2016 European Grand Prix - Baku City Circuit, Fri 17 – Sun 19 Jun

[dans79]

So we're blaming the best chassis for lack of competitiveness?

Only in RBR fanboy wet dreams!

[Gaz.]

S3 is from the entry of T16 to the Start/Finish line 200m short of T1 so we won't need to calculate if RBR lose 1.2 seconds along the promenade once Live Timing is up and running.

[FoxHound]

1.2 seconds was the headline.

The gap was 0.3(!!!) seconds around an engine track in qualy and with Merc "magic" button. Ferrari are level pegging Mercedes on the engine front and the gap to the was 0.160!

Behind, yes, behind to the point the chassis, aero and set up options cannot make a difference? C'mon....

Haha you are again putting words in my mouth. Have I said that chassis, aero and setup cannot make a difference? No.

I'm done. Soon Mr. Turbo will come and bitch-slap us both for de-railing this thread. I'll leave myself out while I can. Have a nice weekend Fox!

Nah, you didn't say that admittedly. But neither did I say you did

My draw here is following the options available to a team to get there car around the track as quickly as possible.
A 0.3 second difference gives you scope to play around with a few things and take risks, some will work others won't.
That's F1.

Surely, surely you can see that Marko is simply having a bowl movement, and it got reported.
And from a PR perspective I can tell you why....

Marko knows that the Renault is in the ball park now, so he will utter a dated factoid to put into perspective how wonderful Red Bull are should they do well and challenge. From Canada, we can see they have the potential to do so.
On the other hand, if they are 1.2 seconds behind solely due to the straight(cough cough), he can turn to the media and kick Renault, again.

Win win in Red Bull media world.

[SectorOne]

Medical car doing a lap around the track. I have my doubts on 18-19 being flat.

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... _Baku.html

[Phil]

Well, his statmen was (at least I think so) that they will lose 1,2s becouse of engine alone. So I interpreted this that if they would have a Mercedes engine in a Red Bull car, they would be 1,2s faster down the streight. Becouse of this, there is no difirence in corner exit speed and drag on the car, the only variable is accelaration and top speed. I used average speed so that I can account for accelaration as well. I know I guesstimated alot, and that it is not perfect but the end result should be in the ball park.

1.) yes, you did not account for acceleration
2.) you did not account for the other straights
3.) you did not account for the difference between qualifying (light car) vs race (heavy car)

A faster car will not only out accelerate a slower one, it will also pull away, hence a difference in lap time. What might narrow the gap a bit, is that a faster car as a result of the higher top speed, will be on the brakes longer (e.g. brake earlier). 2nd point is that there are a few straights at this circuit. Every straight counts. So it's not just the one 2.2km straight (or however long it is). 3rd point is that I assume Marko wasn't talking about qualifying speed. In qualifying, the gap might be slower because the car is significantly lighter, so equal power equals higher topspeed (or topspeed quicker and therefore longer). This is perhaps why the gap is smaller in qualifying, like i.e. Canada, but during the race the pace difference is larger. Then there is also how effective the energy recovery is over a track that is spent most of the time at full throttle.

All lots of factors. I'm not suggesting the 1.2s number is accurate, but I'm also not ready to dismiss it as "PR speach" simply because its by Marko. I trust that these are actual numbers that came out under a simulation and as such, I'd be more interested to figure out how the number was derived and what they might suggest. For instance if it would be possible to reverse-calculate how much of a power difference the simulation was assuming for instance.

[dans79]

For instance if it would be possible to reverse-calculate how much of a power difference the simulation was assuming for instance.

In my personal opinion, it's not even close to possible, unless you have corporate espionage type of information about your opponent.

off the top of my head, the following items will have a dramatic effect on the performance of the car, and they are all closely interconnected.

• DF curves for the car at various speeds and angles of yaw
• Drag curves for the car at various speeds and angles of yaw
• Horsepower curve of the engine in different modes
• Torque curve of the engine in different modes
• Fuel consumption information in different modes
• Final drive gear ratios
• Center of mass data
• Rotational inertia data
• Suspension geometry information

[mrluke]

You're just over complicating. RBR will not lose 1.2s on that single straight. Its clearly not going to happen without a 30kmh speed deficit which all here know is not going to happen.

Whether you "believe" marko is a credible source is irrelevant, practically the above scenario is a nonsense.

[Phil]

dans79, I agree. But we could simplify. I'm not sure RedBull themselves pretend to know exactly the answers to all those questions, but they might have some fair approximations. They certainly would have their own data. The most simple would be to assume equal cars, but with different performance levels. I.e. RedBull with ~900bhp and RedBull with ~800bhp or whatever they think the power deficit is.

mrluke; In a practical sense, I don't expect a 30kmh speed deficit, because any team down on power will simply reduce drag to reduce that deficit. But at the same time, that reduction of drag will lead to a loss of performance in the bits where downforce will be important. That was somewhat my point last year, or the year before, in that you can't always judge the aero of a given car with an underpowered engine, because those will always be running at a compromised setup to decrease that deficit.

