F1 now & then: engine vs aero formula pro/contra

[SectorOne]

So you missed the part where he said that he understands that works teams get some developments first, because, guess what, it's something that comes with being a works team.

Indeed, case closed.

PS: There is no point in continuing this discussion further. I've brought the proof that some people wanted, you've said your part and I don't really have the time to get involved in useless arguments that don't bring anything new.

Maybe you missed the part "eventually everyone has the exact same hardware and software" part.
the fact that a manufacturer do updates on themselves first is a given.

But please continue with the no-weight idea´s you and others have proposed.

The only thing you have done is proven yourself wrong on all points.

[alexx_88]

First of all, it's funny how this reputation system works . For two posts having pretty much the same factual value, I get a downvote, while you get an upvote. Fortunately, I value real life professional reputation much more than the virtual one. Given that there are people on this forum that have a huge professional experience and have created exceptionally well-argued posts, but only stand to a third of the "reputation" that other members have for offering biased, subjective opinions to which more people agree.

Speaking on the actual point of this debate, what was discussed in the press conference didn't touch the issue I was referring to, mappings, but conceded that even on the hardware and software fronts, there is a lag between the manufacturer and the customers. Nevermind that. The version of the software has nothing to do with the engine maps, which is the part that is the team's responsibility as it varies from one car to the other, from one driver to the other. Saying that two completely different cars (cooling, packaging, etc) and two completely different drivers (brake-by-wire harvesting, pedal maps, etc) can run exactly the same default maps is laughable. My argument is backed by my professional experience as a software architect in three ECU projects. One of them is scheduled to run in LMP1/2 as soon as 2016-2017 (most likely 2017).

Mr./Ms. SectorOne, can you please back up any of your claims with technical arguments. More precisely, can you explain how two different cars can run the exact same PU maps, or if you have another view, care to elaborate on that?

[SectorOne]

Mr./Ms. SectorOne, can you please back up any of your claims with technical arguments. More precisely, can you explain how two different cars can run the exact same PU maps, or if you have another view, care to elaborate on that?

Mr.

Is it something that inhibits you from reading all of the quotes we have provided that are directly from the Mercedes customers themselves?

Customers do minor tweaks to the engine map - WILLIAMS
There´s a contractual obligation to provide the same PU and software - FORCE INDIA
Mercedes will get the latest stuff first - FORCE INDIA

Here below is a list of what you have provided that can be considered tangible:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[alexx_88]

This is what I said:
1. Customers and works team have the same hardware and software. Having the same hardware is enforced by the regulations and contract, while the software needs to be identical as it's not a performance differentiator. The software doesn't include the PU maps.
2. The PU maps are different and with limited testing on hand, the team that has more resources and access to the system's designers will be able to get close to the physical limits of the hardware.

Customers do minor tweaks to the engine map - WILLIAMS

Do 2.2% count as minor? That's great, because a 2.2% difference in maps will give you about 20HP in maximum output, better fuel consumption, better drive-ability or a combination of the three. That also doesn't give you anything about how big are the tweaks that the works team does.

Mercedes will get the latest stuff first - FORCE INDIA

So Mercedes get v1.1 first, followed by customers after, let's say one race (2 weeks). However, in those two weeks, the Mercedes engineers have already been working on v1.2 and are ready to release it.

My points are being proven by the same quotes, the issue is that we are interpreting them in different ways. I can't honestly understand how you can't deduce that if Williams do minor tweaks to the maps, then the works team does them as well and they are able to gain more from doing so than a customer team that has a more limited understanding of how the PU works. They also get the updated stuff first which gives them an even greater advantage as they are always an iteration ahead.

[SectorOne]

The software doesn't include the PU maps.

All teams have a base mapping, to which Williams said they do minor tweaking on.

Do 2.2% count as minor?

Did you just make a number up? I think you just did.

So Mercedes get v1.1 first, followed by customers after, let's say one race (2 weeks). However, in those two weeks, the Mercedes engineers have already been working on v1.2 and are ready to release it.

Did you just make a time length up? I think you just did.

So in essence, just talk no walk.

[alexx_88]

So the Mercedes works team gets exactly the same results from their huge investment in PU development as does a customer that pays 20m/year. Yes, what you're saying makes total sense. Don't let me, logic or all the other F1 pundits that are actually involved in the sport pull you away from your personal interpretation of things.

Your quotes are totally misinterpreted, yet again, but I won't even bother commenting. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to continue the debate with people that can actually provide technical arguments.

[Andres125sx]

4- An aero dominant formula usually bring an unintended (or inteded) problem, overtaking becomes more difficult because cars can´t chase each other too close so you get a faster car wich can´t get too close, so racing will be boring. Engine differences also makes overtaking more difficult, but slipstream can compensate this to a certain extent so it doesn´t ruin overtaking chances as an aero dominant formula does

This remains to be seen with the new, seemingly more durable rubber.

I never had any doubt at this respect, but since some people had, this is the proof aero still is one of the main problems when trying to overtake

I was trying to push, and when you’re following another car you obviously lose a lot of downforce.

http://formula1.ferrari.com/en/sebastia ... erfect-day

So I´ll keep thinking the same, aero should be first part to be frozen and probably standarized, but freezing engines and allowing free aero development is completely absurd, it´s aero the most harmful aspect overtaking wise, and the most expesive aspect to develop too, so if you want to fight two main problems of current F1 (lack of competitiveness and excesive costs), it´s aero what should be controlled, not engines

What we have now is the supposed pinacle of motorsport, with frozen engines

Maybe we should start calling F1 the pinacle of aerosports...