Performance optimization

[timbo]

This is not a topic directly related to aero or chassis or tyres, but sort of relevant to all three, so I hope mods would tolerate it.

So, often times performance requirements may differ depending on circuit characteristics. Even more, some times they are mutually exclusive. Good direction change in high speed corners may require stiff chassis and that hurts low-speed traction. High downforce obviously hurts top speed etc etc.
My question is -- to what extend those traits are considered when the car is designed and do people actually analyze calendar to consider design direction? I.e. if some new circuits appear and some old are dropped -- do people sit and calculate optimum setups and possible performance margin taking into account those calendar changes?

We have seen that often some teams are traditionally good at some circuits and some on the others, the most particular examples to me were Ferrari vs McLaren during 2007/8. Overall both teams were pretty evenly matched performance wise if you look onto season outcomes, but during the races usually one team had clear advantage over the other. So, were that because of the natural evolution or because somebody made a decision to optimize the cars for a particular types of corners?

[Jersey Tom]

Some things to think about... yes, optimization always comes down to choices - what are you trying to optimize for? "The fastest lap time" would be a naive obvious answer, but that doesn't cut it. What happens when you have two car configurations that run the same time? Low DF package maybe is faster on straights and slower in corners, high DF package is slower on straights and faster in corners. Each might have significant unaccounted for impact on fuel economy, tire deg, etc. That leaves you with a choice.

Hell, maybe the answer to that study is highly sensitive to ambient temperature and humidity which you won't know until the weekend or day of the race. Then what?

Sometimes you might not even know why you're better at one thing or another. In your aero vs. mechanical grip example, it's not uncommon to weigh some "magic" value that encompasses "aero" vs another magic value that encompasses "grip." You can put different springs in the car every race, so in theory you might not to compromise at fast tracks vs slow tracks. But despite this, Team A is better at slow tracks and Team B is better at fast tracks. How can that be?

Well maybe Team A through the best of their ability and study has come up with MagicSpeedNumber = 3 * MagicAeroNumber + 9 * MagicGripNumber. Team B, through their own study, is convinced that MagicSpeedNumber = 8 * MagicAeroNumber + 4 * MagicGripNumber. If "reality" is that Speed = 6 * Aero + 6 * Grip, then naturally teams will skew themselves to one end of the spectrum or another, even if that's not their intent or choice.

Hell it can be as simple as Team X has guys who have more experience with tires and mechanical grip, Team Y has guys more tuned into high speed aero. These things happen.

And you certainly can't do a 100% exhaustive search and study twiddling every knob on the car in conjunction with every other. You'd have astronomical amounts of configurations to examine with very limited time. So even then you have to be guided in what you chose to study. Sometimes you might stumble into a setup or configuration which just happens to work great!

Combinations of things is what it comes down to. Sometimes it's the choice you make of what you think is best. Sometimes it's what your team is best at with experience and talent. Sometimes it's down to things outside of your control or your understanding.