Who knows though - we might get a better idea once practice starts tomorrow and we see some top speed figures and time laps.

I was simply entertaining the idea that there might be some merit to those numbers without simply dismissing them.

[BanMeToo]

S3 is from the entry of T16 to the Start/Finish line 200m short of T1 so we won't need to calculate if RBR lose 1.2 seconds along the promenade once Live Timing is up and running.

Excellent. This argument is bad.

[dans79]

The most simple would be to assume equal cars, but with different performance levels. I.e. RedBull with ~900bhp and RedBull with ~800bhp or whatever they think the power deficit is.

Even that's not enough, as you need to know the hp & torque curves throughout the rpm range. The peak Hp number is useless except for marketing.

Check out this video see how drastically different dyno graphs can look.

[Phil]

I'm quite aware of that. I'm assuming though RedBull have pretty accurate torque curves (of their own engine) and could probably dig up guestimates of what kind of power the Mercedes engines are typically doing across the rev range. I mean, no one is arguing that the 1.2 second is an exact scientific number. The claim was simply that RedBull crunched a few numbers and believe on some level that, due to the very long straights and expected high top speed, it will correlate to a rather large lap time difference to the top team. Guestimates, but not entirely out of thin air.

Lets face it; these engines might all be different, but they're all rather similar in that they have a turbo, they have a limited fuel flow and a max rpm figure as per the regulations. Then there is the ERS that is strictly defined too. I'm not saying that these engines don't have variation, I'm sure they do, but they wouldn't be as different as comparing for instance a normally aspirated engine to say, one with forced-induction. I'm assuming here these F1 teams, much more the leading ones, have a fair idea of what is doable and what is possible as well as what is reasonable to expect.

[FoxHound]

In a practical sense, I don't expect a 30kmh speed deficit, because any team down on power will simply reduce drag to reduce that deficit. But at the same time, that reduction of drag will lead to a loss of performance in the bits where downforce will be important. That was somewhat my point last year, or the year before, in that you can't always judge the aero of a given car with an underpowered engine, because those will always be running at a compromised setup to decrease that deficit

But this was in no way the case at Canada. The first picture shows that if anything, Red Bull ran a fatter wing than Ferrari and the Mercedes pic shows the same. It's not scientific, but it's very clear Red Bull were running as much if not more wing than their competitors.

[ChrisDanger]

Medical car doing a lap around the track. I have my doubts on 18-19 being flat.

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... _Baku.html

Ricciardo said it's flat (during commentary over video of game footage), and Alonso said a lift will probably be required (I couldn't tell how sure he was) (during first question of driver's press conference).

[FoxHound]

I'm quite aware of that. I'm assuming though RedBull have pretty accurate torque curves (of their own engine) and could probably dig up guestimates of what kind of power the Mercedes engines are typically doing across the rev range. I mean, no one is arguing that the 1.2 second is an exact scientific number. The claim was simply that RedBull crunched a few numbers and believe on some level that, due to the very long straights and expected high top speed, it will correlate to a rather large lap time difference to the top team. Guestimates, but not entirely out of thin air.

Using this then, Would Red Bull add the wing to make the time difference up on the teams that wouldn't use as much wing.

If Wing A is defacto average angle, and some teams cut the wing(Henceforth Wing B) ridiculously to get 370kmh, and other teams add stupid amounts of downforce (henceforth Wing C).
The problem here is simple.

There's a fookin long straight.

So what use would Wing C be if it is losing this amount of time in the straight. Equally wing B would be a donkey the moment a car sniffs a corner.
Wing C car will be 1,2 seconds down in this sector simply through drag, but it would make up this amount in the twisty sections over wing B.

Red Bull can then say, look our engine is crap but our car is good.

Besides that, it is known that Red Bull will go DF heavy at most venues bar Monza. And in light of the pictures I posted above, nobody can say Red Bull cut wing and still found themselves slow on the straights, it simply did not happen in Canada, and if they use a bit of logic it won't happen in Baku either.
1.2 seconds on a straight is not Red Bull Racing, it's Red Bull marketing.

[ThumbsUp]

Seems that Renault doesn't have any spare chassis lying around! So Palmer and Magnussen have to be careful with their cars!

"Renault could be forced to race with just one car this weekend if one of their drivers crashes in either practice or qualifying."

Source:
http://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/21316 ... is-in-baku