Engine Comparisons

[ShiftingGears]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70246

Very interesting analysis. Highlights Newey's mistake in choosing Renault engines for the A team.

[ioan]

Finally we get a good technical analysis in the F1 world.

As for Newey making the wrong choice, I said it 2 years ago when very few people believed me.
Note to Newey: No one can make better F1 engines than Ferrari! Along the F1 history there were often teams with better overall cars, but better engines very very rarely and for very short periods of time.

I remember, when the FIA imposed the new 2.4 v8 engines, many around here saying that this would be detrimental to Ferrari and favor the likes of BMW, Honda and Mercedes. Never understood why they were saying this, given that only one team was ever around in F1 and built F1 engines with 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cylinders! ;)

[ShiftingGears]

Finally we get a good technical analysis in the F1 world.

As for Newey making the wrong choice, I said it 2 years ago when very few people believed me.

I think it was noted that the Ferrari engine was harder to integrate into customer cars than the Renault engine. In any case, if Newey recognised the superior potential of the Ferrari engine back then, then that was quite an error.

Note to Newey: No one can make better F1 engines than Ferrari! Along the F1 history there were often teams with better overall cars, but better engines very very rarely and for very short periods of time.

Honda and Renault engines were the best for a significant period.


I remember, when the FIA imposed the new 2.4 v8 engines, many around here saying that this would be detrimental to Ferrari and favor the likes of BMW, Honda and Mercedes. Never understood why they were saying this, given that only one team was ever around in F1 and built F1 engines with 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cylinders! ;)

In no way does past success equate to current success. But the rule changes (seemingly becoming more frequent) have, far more often than not, highlighted that the top teams before the rule changes will still be top teams after them.

[Knock-on]

Would be interesting to compare with their respective performance at the beginning of the engine freeze.

[Mark]

At the beginning it was when Renault were winning world championships; so I have no doubt they would come out more favourably then.

I've always thought the engine freeze was a stupid concept, and this article just reinforces that in my view.

[ioan]

Honda and Renault engines were the best for a significant period.

Based on overall car advantage or on pure engine performance, and what is a significant period in this case?



In no way does past success equate to current success.

It does in one or two team's case.
The others either weren't around long enough or lost out due to financial difficulties.

Past success is what is built on, year after year. The knowledge doesn't change significantly from one year to the other, it evolves based on past experience.

[ioan]

Would be interesting to compare with their respective performance at the beginning of the engine freeze.

You're right, Brazil 2006, Felipe Massa wins the race in a dominant manner, while MS almost catches up with Alonso's Renault after being almost 1 minute down. There was quite some performance difference at that moment already.

Maybe Renault had a better TC/LC at that time, but they all knew it would be outlawed sooner than later.

[Kneeslider]

While interesting, this analysis is flawed, in that it assumes that the greater the drag, the greater the downforce produced.

This simply is not the case, I would bet that not all wings are created equal.

Total drag is what holds you back, and if all the cars weigh the same, and have reached their terminal velocity (Vmax), and have the same drag, this would be a good measure of engine power.

However...

Total drag is made up of parasitic drag, which is in turn made up of form drag (caused by the general size and shape of the object), interference drag (arising from accelerating air into vorticies aound the sharp corners of a car) and skin friction caused by the viscous drag of the boundary layer attached to the car. Plus what we are interested in, lift induced drag, or in a motorsport context, drag induced by the creation of downforce.

Making the assumption that the parasitic drag of all the cars scrutinised is the same is folly.

I would expect better from Autosport. Time they employed some proper engineers/analysts!

[Valve Bounce]

I faintly recall that Red Bull wanted to switch engines with Torro Rosso and have the Ferrari engines for themselves but contractual agreements prevented this. Does anyone else remember anything about this?

[ShiftingGears]

Based on overall car advantage or on pure engine performance, and what is a significant period in this case?

On engine performance, based on the late 80's to early/mid 90's.




It does in one or two team's case.


The others either weren't around long enough or lost out due to financial difficulties.

Past success is what is built on, year after year. The knowledge doesn't change significantly from one year to the other, it evolves based on past experience.

That is less to do with past successes and more to do with who is in the team, and how they develop the team. See Ferrari since the mid-80's until Todt arrived - they weren't in title contention despite being most successful team in F1 history, in terms of World drivers championships.

