2015 Mexican Grand Prix - Mexico City, Oct 30 - Nov 1

[ian_s]

it looks like a massive long run from the start line to the 1st turn, does anyone have any info on just how far it is?

[F1NAC]

Duration of lap? 1:15's cca?

[Tommy Cookers]

Elevation: 2285m.
With air density being ~76% of its sea level value, cars can go 9% faster before drag consumes the same power as at sea level. And with turbo engines, power will only be very slightly down.
There might be potential for Monza-like top speeds even if the teams choose to run extra wing angles to compensate for the thin air. And if someone runs a Monza-like setup... One can dream!
Come to think of it, cooling capacity will also be down by 24%. We might see some interesting compromises here.

Don't forget the power loss due to the air density, this will also play a major role

As we saw in Brazil last year - Air pressure does very little to this generation of engines. They lose a tiny bit of power, but not close to what the V8s (or earlier) did.

just because they lost only a tiny bit of power in Brazil - this doesn't mean they will be the same in Mexico ?

to maintain boost (correcting for the atmospheric pressure being only 76% of our notional normal value) ....
the turbo and mgu-h would have to be run much faster ? (than in Brazil)
(and if Brazil qually was relatively slow, this would imply an inherent rpm limit ?)
additionally to electrical and mechanical limits inherent in the current designs, remember the rules hard limit turbo rpm
and the engines were presumably designed around races including Brazil but not Mexico ?

at other races fuel limit often does't allow full power all race, here average race power will be affected less than qually power ?
and there might be interesting differences between the different engines ?

[Moose]

I'm not saying that they won't lose any power at all. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things, air pressure doesn't hugely affect these engines in comparison to the NAs of the past.

As for pole time, it's hard to tell... The last F1 qually lap was in 1992, when the circuit was substantially different. This season, on circuits that are the same, the cars have tended to be about 5% faster than the 1992 cars, so that would lend itself to suggest a 1:15. The question is, has the straightening out of the fast flowing section gained more time than the slow section introduced around the peraltado has cost? My bet is that the slow section has cost more time, and that the lap times will be around the 1:17 mark.

[SiLo]

I'm not saying that they won't lose any power at all. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things, air pressure doesn't hugely affect these engines in comparison to the NAs of the past.

As for pole time, it's hard to tell... The last F1 qually lap was in 1992, when the circuit was substantially different. This season, on circuits that are the same, the cars have tended to be about 5% faster than the 1992 cars, so that would lend itself to suggest a 1:15. The question is, has the straightening out of the fast flowing section gained more time than the slow section introduced around the peraltado has cost? My bet is that the slow section has cost more time, and that the lap times will be around the 1:17 mark.

I reckon mid 1:20's with that slow section, but I will just wait and see. I'm really excited about having a new circuit on the track because its such an unknown.

[Moose]

I'm not saying that they won't lose any power at all. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things, air pressure doesn't hugely affect these engines in comparison to the NAs of the past.

As for pole time, it's hard to tell... The last F1 qually lap was in 1992, when the circuit was substantially different. This season, on circuits that are the same, the cars have tended to be about 5% faster than the 1992 cars, so that would lend itself to suggest a 1:15. The question is, has the straightening out of the fast flowing section gained more time than the slow section introduced around the peraltado has cost? My bet is that the slow section has cost more time, and that the lap times will be around the 1:17 mark.

I reckon mid 1:20's with that slow section, but I will just wait and see. I'm really excited about having a new circuit on the track because its such an unknown.

There's also the point of air pressure in trying to figure out the time. In 1992, we had NA engines. The turbos will probably help a lot here.

But yeh, better just wait and see.

[PlatinumZealot]

It is 71 laps in thin air. Athletes usually need a full week or two of training to adjust their bodies to the air of Mexico city. Why not F1 drivers?

It's the VO2 max. Athletes have their aerobic respiration finetuned to normal oxygen density, to their V02 max. With less oxygen they will not be able to hold on to their normal V02 max if not adapted properly: they simply have less oxygen in their body to burn.

This is not so much an issue for F1 drivers. Whereas normal endurance athletes need to push the body on a constant rithm for a prolonged time, F1 drivers have much more emphasise on short, powerful pulses in the muscles (primary the neck and back muscles). These are more of anearobic nature: they burn fat, proteins and sugars just like the aerobic system, but without the oxygen. This does leave the body with waste product (lactic acid) which needs to be cleared out of the muscles and hence why this is not possible to use in a long, constant effort. F1 drivers do have moments where their bodies can relax for a moment and get the lactic acid produced by the anaerobic burning out of the muscles, like a straight or perhaps even very slow corners. However, you still need to train this, as any normal person will face the situation where his muscles cannot clear the lactic acid fast enough. F1 drivers are conditioned to do this.

