As you can imagine, i'm feeling fairly vindicated by the latest round of comments to hit the web.

*god like analyst* cough =)

RB6 - Short Wheelbase
RB6 - Fastest by a heap
RB6 - Sandbagging

Shall I now go for the exact amount of pace in lap time over our opposition?

Of course I will, being the fool that I am.

0.600 race pace
0.250 qualifying

Bet you're left one on it.

=)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2010 13:10 by blight.

I hope you're right Blight. Sounds a bit too optimistic, I would have thought a few tenths at best.

So do I! It's a difficult call thats for sure. My fragile ego may get destroyed!

However, it's the feeling I get from everything.

It's kinda bizarre, the closer I get to the season the more confident i've been getting about RBR, especially about Mark's chances against Seb this year.

I am concerned somewhat about our reliability, but I cant believe the RBR build staff haven't gone over each car with a fine tooth comb over the past few weeks and checked each and every part as closely as they've ever checked before.

I expect (unfortunately) I might fall back to earth with a thud by Saturday night.

I'm just enjoying that Australia isn't the first race, at least i'll go to Melbourne with some realistic expectations of where RBR really sit in the scheme of things.

---

________________________
Mark Webber - WINNER 2009 German Grand Prix!

There is no doubt that this car is very good. There seems to be a general acceptance that it is fast. This year it will all come down to how kind a car is to its tyres, particularly with heavy fuel. If it does not chew its tyres, this car will deliver two world championships.

Now that McLaren's wing seems legal, I hope that this car does not suffer balance problems when RB's version is bolted on. To be robbed of WC's two years running would be very difficult to accept.

---

Williams and proud of it.

We'll toddle around at the back end of the top 10. Perhaps.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Now I know you've been drinking Loud!

That sounds very un-optimistic, even for you.

lol everyone in the paddack is saying its a matter of tenths.. so i am thinking as people have been saying whoever gets it right on the day will be fastest!

well, i think red bull have quite an atvantage. sure it normally is a matter of tenths, or even hundreds,but how many?

louds always like that so when its wrong he feels even better than blight

the old psychologyon yourself trick

i am onto you loud

loloud

Well, I have it on good authority from within that Red Bull deliberately left bits off the car at the final test so others couldn't see them. They knew it was a bit of a risk, but chose to do it that way.

Were also running more fuel (but not HEAPS more) than some might have believed.

Of course, all the others might have done exactly the same thing, but at least we should expect there to be a few improvements this weekend from our end.

It was certainly good news!

And, no, I'm not gonna tell who it was, but it's genuine, I assure you!

Sounds good GB.

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

thanks gb

gb= good boy :-)

Ahh c'mon.............tell us

We can keep a secret.............right guys

---

I couldn't resist putting a couple of bucks on Webber for pole @ 15s on sportsbet:-)

Me too, only got 11 though.

so far so good gents

you owe us a left one

0.250 <> 0.141

Well, I believe that if you average our lap time advantage over the three qualifing sessions, it's pretty bloody close to .250

I am fairly confident of the .6 for the race today too =)

Life looks good any way you look at it.

lol, I want the left one deliverred on a platter....

Over the three qualifying sessions...

Q1
SV - was behind FA by 0.417

Q2
SV - was infront of FA by 0.289

Q3
SV - was infront of FM by 0.141

AVERAGE difference is
((-0.417) + (0.289) + (0.141))/3
= 0.00433333333333

0.00433333 <> 250


Left one.... platter ... (and dip it in gold first please)

Wow, here I was thinking we were in front by .4 on the first qualy. Must of got my wires crossed.

Damn you general!

I'll just crawl back into my cave.

Isn't brass the more traditional option?

lol at the 'left one' comment getting thrown around in here...'left one' such a funny classic saying

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

I still believe we are .250 in front. Do you disagree?

Quote:

blight
Wow, here I was thinking we were in front by .4 on the first qualy.

The F1 page is deceptive... they show the racers in order of the last qualyfying(sp?) they participated in... so the top postions for Q1 and Q2 are hidden and are a little deceptive.

Quote:

blight
Isn't brass the more traditional option?

Probably, but i need the money (what would i do with a left one anyway?)

Quote:

blight
I still believe we are .250 in front. Do you disagree?

That is the 6,000,000 dollar question... I'm hoping we are a lot more than just that. Its going to be interesting... will we be faster with a full load of fuel than the others? or will there be a greater difference (or no difference) when we are lighter? What about tyre wear? and tyre use?

