advertisement


The 2022 Formula One Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Lockhart said:
I suppose the extremely tight packaging of the power unit is what has caused the issue?
The turbo cars in the mid-80s were, in the end, just incredible heat pumps, struggling to dissipate all that unwanted energy. I wonder if some drag-inducing vents will be introduced before next weekend as a short term fix?
Click to expand...

I also wondered about this as the bodywork styling this year does appear to have very small openings for cooling in the side pods.
 
SteveS1 said:
Fair enough. I don't think specs have to be too rose tinted to remember great driving rivalries that were not so troubled worrying about a bit of tyre wear. I am totally onboard with many innovations, particularly those aimed at safety. I'm less enamoured with drivers being put off racing in order to preserve rubber or energy, but that's just my view.
Click to expand...

All motorsport from F1 down has managed tyres forever and tyres have determined champions since forever as well, Mansell 1986 anyone. There was a desperate period during the last ice age when the Bridgestone tyres lasted forever and MSC and Ferrari had their stranglehold on the regulations and the FIA when no-one was allowed to challenge them that the tyres did not wear. Briefly Michelin got their nose ahead but Todt had a word with Bernie and Max and got that taken care of. Cars always run to a slower pace than qualifying as tyes cannot last that long, neither can engines, brakes, drivers or cooling systems. It has always been this way.

There has never been a golden era, for anything; back when people get dewy eyed about Clark, Fangio, Moss, Nuvolari, Hunt, whoever, folks were winning GP's by minutes and laps back then. We have had the closest championship for decades last year and still people moan about it not being as good as it was in the good old days.
 
Interesting race. I still don’t understand how Mercedes have got their aerodynamics so wrong and the RB reliability issues are surprising too. Great to see Ferrari back as a real contender though, I don’t think they have been since I’ve been watching F1. Some really good racing between Lec & Ves before the RB issues bodes well for later in the season. Hopefully Mercedes will fix their car very soon for a proper three-way fight.
 
Surely it can't be so simple as Adrian Newey being the only designer working during the old "ground effect" era? Ferrari seem sorted, but they'll have records, McLaren, Williams and others must have some clue that porpoising was a problem and how it was solved. The Mercs looked awful in practice bouncing at high speed, did well/got lucky to achieve 3rd and 4th.
 
Enfield boy said:
Surely it can't be so simple as Adrian Newey being the only designer working during the old "ground effect" era? Ferrari seem sorted, but they'll have records, McLaren, Williams and others must have some clue that porpoising was a problem and how it was solved. The Mercs looked awful in practice bouncing at high speed, did well/got lucky to achieve 3rd and 4th.
Click to expand...
Adrian has always had a better grip of the aero concept required to make a championship winning car (he even puts the basics in his book as he clearly assumes that everyone in F1 understands this (they don't)).

When the rules change his approach is more likely to get the car in the ball park to start with. I still believe that a better optimised vehicle performance development toolset and process along with a strong team of aerodynamicists will do a better job than an Adrian Newey led approach, but as yet I have no real proof that I am right. So far this is in part due to no team having a toolset and process that is good enough to do the job (Merc had a good chunk of it when I left them in 2014).

When the rules remain broadly the same for a long period of time, then Adrian says that he gets bored, but also the optimisation process of having many aerodynamicists working to broadly the same rules for many years and being able to copy other teams ideas etc, does seem to beat the Adrian approach.
 
Enfield boy said:
Surely it can't be so simple as Adrian Newey being the only designer working during the old "ground effect" era? Ferrari seem sorted, but they'll have records, McLaren, Williams and others must have some clue that porpoising was a problem and how it was solved. The Mercs looked awful in practice bouncing at high speed, did well/got lucky to achieve 3rd and 4th.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple and Merc have a lot of bright people working for them so I think any notion that those somehow those with history in the ground effect era of the past have an advantage is just wishful thinking. Newey always seems able to get on top of new regulations quickly but others will catch up and surpass his designs as has been seen in the past. Additionally Merc brought a radical side-pod solution to the second test that the wind tunnel told them should be worth a lot of lap time, but the car is not working aerodynamically in other areas so any advantage this has is being masked. I also think they effectively wiped out the first test in terms of usefulness as their upgrade at Bahrain was so different, they may well have been wise to debut it in the Barcelona test and then they'd have had 3 extra days to figure it out. All that said it is not a complete disaster thus far as they are still the third quickest team and this year's championship was always going to be about who can develop their car the quickest for which they have good form. I doubt they have made such a fundamental error that the car will not be much nearer the front in the not too distant future, but if I am wrong so be it.

