Scuderia Ferrari SF15-T

[Juzh]

He is right. Most of the other teams lacked mid rpm power more than peak power.

Sigh... this again? Please explain how are you gonna lack mid rpm power when rules dictate the same fuel flow from 10.5k rpm up to theoretical max 15k rpm. Utter nonsense.
Mid range power was important with the old V8s. It's irrelevant now.

huh? Tell that to any racer.. any real racer, and they would just laugh at you. As long as your tyres can take it you need as much power out of the corners as you can get. Waiting for 11000 rpm is not an option.

I race 125cc gokarts and I agree. That's why there's this thing called gearbox. Either way, you're omitting way too much variables and things are not as simple in F1 as waiting for 11k rpm.

edit. F1 cars have way too much power (yes, even renault and ferrari) for them to have to wait any significant amount of time for 11k revs, except in higher gears where traction doesn't matter and you're simply accelerating with what you've got.

[Chene_Mostert]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... -7wIjcacxI
The blue engine has more mid range power than the red engine...

Sorry, but this is not a valid argument. You can't compare a nissan gtr engine to an F1 V6t.

My friend, Internal combustion engines all operate on the same thermodynamic principles, F1 or 1400 VW.
As long as you compare apples to apples - midrange means mid range, engine A can have more power between 7000 and 9000 compared to engine B. this means engine A will pull stronger than engine B between 7000 and 8000 using the SAME ratio. yes it can be compensated for by gearing but that is not the argument. the argument is that the Ferrari PU lacked mid range power when compared to the Merc. Ferrari possibly compensated by using lower gearing with shorter ratio steps, resulting in a compromised top gear.

[ozzimark]

Guys, before arguing in circles for too much longer, reread what was said below, and really try to understand what is meant:

There are basically just 2 states of power. Either you're traction limited, at which point you're not at full throttle and so called "mid range" doesn't matter anyway, because you're demanding less than what is available from your PU. OR, you're at full throttle and above 10.5k rpm where power is constant.

Keep in mind that fuel flow is restricted by regulations. With a turbocharger, they have all the air they could ever ask for; power is effectively limited by the thermodynamic efficiency of the entire power unit. To say that they are down on power in the mid-band but not in the high end is the same as saying that at lower RPM, the efficiency of the Renault and Ferrari engines is not as good as the Mercs, but at higher RPMs, that efficiency deficit is decreased.

This is certainly not an impossible scenario to envision. Similarly, it is not challenging to envision a scenario where one engine manufacturer has a smoother increase torque from off-throttle to on-throttle, resulting in a car that is overall easier to drive and is able to be pushed to the limit more consistently, which will ultimately be much faster, even if the actual peak power output across the RPM band is identical.

Now, if Ferrari has modified the design of their engine and ERS components to work more smoothly across the load range, while also permitting a modest efficiency increase, then we can certainly expect them to catch up to the Mercs, given that they have made a lessor improvement.

[Juzh]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... -7wIjcacxI
The blue engine has more mid range power than the red engine...

Sorry, but this is not a valid argument. You can't compare a nissan gtr engine to an F1 V6t.

My friend, Internal combustion engines all operate on the same thermodynamic principles, F1 or 1400 VW.
As long as you compare apples to apples - midrange means mid range, engine A can have more power between 7000 and 9000 compared to engine B. this means engine A will pull stronger than engine B between 7000 and 8000 using the SAME ratio. yes it can be compensated for by gearing but that is not the argument. the argument is that the Ferrari PU lacked mid range power when compared to the Merc. Ferrari possibly compensated by using lower gearing with shorter ratio steps, resulting in a compromised top gear.

Oh dear..
They operate on the same principle, but not under the same set of rules. F1 V6T has artificial limitations imposed on it(100 kg/h @ 10500 - 15000) which normal engines do not have, hence mid range power term can be used with them and not with F1. What you define as mid range is basically a traction limited range which as a result makes it redundant. With current engine regs, either you're traction limited, or you're at full power (as I already said). The only way true difference could be established is if for whatever reason people would accelerate from a 100 kph corner with 8th gear. Then true "mid range" power difference would be viable.
Mercedes as of singapore gp 2014 by all accounts ran almost the same ratios as ferrari and shorter than red bull/toro rosso. Did they compromise as well?