Now do the calculations with the safety cars involved. Speaking of safety cars... if there is one out there for 10 laps... the cars will all have excess fuel. will we have a way to dump the fuel??? or burn it quicker?

I think we will be just over half a second on the ferrari in race trim. so .600

I am surprised at just how slow the others (not Ferrari) are. Especially macca.

Ahem.

[www.autosport.com]

Quote:

Lewis Hamilton
"Fernando I think was very quick in the race and they are obviously a little bit closer, but it's a good half second [deficit]"

I'd love that to be true, however, he then goes on to say that his McLaren had half as much downforce as the RBR last year.

[www.youtube.com]

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Classic Loud 'Top Gun' a real Generation X movie.

Anyone know the first line in Top Gun?...I think it is 'Morning Scotty'?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

Scott, not Scotty. It's not Star Trek Whiteman

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

haha

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

It probably did have half the down force at some tracks. Kers and the Merc engine gave them _well_ over half a second.

Half! HALF! Ha! They were losing a miniscule amount of time through a corner, maybe a tenth, maybe two, they had very close downforce levels to us, I guarantee that.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

You can guarantee that how?

Lol.

Because last year all the cars were very close in aerodynamic performance, if half his front wing fell off and then on the way back knocked his rear wing entirely off, then he has around half as much downforce as us.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Lewis fastest sectors compared from AU GP Qual last year.


Sector 1: -0.771
Sector 2: -0.216
Sector 3: -0.869

Almost 2 seconds off the lead, whilst having the best engine and best KERS system. KERS was worth .4 of a second, and the engine worth .3, so add another .7 to that and your looking a a 2 and a half second deficit based on aero.

The OWG put in place the 09 aero changes to specifically reduce 50% of the down force.

At this performance, the teams early estimates of loosing 50% down force would equate to around 1.5 - 2 seconds a lap.

In the end, it was less than this.

So yeah, I don't think that him saying they had half the amount of down force compared to red-bull to be that far fetched at all. And I think I have at least some kind of factual analysis to back me up. Open for debate of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/03/2010 03:57 by blight.

Okay well, we're not discussing aerodynamic efficiency, we're discussing total downforce. Thus, the better engine and KERS allows them to crank on the wing. The difference between Hamilton and Sebvet (who I'm guessing you're comparing him to in the times there) in the speedtrap was 1km/h, so basically they pumped all that extra power into producing downforce.

Infact, that 1km/h advantage would basically explain half the difference in S2 alone! I can't see you arguing that through 4 corners, losing HALF your downforce costs as little as 1 tenth. As I said, thats your rear wing falling off, and some of the front wing too.

Also, your comparisons are a little odd, first it was supposed to be 50% of 2006 levels and it's a little tough to compare times 3 seasons apart. Also, they went back to slicks and almost double the tyre compact patch so again comparison is useless. From what I've read the actual downforce cut was actually around 20%, possibly a lot less.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I only compared against fastest times for the day. Against seb vet it was less by around .3 in total. Not that this helps my argument.

Yes, lewis was 1kph faster in the speed trap than vettel, and I would consider this more to do with KERS than anything else.

I don't see how half of lewis's time lost in sector 2 was due to actually going 1kph faster at the speed trap. I think you might have that backwards a little.

If anything, sector 2 is the only location the KERS/engine could attempt to offset the lack of down force and cornering speed. Thats why they only lost .216 of a sec there (rather than almost a second on the other sectors).

Yes, when your car lacks downforce - you try to regain it by adjusting the wing, but a wing adjustment will not give you that much more than someone that hasn't had to crank it up, and modifying the wing will impact your drag, it's not a very efficient way of generating down force.

So lack of aero efficiency is a problem brought on by the lack of down force you're car has by design. They are intrinsically linked.

Also, regarding the 50% down force. I think that if anything, 2006 down force would of been less than 2008 - considering there were no new aero restrictions placed between 2006 and 2008. Call me crazy but usually they work on improving aero performance.

As you said, slicks returned to help ease the pain of loss of down force. And I would like to make a point that there are many things that effect the times of a F1 car going around a circuit, and down force is just one of those. It's not like going to 50% less down force is going to make a car go %50 slower or anything. It's a heck of a lot more marginal than you might think. Down force only helps cornering speed along with other factors, and actually hinders straight line speed.