As for today I am very happy for Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Bottas and of course Haas. Nice to see some changes to the pecking order and looking forward to the next one already.

EDIT: Apologies as I see Ian posted similar about Newey since I started writing this post.
 
Yes great to see Haas actually getting some points ,also Alfa doing well with ferrari power . A big shame is Mclaren as they seem really slow , Norris has been doing so well of late and now looks set for a duff year
 
I have tidied up my rushed description of the likely RBR fuel problem from the previous page:
  1. The fuel not injected (but heated somewhat by the engine proximity etc) to the cylinders is returned to the tank, gradually adding energy to the fuel in the tank.
  2. This becomes a greater proportion of the fuel in the tank as the race approaches the end and could become a runaway problem.
  3. The electrical system and the engine have a large amount of heat to dissipate, some of which gets to the fuel tank, especially with the bodywork being shrunk and insulation being removed to reduce overall weight.
  4. This is a new fuel and will have different material properties.
  5. Cars are able to run closer to the car in front due to the new aero and so the cooling duty cycle (running in hot air from the car in front for longer) is likely to have changed.
 
I’ve just looked at the weather forecast for Jeddah on Sunday… 32°C. I think Bahrain was around 25.
I bet all teams are working hard to see what the possible effects are! Will we be going from the dreaded tyre-limited cars to disastrous heat-limited cars?
 
matthewr said:
Damn, I have just passed your previous explanation off as my own for clout elsewhere on the internet and now I am going to look like an idiot! ;-)
Click to expand...

Don’t worry Mathewr, a quote subsequently amended from IanW is still likely to have more truth than much of the internet:D:D:D.
 
What is the new ‘eco’ aspect of the fuel that was mentioned in the race commentary? It was stated but not explained in any way.
 
More info:


Last year’s regulations saw cars running on fuel containing 5.75% bio-components.

And while F1 is still working hard to introduce fully sustainable fuel in the near-future, 2022 has seen the bio-component ratio rise to 10%. That is achieved through a move to ‘E10 fuel’ – ‘E’ standing for ethanol, while ‘10’ refers to its percentage in the mixture.

Crucially, though, that ethanol must be a second generation biofuel made in a sustainable way, meaning it will have a near-zero carbon footprint – an “interim step”, in the words of Formula 1’s Chief Technical Officer Pat Symonds, which will also help the sport align with current road car fuel regulations.
 
I enjoyed the race, close racing and some interesting TV moments, did the producer think that all the action was at the back of the grid.

I have to say I did think of the cartridge on the end of my Ittok when I saw the two Red Bulls retire :D
 
I would have thought that the porpoising of the merc is simply over enthusiastic (and proficient) aerodynamic engineers - the amount of groundeffect must be huge with modern computer assisted design compared to the last set of designs a few decades ago. Surely it’s a case of decreasing it (downforce) the right amount, so easily done by raising the ride height - I wonder if merc are trying to trying to stop it stalling at the top end in a cleverer way..
 
Rug Doc said:
I would have thought that the porpoising of the merc is simply over enthusiastic (and proficient) aerodynamic engineers - the amount of groundeffect must be huge with modern computer assisted design compared to the last set of designs a few decades ago. Surely it’s a case of decreasing it (downforce) the right amount, so easily done by raising the ride height - I wonder if merc are trying to trying to stop it stalling at the top end in a cleverer way..
Click to expand...

Well, obviously, but then with a raised chassis will lose cornering speed, therefore will give slower lap times.
 
There was a fascinating vid on youtube a little while ago about the porpoising and how McLaren were the only team to have sorted it properly during testing with a sideboard design that created strong vortices. I haven't linked to it as, in the light of the GP it must've been bollx.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top