Compare it with a 100m sprint vs a marathon. a 100m sprinter will not need to adapt to the lower oxygen levels as the nature of the sport requires a powerful and quick supply of energy. Efficiency is not needed, so the body will burn purely anaerobic. A Marathon athlete however cannot do this and the body will switch to the aerobic system, which is slower but more energy efficient.

I am a huge sprint fan, and there are somethings you are not 100% correct about, (200m and 400m are sprints too).I get your general message though.

Oxygen management and efficiency is extremely important in sprinting.
Sprinters sometimes train a week or two in advance near to where they will run too. Depending on the location.
Not counting the wind speed and direction - the air quality, altitude and humidity affects a sprinter the most.

There is a large endurance aspect to F1 though as you say. F1 drivers train long distance running to increase aerobic efficiency so there must be a large aerobic component. The F1 driver is subject to fatigue for 2hrs which is a long period so he is not like a sprinter who expends absolutely everything he has over a maintained period usually 10 to 30 seconds.The explosive movements of the hand, arms and neck use fast twitches muscles like a sprinter would, but not used not very to a high duty or exertion for an extended period of time.

I appreciate your analysis. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said f1 drivers get time to rest between turns, and F1 is not a peak demand on oxygen from the body. Would you agree that F1 is simply not as demanding on the respiratory system then?

[Nathanael F1]

Virtual onboard lap with Perez.

[Juzh]

Those slow corner sequences are just horrible.
Main straight and high speed seems interesting enough. I can foresee a million corner cuts there with all the runoff in the world, unless some proper kerbs are put in place.

[Nathanael F1]

Those slow corner sequences are just horrible.
Main straight and high speed seems interesting enough. I can foresee a million corner cuts there with all the runoff in the world, unless some proper kerbs are put in place.

Yeah, I hope the curbs are huge like the ones at the chicane in Hungary.

[turbof1]

It is 71 laps in thin air. Athletes usually need a full week or two of training to adjust their bodies to the air of Mexico city. Why not F1 drivers?

It's the VO2 max. Athletes have their aerobic respiration finetuned to normal oxygen density, to their V02 max. With less oxygen they will not be able to hold on to their normal V02 max if not adapted properly: they simply have less oxygen in their body to burn.

This is not so much an issue for F1 drivers. Whereas normal endurance athletes need to push the body on a constant rithm for a prolonged time, F1 drivers have much more emphasise on short, powerful pulses in the muscles (primary the neck and back muscles). These are more of anearobic nature: they burn fat, proteins and sugars just like the aerobic system, but without the oxygen. This does leave the body with waste product (lactic acid) which needs to be cleared out of the muscles and hence why this is not possible to use in a long, constant effort. F1 drivers do have moments where their bodies can relax for a moment and get the lactic acid produced by the anaerobic burning out of the muscles, like a straight or perhaps even very slow corners. However, you still need to train this, as any normal person will face the situation where his muscles cannot clear the lactic acid fast enough. F1 drivers are conditioned to do this.

Compare it with a 100m sprint vs a marathon. a 100m sprinter will not need to adapt to the lower oxygen levels as the nature of the sport requires a powerful and quick supply of energy. Efficiency is not needed, so the body will burn purely anaerobic. A Marathon athlete however cannot do this and the body will switch to the aerobic system, which is slower but more energy efficient.

I am a huge sprint fan, and there are somethings you are not 100% correct about, (200m and 400m are sprints too).I get your general message though.

Oxygen management and efficiency is extremely important in sprinting.
Sprinters sometimes train a week or two in advance near to where they will run too. Depending on the location.
Not counting the wind speed and direction - the air quality, altitude and humidity affects a sprinter the most.

There is a large endurance aspect to F1 though as you say. F1 drivers train long distance running to increase aerobic efficiency so there must be a large aerobic component. The F1 driver is subject to fatigue for 2hrs which is a long period so he is not like a sprinter who expends absolutely everything he has over a maintained period usually 10 to 30 seconds.The explosive movements of the hand, arms and neck use fast twitches muscles like a sprinter would, but not used not very to a high duty or exertion for an extended period of time.

I appreciate your analysis. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said f1 drivers get time to rest between turns, and F1 is not a peak demand on oxygen from the body. Would you agree that F1 is simply not as demanding on the respiratory system then?