[ShiftingGears]

You're right, Brazil 2006, Felipe Massa wins the race in a dominant manner, while MS almost catches up with Alonso's Renault after being almost 1 minute down. There was quite some performance difference at that moment already.

Maybe Renault had a better TC/LC at that time, but they all knew it would be outlawed sooner than later.

I've also read that the rev limit (IMO another stupid rule) has hurt Renault big time because they were relying on higher revs than Ferrari to get the power.
Unfortunately theres not that dynamic in F1 anymore. They should definitely drop the engine freeze.



Ferrari certainly had the best car in the second half of 2006. And the fact that they were dominant on circuits with 20+ seconds of full throttle per lap (Indianapolis & Interlagos) also suggests that they had the edge on Renault in terms of engine power.

[ioan]

On engine performance, based on the late 80's to early/mid 90's.

The V12 Ferrari engines were by far the best on the grid, a pity the chassis was a dog.



That is less to do with past successes and more to do with who is in the team, and how they develop the team. See Ferrari since the mid-80's until Todt arrived - they weren't in title contention despite being most successful team in F1 history, in terms of World drivers championships.

They weren't lost either, and were getting pole positions and occasional wins. I bet most F1 teams on the grid today would consider that quite an achievement.

[Hawkmoon]

The "freeze" part of engine freeze is a little misleading. They are still allowed to develop parts of the engine, just not the fundamentals. I think that's the way it goes.

So perhaps the widening gap between Ferrari and Renault is a case of Ferrari starting at a higher point and tinkering more effectively than Renault. Who knows? One things for sure, engine homologation sucks and a pox on Mosley for even considering the idea!

[ioan]

I've also read that the rev limit (IMO another stupid rule) has hurt Renault big time because they were relying on higher revs than Ferrari to get the power.
Unfortunately theres not that dynamic in F1 anymore. They should definitely drop the engine freeze.

I don't know about Renault, but BMW were having the highest revving engines and certainly lost too.
The ones who won most from the rev limiting rule were Mercedes, who were not able to make a high revving engine that wouldn't detonate at one moment or another during the race week ends.

[Knock-on]

While interesting, this analysis is flawed, in that it assumes that the greater the drag, the greater the downforce produced.

This simply is not the case, I would bet that not all wings are created equal.

Total drag is what holds you back, and if all the cars weigh the same, and have reached their terminal velocity (Vmax), and have the same drag, this would be a good measure of engine power.

However...

Total drag is made up of parasitic drag, which is in turn made up of form drag (caused by the general size and shape of the object), interference drag (arising from accelerating air into vorticies aound the sharp corners of a car) and skin friction caused by the viscous drag of the boundary layer attached to the car. Plus what we are interested in, lift induced drag, or in a motorsport context, drag induced by the creation of downforce.

Making the assumption that the parasitic drag of all the cars scrutinised is the same is folly.

I would expect better from Autosport. Time they employed some proper engineers/analysts!

I was thinking the same.

Although they make reference to different configuration, it fails to take into account aero efficiency against downforce.

The only true way of determining accurate power is to bench test them. Never gonna happen.

[ioan]

Making the assumption that the parasitic drag of all the cars scrutinised is the same is folly.

Is it me or they never made this assumption?



I would expect better from Autosport. Time they employed some proper engineers/analysts!

I thought that this Gary Anderson guy is an ex Formula 1 engineer/designer. You can't get much better specialists than that.

All in all the analysis made in Autosport is pertinent, IMHO.

[ioan]

I was thinking the same.

Although they make reference to different configuration, it fails to take into account aero efficiency against downforce.

The only true way of determining accurate power is to bench test them. Never gonna happen.

We have two different engines in identical chassis, that's already a very good starting point. And the results were pretty obvious even without use of a bench test.

[Kneeslider]

Hmm, if you re read my post, you might understand why drag needs to be considered in each of it's component parts, I can't make it any simpler than that.

I don't expect very much from someone so blinkered in his opinions that he thinks that any car is wonderful, so long as it is painted red and has a prancing horse badge on it somewhere.

Anyway, do you think that after all this time, any experienced user of this forum takes the slightest bit of notice of any of your opinions?

[Knock-on]

Is it me or they never made this assumption?

But you would expect for a serious article to mention this influencing factor. The only real mention that they make is that Power and Drag influence Top speed which is not what I would agree with in modern F1 car.

