to 2004

2014 in principle compensates for altitude and humidity by maintaining or increasing charge massflow to maintain oxygen massflow
but the mgu-h rpm limit can be an issue
also in principle the PU can give more power with altitude because altitude can benefit turbine power more than it costs
in reality eg Mexico mgu-h load will be held to lower backpressure to maintain (oxygen) massflow without needing impermissible rpm
so limiting PU power to that of other tracks
yes, the rules are clever !

[Belatti]

It would be nice if reca could post a sound data acquisition comparison from a track wich has the same layout now and then...

[hollus]

hollus, if you still want to correct the times for weight, Lotus provides some information on this since Spa.

Spa: 0,42 s/10kg
Monza: 0,30 s/10kg
Singapore: 0,33 s/10kg
Suzuka: 0,35 s/10kg
COTA: 0,37 s/10kg
Brazil: 0,29 s/10kg

from:
https://www.facebook.com/LotusF1Team/ph ... tos_stream
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lotus_f1team/

I'll bite and use those correction factors. I leave Brazil out for obvious reasons, and that leaves only Monza, Spa and Suzuka that were there 10 years ago, and I think they are largely unchanged.
I tried to take times from quali from 2004, 2008, 2013 (all the last years of each set of rules) and 2014 (in a new rule set, so at the beginning of the development cycle). I had to go back to Spa 2002, Japan 2003 and Spa 2012 to avoid rain, to Japan 2006 to avoid Fuji, and in Spa 2014 I was left with FP2 to find the driest track.

Quali times:

-       Monza     Spa       Suzuka
2004    1:20:089  1:43:726  1:31:713
2008    1:21:997  1:43:338  1:29:590
2013    1:23:755  1:47:573  1:30:915
2014    1:24:109  1:49:189  1:32:506

Corrected to 691kg:

-      Monza     Spa       Suzuka
2004   1:22:679  1:47:548  1:34:898
2008   1:24:577  1:46:950  1:32:600
2013   1:25:225  1:49:715  1:32:630
2014   1:24:109  1:49:189  1:32:506

Deficit to best:

-      Monza   Spa     Suzuka
2004   0.00%   0.73%   2.59%
2008   2.30%   0.00%   0.01%
2013   3.07%   2.58%   0.01%
2014   1.72%   2.09%   0.00%

Note: in the original post I forgot to count DRS in favor of the 2014 cars. It is of course also there in 2013 and 2012 (differently).
Weight corrected, 2014 is not looking that bad, specially in comparison with 2013. What weight do you think 2014 cars could achieve if freed from the minimum weight rules?