Well, I'm admittingly not an expert, so I can get things wrong. I do however speak from my own experience as a maniac who loves high intensity cardio. There's a fine line between the maximum "steady-state" aerobic output, and the anaerobic output.
However, you can move that line. For instance I personally moved my line from aprox 100 watt to 135 watt in 3 years (I'll tell you in a second which excercise. It is actually the exact same device used by for instance Alonso, so it has some relevance to F1!). That was very tough to do, and it required everything of my body to improve: lung capacity, heart strength, muscle tension and the way the body can get rid of the lactic acid (yes, even in aerobic state you'll get this in smaller quantities). The length of the excercise usually is 35 minutes, but doubling it, is more then possible. As long as the body has reasonable energy reserves (sugars, fat and proteins) and keeps it burning as efficient, length of the excercise is of little issue. It now takes me equal effort to put out 135 watt then it took 3 years ago to do 100 watt.

What I am getting at is that F1 drivers can do exactly the same. Assume for instance that driving a F1 car requires 100 watt from the driver. Now if he trains to the point he can put out 135 watt, he has a LOT of reserves. It is a simple example, but most races we see drivers come out barely even sweeting and looking as fresh as when they entered the cockpit. This is because their maximum steady-state output is a lot higher then the needed output.

However, you have races where the conditions you have so carefully build your output around, being out of optimal conditions. Malaysia and Singapore for instance have very humid and warm weather. Body temperatures are going to be much higher and outside of the optimal window (sounds like we are talking about tyres!) and it'll take a more effort to reach the same output. The same is true for Mexico: less air, so your "internal combustion" is less. HOWEVER, since you trained to the point that your V02 max creates a much higher output then needed, you can still deliver the needed output.

The cardio device I use is the arm bicycle. You sit upright and you cycle with your arms. It's a complete upper body excercise since your shoulders and chest pull and push in the excercise along with the arms. It's ideal for F1 drivers since it teaches to cope with raised body temperatures and get rid of any waste product in the muscle fibres, as well as making the heart a lot stronger.

You mentioned 200m and 400m sprints. Now 200m is quite on edge, but you cannot run 400m on maximum output (anaeroic + aerobic). I know it's called a sprint, but I dislike that it is given that name since you are not running at full power.

Oxygen management and efficiency is extremely important in sprinting.

Anaerobic respiration is there when there is not enough oxygen in the muscles. This happens at intense excercises like 100m sprinting: you are demanding so much of the muscles the body cannot deliver the oxygen fast enough no matter how hard you breath. At that point you are past your V02 max. Your body will burn what oxygen it has, but beyond that it has to burn fuel without oxygen. Oxygen management is of little consequence on the 100m: of course the less oxygen BELOW your V02max you take in the more you'll put the muscles in anaerobic state and the less output you'll have. However since the race is that quick, 100m, your body will not shut down. It's just breathing in what you can, then down how fast the body can transport to oxygen to your muscles, but your output is your maximum output and that will be much higher then the v02max. You probably even want to be careful with breathing not too hard since that costs energy too. It's simply down to match your breathing to your v02max and beyond that how much power you can generate with the anaerobic system.

It's a tad different on the 200m: the anaerobic state will last long enough to make life very harsh. With enough training you can keep maximum output. 400m is too much for max output, so you need to lower it a bit in order for the anearobic waste product not to clog your muscle fibres.

[ringo]

Looking at the Perez video, i like the slow sections. They are flat and will create interesting battles because of the low traction and relatively low difficulty to drive. Tilke tracks tend to be challenging for the drivers, but challenging doesn't equate to good battles because there is too much focus on toeing the line, than freeing up and taking risks.
The flatness of this track should also make it good for battles in the rain. It very much reminds me of Canada and Monza, with a bit of abudhabi, so the racing should be good. The laps is also to short to be processional.

As for the race, i would love to see Perez luck into another podium.
A hell for leather fight with Nico and Lewis would also be tantalizing. Lewis has nothing to lose, so we might see back the barnstorming style of 2009 and 2012.

Ferrari may go very good here as well, becuase of the tyre choice and the slow speed stuff. I think Vettel can win one more race before the season is through.

[Racer X]

Elevation: 2285m.
With air density being ~76% of its sea level value, cars can go 9% faster before drag consumes the same power as at sea level. And with turbo engines, power will only be very slightly down.
There might be potential for Monza-like top speeds even if the teams choose to run extra wing angles to compensate for the thin air. And if someone runs a Monza-like setup... One can dream!

Come to think of it, cooling capacity will also be down by 24%. We might see some interesting compromises here.

Don't forget the power loss due to the air density, this will also play a major role

As we saw in Brazil last year - Air pressure does very little to this generation of engines. They lose a tiny bit of power, but not close to what the V8s (or earlier) did.

What is the elevation in Brazil..?

[Belatti]

[

What is the elevation in Brazil..?

acording to google earth between 788 and 749m

[NathanOlder]

Yeah I read up to 800m for Brazil. Which is now the 2nd highest altitude circuit on the calendar. Mexico is around 2300m!