RPM and Gearing influence Top Speed and as I’m pretty sure all F1 cars rev to 19k in top at Valencia, the top speed trap reflects gear ratios.

Therefore, the maximum revs are capped and the fastest cars through the speed trap are those with the highest gearing.

How high that gearing is depends on the optimum gearing and required aerodynamic downforce for the rest of the circuit, not just top speed.


I thought that this Gary Anderson guy is an ex Formula 1 engineer/designer. You can't get much better specialists than that.

All in all the analysis made in Autosport is pertinent, IMHO.

Gary is a very experienced engineer. That doesn’t preclude him from questioning his findings.

I believe that the Renault is down on power a bit but to make a claim of 30 Hp is without basis in fact IMHO. It ignores too many factors such as gearbox and drive efficiency, aero efficiency etc.

[Knock-on]

Hmm, if you re read my post, you might understand why drag needs to be considered in each of it's component parts, I can't make it any simpler than that.

I don't expect very much from someone so blinkered in his opinions that he thinks that any car is wonderful, so long as it is painted red and has a prancing horse badge on it somewhere.

Anyway, do you think that after all this time, any experienced user of this forum takes the slightest bit of notice of any of your opinions?

PML.

Our Kneeslider doesn't suffer fools gladly :D

Never has, never will. :laugh:

[ioan]

Hmm, if you re read my post, you might understand why drag needs to be considered in each of it's component parts, I can't make it any simpler than that.

Let's see what they said in the article:



Intermediate 2 comes at the end of a longer straight, prior to braking for turn 17. The maximum speed figure is taken from the speed trap at the end of the longest straight - that before turn 12. Power and drag are the prime determinants of the speeds at those points.



The Intermediate 2 and the maximum speed figures suggest that the Ferrari and identically-engined Toro Rosso are equally low drag. The fact that the Red Bull reduces its deficit to the Toro Rosso between 303km/h and 314km/h suggests that it was running with less wing than the Toro Rosso to compensate for the power shortfall.

It would appear from this also that the McLaren induces more drag at high speeds than either the Ferrari or the Toro Rosso/Red Bull design.

They even talked about the relative aero settings:


The Renault is 4.4km/h behind the McLaren at Intermediate 2, but completely negates its deficit to the McLaren by the time they are doing 312km/h, again suggesting it is having to run less wing to compensate for less power.

What were you expecting them to do? tell you exactly what drag coef each car had and the percentage of it due to the front wing, the rear wing, the wheels, the drivers head etc?!



I don't expect very much from someone so blinkered in his opinions that he thinks that any car is wonderful, so long as it is painted red and has a prancing horse badge on it somewhere.

I might be blinkered about the color of certain cars, and I don't hide it. But still I can read an article before trashing it.



Anyway, do you think that after all this time, any experienced user of this forum takes the slightest bit of notice of any of your opinions?

A bit rich of a comment given that it comes from you. Wasn't you the one who proved he can't perform basic math operations last season or so? Remember some calculations about one of the thermodynamics principles?!

Oh and BTW, I'll take Gary Anderson's expert opinion over yours.

[ioan]

PML.

Our Kneeslider doesn't suffer fools gladly :D

Never has, never will. :laugh:

Perhaps he finally managed to do his maths homeworks during the last season and now feels superior!!! :rolleyes:

[Kneeslider]

What were you expecting them to do? tell you exactly what drag coef each car had and the percentage of it due to the front wing, the rear wing, the wheels, the drivers head etc?!

Well, that would be a part of any coherent anaylsis of top speeds and acceleration. What qualifications do you have in aerodynamics?

I will freely admit to having none, but as a private pilot, I would wager that I have read more on the subject than you.

Those who write for technical publications are not immune from the odd lapse, I think that we have one here.

Isn't it funny how those who act the most obnoxiously have the thinnest skin?

[ioan]

What were you expecting them to do? tell you exactly what drag coef each car had and the percentage of it due to the front wing, the rear wing, the wheels, the drivers head etc?!


Well, that would be a part of any coherent anaylsis of top speeds and acceleration. What qualifications do you have in aerodynamics?

I will freely admit to having none, but as a private pilot, I would wager that I have read more on the subject than you.

Those who write for technical publications are not immune from the odd lapse, I think that we have one here.