[Silent Storm]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... -7wIjcacxI
The blue engine has more mid range power than the red engine...

Sorry, but this is not a valid argument. You can't compare a nissan gtr engine to an F1 V6t.

My friend, Internal combustion engines all operate on the same thermodynamic principles, F1 or 1400 VW.
As long as you compare apples to apples - midrange means mid range, engine A can have more power between 7000 and 9000 compared to engine B. this means engine A will pull stronger than engine B between 7000 and 8000 using the SAME ratio. yes it can be compensated for by gearing but that is not the argument. the argument is that the Ferrari PU lacked mid range power when compared to the Merc. Ferrari possibly compensated by using lower gearing with shorter ratio steps, resulting in a compromised top gear.

Hi all.. I have been reading great stuff on this forum for a couple of years and this is my first post.

I don't think Ferrari lacked midrange power as they used a smaller turbo compared to Mercedes but they suffered from aggressive power delivery and lack of top end power. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Chene_Mostert]

...

Dude you have a obsession with traction limited, We are speculating about mid range power comparisons of engines, as tested on dyno, forget traction, there are many variables that influence traction. Even with 100Kg/h at 10 000RPM limit, Engine A can have less pumping losses - thus better volumetric efficiency between 7000 - 9000 RPM, resulting in engine A having more MIDRANGE POWER than engine B.
You are saying F1 engines have no power below 10 000rpm and above 10 000 Max power? that is just wrong Juzh.
All engines have a POWER CURVE and the gradient and shape of the curve determines the power deliver characteristics of a particular engine.
Stop confusing yourself with traction, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

[PlatinumZealot]

huh? Tell that to any racer.. any real racer, and they would just laugh at you. As long as your tyres can take it you need as much power out of the corners as you can get. Waiting for 11000 rpm is not an option.

I race 125cc gokarts and I agree. That's why there's this thing called gearbox. Either way, you're omitting way too much variables and things are not as simple in F1 as waiting for 11k rpm.

edit. F1 cars have way too much power (yes, even renault and ferrari) for them to have to wait any significant amount of time for 11k revs, except in higher gears where traction doesn't matter and you're simply accelerating with what you've got.

I can talk complicated if you like, but If you wanna talk about part throttle as well we can.
A flatter power delivery is more advantageous to the driver. It means your rate of acceleration is more constant and manageable when you apply the throttle.

Here is a good example...

[stefan_]

2015 Winter testing | Session 1, Day 2 - Jerez de la Frontera, Spain (02.02.2015)

[Rikhart]

The wheel display is so small.

[SectorOne]

I just noticed now how different they have mounted the horns on the car compared to other teams. Interesting.

[Sevach]

[ironrose]

The position of the Pitot tube is strange. Last year it was right on the edge of the front nose joint on F14T. This year they moved it slightly behind onto the cap which gives access to internals of the chassis... possibly thats the only place which collects uninterrupted data from the airflow over the front wing ... but on a cap ?????

[Aaronque]

New helmet for Kimi very nice indeed

[Crabbia]

2015 Winter testing | Session 1, Day 1 - Jerez de la Frontera, Spain (01.02.2015)

http://i.imgur.com/Ui70kMt.jpg

Vettel was sitting much higher than Kimi.

[.poz]

I don't think Ferrari lacked midrange power as they used a smaller turbo compared to Mercedes but they suffered from aggressive power delivery and lack of top end power. Correct me if I am wrong.

AFAIK the Ferrari 2014 _thermal_ engine had a small advantage in power over the Merc one but was less efficient. All the Ferrari PU problem are ERS-related, their small turbo was unable to harvest enough energy to charge the ES and they was forced to go only with the thermal engine in the second half of long straight.