- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Nope.. What a way stories are twisted!Nxpster wrote:Hi!AlainProst wrote:Do you know why McLaren has placed the mirrors as high as that ?
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... hzaqt9.jpg
The mirrors are this high because Fernando Alonso requested it so he could see the rear tyres. That way he can see if they are degraded (worn out) or not.
Greetings!
looks like they are flat still like at Oz.. Mushroom watch continues.Saykas wrote:http://i.imgur.com/qYQJ8mH.jpg
Last year they used Yuasa batteries. Don't know about this year? 500kw means nothing watts are a measure of work and therefore require a time period. I would doubt Lithium Ion technology more likely Lithium Polymer and possibly Lithum anode construction.Moose wrote:Panasonic have plenty of experience with high charge/discharge rate batteries. Tesla use them in the model S, which can charge/discharge at over 500kW.atanatizante wrote:I think they are using Panasonic ion-polymer Lithium batteries and unfortunately they haven't to much F1 experience with high energy density corroborate with high levels of guick charging and discharging ... hence their heating issues ...nevill3 wrote:I personally think it is the energy store that is over heating and not the MGU-k the reports that I have read on here and elsewhere on the web makes me think that the constant charging and discharging are the problems. By running things at lower levels the energy store isn't stressed so much so generates less heat.
Do the technical regulations specify what the energy store must be made of? I know they have to be a certain weight but perhaps Honda or Mclaren have used a new substance that would give them an advantage if they can get the temperatures under control
IIRC Merc is working with A123 and Ferrari&Renault with SaftSaft ... and RB even having super capacitors until 2014 ...
Wow, just wow....Nxpster wrote:For example, the driver making the most steering inputs at a specific point in the race will be given a score of 10 for the Steering category; the driver making the fewest will be given a 1. The other drivers will be somewhere in between.
You need to take all the salt in the world with this. We know rosberg was a second or two behind hamilton throughout the race. They matched each other's time most laps to within a few tenths, are we to believe that there was so much difference between the twos 'cornering performacne'? And as for the driver inputs!!!Nxpster wrote:Interesting :O
What are Race Performance Ratings?
Five key performance parameters are measured: Aggression, Braking, Cornering, Steering and Throttle. Using raw telemetry data, a driver is given a score on a scale of 1-10 for each category, based on how he compares to his competitors. For example, the driver making the most steering inputs at a specific point in the race will be given a score of 10 for the Steering category; the driver making the fewest will be given a 1. The other drivers will be somewhere in between.
The individual scores for each of the five categories - which update every five seconds throughout the race - are then averaged to give an overall Race Performance Rating.
Cornering
Cornering ratings are calculated by averaging the latitudinal (side-to-side) g-forces acting on a car in each and every corner across a Grand Prix. The reason g-force data is used to assess cornering performance is because the faster a car negotiates a bend, the higher the g-force acting upon it. Therefore a higher score in this category suggests a driver is cornering harder.
As with the other categories, the raw telemetry figures for each car are compared and then each driver is ranked on a scale of 1-10. In this instance, the driver whose car produces the highest g-force readings will receive a score of 10.
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... medium.jpg
A cause for optimism at McLaren?
One particularly interesting aspect of this graph is how highly McLaren's Jenson Button (black line) scores throughout the race, especially relative to the Mercedes drivers. Despite struggling for outright pace, the Briton ended the race with the fourth-highest Cornering Rating, behind only Massa, Hamilton and Rosberg. Indeed, on Lap 23 he almost matches Hamilton, and is ahead of Rosberg. At this point, his lap time was 1m 35.643s - more than two seconds slower than Rosberg, who managed a 1m 32.948s.
Of course, there are several reasons Button could rank so highly in this aspect, the first being driving style. Button is known to favour carrying speed into the corners, lending itself to a higher score in this category. But even so, the cornering data from Australia suggests the MP4-30, while uncompetitive overall, is not actually surrendering too much speed in the corners relative to other drivers - which hints at it having an inherently good level of downforce.
Lol...knocked the wind out of u, huh?timbo wrote:Wow, just wow....Nxpster wrote:For example, the driver making the most steering inputs at a specific point in the race will be given a score of 10 for the Steering category; the driver making the fewest will be given a 1. The other drivers will be somewhere in between.
It is a true story. The engineers actually realised the benefits of having them higher after Hamilton begged the engineers to make them stiffer in 2011. Here is a 2012 video confirming that the engineers actually granted his wish...AlainProst wrote:To PlatinumZealot
You have good explaination but it don't explain why very high mirrors in 2015. In addition, L Hamilton isn't at McLaren now...
Small cockpit cooling exits (nest to the pilot, on the sidepods) are according to Venturi effect I heard... Can you explain me that ?
So Alonso and Button are better able to spot the cars which intend to lap them.AlainProst wrote:Do you know why McLaren has placed the mirrors as high as that ?
I have to disagree with you, electric motors are very sensitive to overheating. Especially, MGU - K and H are synchronous permanent magnet motors. Permanent magnets lose ability to generate magnetic field in overheating conditions, this leads to various problems - electric motor/generator stops generating torque as the link between stator and rotor field is broken. Excessive heat has a spiraling effect on electric motor/generator, as the heat builds up, conductors heat up, resistance goes up, more current has to pass through them to maintaine magnetic field, and more current produces more heat...rifrafs2kees wrote:There's likely nothing to the MGU-K overheating story. Conservatively, electric motors and generators, are at least 95% efficient across their entire envelope of operation. Let's take for a example a braking event from 250kph to 50kph in 100m for a car that weighs about 720kg; with brake bias of 50% F/R. So using m*v^2 delta, energy into rear axle is half of the total...which is about 1.7MJ of energy.
Assuming the MGU-K takes 50% of that, we have 0.9MJ of energy going through it. At the previously stated efficiency of 95%, that leaves 43kJ of heat into the MGU-K in 100m. At constant deceleration, it'll take about 2.4 seconds for this event to take place. So we have heat transfer at a rate of 18kW.
Now to make this quick, the entire ICE at about 35% efficiency produces heat a rate in orders of magnitudes greater than 18kW. The point is, if they can cool, the entire engine minus the MGU-K, the additional task of cooling the MGU-K will be easy.
Again, this is the same MGU-K motor that can be put between the turbine and impeller housings of a turbo to make an MGU-H....a much harsher location in my opinion.
I think the entire package has a myriad of problems...of course a few more prominent than others...but MGU-K cooling isn't one...if engine cooling is roughly adequate, all they'd have done was run coolant to the MGU-K if they aren't already.