I only followed an aerodynamics course, and been once in the AP F1 wind tunnel in Magny Cours for a few hours of practice. Not too much compared with real specialists like the one from the autosport article. That's why I take his opinion as a better one than mine.

I think that Gary Anderson didn't have access to all those teams data in order to make all the needed calculations and tell us what aerodynamic setups those cars were using, and exactly how the drag levels of each of the cars are made up by it's various components.

Given the level of secrecy in F1 there is little chance to have access to such data. And even in this case the article gives us more insight than we usually get about the F1 engines.



Isn't it funny how those who act the most obnoxiously have the thinnest skin?

Talking of your own experience?
I didn't attack you in the first place, I only pointed out that in the article they were not assuming what you posted. That's all, nothing more.

And what was all that rubbish about red cars about?! What triggered that outburst?

And if you don't take my opinion seriously than why bother to read it and than start insulting me?! So don't come to me with comments about obnoxious and thin skinned persons.

[Kneeslider]

The Autosport piece says that power and drag are the main factors in determining Vmax, and this is perfectly true. However my opinion is that the article equates drag to downforce. The more drag, the more downforce.

This is wrong, so looking into drag in more detail is needed.

No matter how emminent the author, they are never infallible (not even me on the odd occasion), so question everything.

The only way to compare engines like for like, in different cars is to put them on a dyno, and that is never going to happen, Autosport journos know this, and if they want to tell us otherwise, then so be it, but they just lost a whole lot of credibility in my book.

Where is the modern Dennis Jenkinson or LJK Setright???

[ioan]

The Autosport piece says that power and drag are the main factors in determining Vmax, and this is perfectly true. However my opinion is that the article equates drag to downforce. The more drag, the more downforce.

This is wrong, so looking into drag in more detail is needed.

I'm not sure that they believe or think that drag = downforce. Simply because they didn't say so.

I also agree with you that drag doesn't equate downforce. There are to many components that create drag without creating downforce.

But what about downforce equate Drag, or to make it clear, more downforce -> more drag in modern F1 and without flexing bodywork.


No matter how emminent the author, they are never infallible (not even me on the odd occasion), so question everything.

Sure, no one is infallible, but a F1 designer like Gary Anderson will know better than saying that drag equates downforce. And IMO he never implied that in the article

[wedge]

The Autosport piece says that power and drag are the main factors in determining Vmax, and this is perfectly true. However my opinion is that the article equates drag to downforce. The more drag, the more downforce.

This is wrong, so looking into drag in more detail is needed.

No matter how emminent the author, they are never infallible (not even me on the odd occasion), so question everything.

The only way to compare engines like for like, in different cars is to put them on a dyno, and that is never going to happen, Autosport journos know this, and if they want to tell us otherwise, then so be it, but they just lost a whole lot of credibility in my book.

Where is the modern Dennis Jenkinson or LJK Setright???

Mark Hughes is worth a read on the technical stuff, otherwise I'd rather wait for this kind of technical debate to appear in Racecar Engineering magazine.

Kneeslider and Ioan - both are right and wrong.

What Gary Anderson says is interesting but shouldn't be taken too seriously because he uses the word 'suggests' quite a bit in that article, because it appears he was asked to analyse based on the speed trap data - which doesn't always tell the full story.

[Knock-on]

I'm not sure that they believe or think that drag = downforce. Simply because they didn't say so.

I also agree with you that drag doesn't equate downforce. There are to many components that create drag without creating downforce.

But what about downforce equate Drag, or to make it clear, more downforce -> more drag in modern F1 and without flexing bodywork.



Sure, no one is infallible, but a F1 designer like Gary Anderson will know better than saying that drag equates downforce. And IMO he never implied that in the article

I actually agree and this is what makes the assumption that there is 30 BHP difference between the engines speculation rather than fact.

One thing we probably can agree that are wrong in the article is that top speed. This is not influenced by drag but gearing.

Also, he maintains that the Ferrari and TR engines are identical. I would be surprised ;)

[wedge]

Vettel is, in other words, driving what in the second half of 2008 is one of the most aerodynamically efficient and powerful cars on the grid.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughes&id=43780

[Hondo]

I would think fuel and lubricant development factors in also. Didn't Shell develop a lighter fuel for Ferrari a few years ago? I would think a lighter, thinner lubricant would increase engine efficiency.