I don't see how half of lewis's time lost in sector 2 was due to actually going 1kph faster at the speed trap. I think you might have that backwards a little.

I have that backwards a lot! Still, going back the other way, that's 3 tenths for 4 corners, less than a tenth per corner for 50% less downforce. Eep, you're gonna make me get my calculator out!

If anything, sector 2 is the only location the KERS/engine could attempt to offset the lack of down force and cornering speed. Thats why they only lost .216 of a sec there (rather than almost a second on the other sectors).

Theres less corners is really all it comes down to.

Yes, when your car lacks downforce - you try to regain it by adjusting the wing, but a wing adjustment will not give you that much more than someone that hasn't had to crank it up, and modifying the wing will impact your drag, it's not a very efficient way of generating down force.

No it's not, but we're not talking about efficiency, they had very similar top speeds (Seb and the Maccas) so the KERS and engine advantage is being traded for downforce. The downforce being created because of a better engine, or because of a better wing design doesn't matter to tyres as they're being pushed to the ground

Also, regarding the 50% down force. I think that if anything, 2006 down force would of been less than 2008 - considering there were no new aero restrictions placed between 2006 and 2008. Call me crazy but usually they work on improving aero performance.

I was just saying it's hard to compare 2008 to 2009 times, with targets set based on 2006 rules, on top of the tyres being changed massively.

It's not like going to 50% less down force is going to make a car go %50 slower or anything. It's a heck of a lot more marginal than you might think. Down force only helps cornering speed along with other factors, and actually hinders straight line speed.

No, ofcourse not, though in our case, downforce is a purely positive factor with no negative trade off, as the top speeds are the same.

At this point, using my rudimentary knowledge of vehicle mechanics and my Opera scientific calculator widget, I've come to the conclusion that I'm more wrong than you are. So boo. If someone had've asked me to take all of the downforce off the cars around Melbourne but keep their current top speeds, I would've guessed they'd be ~20 seconds off the pace, though that doesn't appear to be the case.

I used: velocity = square root of (coefficient of friction of the tyre* x [weight + downforce generated] x 9.8 x radius of the corner / the mass of the car)

* 1.4, yoinked from Simon McBeath.

I gave RBR a base number of downforce (I guessed they'd create maybe 200kgs of downforce at 100km/h or so) and McLaren half that, and for a 90 degree corner from turn in point, to exit point at a "perfect" tyre limited speed, the McLaren would lose about .19 of a second per corner. By the 16 corners of the track that comes out to roughly 2.57 seconds, add in another second for time lost under braking, and maybe time lost under acceleration and it comes to say 4 seconds.

So, on one hand, Ham is still BS, but hrm, the time loss was interestingly low. HRT must really suck. Oh, and you tricked me! Ham didn't do a lap in Q2, the difference between Seb and Heikki was 6 tenths. So yes, back to Ham making stuff up, 50% less downforce my butt!

P.S: Worked backwards using that 6 tenths gap and 16 corners, obviously this is uber dodgy, but came out to about a 10.8% defecit in downforce, which costs about 0.04 secs per corner.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/03/2010 09:46 by LoudHoward.

compare apples with apples and leave the kiwi fruits to me all :-)

yum

Opera, really? I'm a Chrome man, no wonder we have these long winded arguments.

Thats an impressive calculation, and very much appreciated. Very noble of you also to post.

I'm not sure if you would 'loose' anything under acceleration (considering your simulated drivers have just done a perfect corner with no wheel spin), and with half down force I'd actually imagine that perhaps they might make back part, if not all of what they lost during braking. Something to consider at least.

I tricked myself too, I used the best sector times of all drivers during qualy. But LH only participated during q1, not q2 where there would of been slightly more grip and lower times as the tires start shouldering more of the load. I guess there could be a better track to pick, one that doesn't rubber up quite so much during a qualy session, or at least where LH made it into q2.

I'm stealing your formula, but not your widgets, i like my own widgets.

Acceleration suffers also in a low downforce config Blight.

You guy can debate all you like. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are both pretty wrong.

I agree wih Loud though. Lewis is full of @#$%&.

---

Hehe. I wouldn't want you agreeing with me anyway duffer, that would be too strange. Space-time continuum and all that.

Duffer, acceleration in a straight line (I'm not considering lateral g force on corner exits) does not require much down force to limit traction loss. It's always a problem at low speeds (when down force is negligable), and the benefit of having less down force for straight line speed is considerable.