Natural selection is the influence. Random mutations which are more suitable to the environment tend to be passed on and those which are less suitable tend not to be. Creationists and people who believe in a supernatural/creator driving force like to make out that evolution is just a random process (as a means of diminishing credibility), but that's just the sort of bullshit distortion they like to use to try and muddy the waters.
Somewhat related: McLaren P1 - The King of Flamethrowers. Accentuated by the low light levels, but plenty of flames from the P1.
Just hoping I score more than I did last year. Button for WDC, what was I thinking?!
In amongst the crazy accidents and penalties there was some pretty decent action in V8s at the weekend. Bring on the rest of 2014 - could well be another classic year.
Don't worry, all neckbelts have already been recalled 
The 'special' Shell fuel is lighter (as in weighs less). Two fuels: same volume, same energy, one weighs less than the other. Do they have different calorific values (in energy / mass, as I said above)? Unless we can agree they do we're getting nowhere.
For reference, let me repeat the quote from earlier and add some emphasis:
Unless he works for an F1 fuel company making F1 fuels or he's able to provide sources from people who do then it's speculation.
If you look back from my first post in this conversation you'll see that you're actually the one who is stuck on a vague calculation based on assumptions which aren't really supported and you're making declarative statements as though they're fact. I'm not absolutely 100% sure that the Mercedes engine alone is generating 700hp peak horsepower, and I've never said this is definitely the case. I'd just rather believe a senior Mercedes engineer who's actually in a position to know the truth than these calculations which I don't believe are sound.
I don't follow. If Shell were able to make their 100 litres of fuel weigh 2 kg less than 'the other guy' then they have a greater calorific value, right? That is, if their fuel weighs 78kg and their competitor's fuel weighs 80kgs (numbers pulled from the air for illustration purposes) and they both contain the same amount of energy the Shell fuel has a higher calorific value (energy / mass).
So the Mercedes senior engineer who says the engine alone produces around 700hp isn't to be trusted, but some random on the internet is because he appears to understand chemistry. Forgive me, but there's quite the double standard there.
I reject the premise of this statement, so I won't respond to the following calculations, but I do understand what you're trying to say.
Unfortunately in the land of PR from huge oil companies like Shell and Total it's difficult to know where the marketing stops and reality kicks in. However, if you read interviews and articles about fuels in modern F1 the trend appears to be that F1 fuel is similar to 'pump fuel' but does have real world differences. For example:
Source
Source
Source
Obviously with a lighter fuel you get greater calorific value.
As I said above, none of these give us a real figure that can be used in a calculation. It's not like we can say "Oh, modern F1 fuel has a 5% higher calorific value than pump super unleaded.", but I hope we can agree that modern F1 fuel is likely to be at least different enough from 'pump fuel' for the assumption of 44MJ/kg to be questionable.
The fact we don't know the calorific value of modern F1 fuels mean this calculation isn't really useful for precise conclusions. I realise fuel in F1 these days is a lot more strictly controlled (and a lot closer to 'pump fuel') than in the '80s turbo period, but we simply don't know what the calorific value is.
If you look at my posts you'll see that the only power number which I've represented as being solid in any way is the 700hp figure which is from a Mercedes engineer. Everything else that I've said is questioning the legitimacy of making unqualified assertions and providing reasons why I think it's naive to try and draw direct comparisons between engines with approximately 25 years between them.
I think the statement from the Mercedes engineer (in conjunction with the 22 km/h higher top speeds than last year at such an early stage in the season) is reasonable evidence to believe that the power units this year are making as much as (if not more than) they did last year.
I think it's fair to assume that the power figure quoted by the Mercedes engineer is in an environment where most of the running will occur. The fact that most F1 races take place in locations and at times of year where ambient temperatures are around 25-30C means it's likely this will be the sort of environment where much of the engine testing will have taken place in dyno rooms. Sure, the engines will be able to make more power on a cold British day at near sea level than on a 35C day at high altitude in Brazil, but for most of the season the cars will be running in around 25-30C ambient temperatures.
The only direct power figure I've used is from a Mercedes engineer.
What peak power figure do you think the engine running up to 10,500rpm only (i.e. ignore the 15,000rpm limit) @ 3.5 bar of boost would deliver while hitting the instantaneous fuel flow limit? The engineer specifically states that 10,500rpm is basically the ceiling to deliver the 700bhp without breaking the instantaneous fuel flow limit.
I read the 40% comment as meaning 40% thermal efficiency from the engine alone (i.e. without ERS). I say this because of the term "motoren" (motor). Consider the decrease in parasitic losses in moving from a V8 revving to 18,000rpm to a V6 revving to 10,500rpm. I'm not in a position to speculate as to what decrease this would actually be in percentage terms, but I believe it would be fairly significant.
Also, it seems as though the Mercedes- and Ferrari-powered cars are ahead of the Renault-powered cars at the moment (in terms of engine performance and reliability/cooling requirement etc). If that really is the case then it wouldn't be surprising if Mercedes had hit or exceeded their stated goals.
If people get bored at a semi-technical discussion in an F1 thread they're in the wrong place. This isn't the Top Gear thread, after all
The 2014 front-running F1 cars would definitely be faster in terms of laptime than the McLaren MP4-4 due to any number of factors. The fastest race lap in the 2013 Japanese GP was a 1:34.587 by Webber, in 1988 it was a 1:46.326 by Senna. There have been various circuit surface and detail changes in the years between, but not enough to account for such a large gap. Speculation is that the 2014 cars are likely to be a few (2-4) secs per lap slower than 2013 cars in the race, but the Bahrain testing came as a bit of a surprise to many people, so the actual gap may be smaller.
Take a look here for a side-by-side comparison of the 1989 and 2009 Japanese GP pole laps.
1989 Pole: 1:38.041 - Senna
2009 Pole: 1:32.160 - Vettel
I'm trying to explain where the improved fuel efficiency and where the greater peak power output come from.
BTW, you do realise that the Mercedes 700 horsepower peak output is at around 10,500rpm, don't you (as opposed to the ~12,500rpm of the RA-168E). What do your calculations say about 3.5 bar of boost @ 10,500rpm compared to 2.5 bar @ 12,500rpm with respect to peak power output and instantaneous fuel flow rate?
No, I fully understand the distinction between instantaneous fuel flow and overall fuel limit.
You mean 100kg maximum fuel (not litres), and I do understand this.
You are the one who's trying to use unsound (IMHO) simple calculations to draw direct conclusions between engines with approximately 25 years between them, without considering a number of factors. I fail to see how these are irrelevant. Also, you've repeated this assertion that no-one is running with 850bhp peak at the moment, but you've again failed to show why you believe this is true to any reasonable standard.
Incidentally, here is another interesting piece of information. It comes from the start of the 2011 season, so I'm not suggesting it's directly related to exhaust blowing fuel usage in 2012 or 2013.
That is to say that at that time the Renault-powered teams were burning 10% more fuel just to blow the diffuser and produce more downforce.
Your analysis is particularly naive in a number of ways, both discounting key pieces of information and making assumptions which I believe are without merit:
- 2014 max boost levels are likely to be higher than 2.5 bar (Renault suggests 3.5 bar as a maximum).
- Aerodynamic changes in the last ~25 years mean you can't assume the overall drag and drag/lift ratios of the 1988 and 2014 cars will be close enough to be comparable. Obviously the drag level plays a large role in fuel consumption.
- Cylinder deactivation/cut was not employed in the 1988 Honda engine (AFAIK). In 2014 cylinder cut will be used even more aggressively than it has been in previous years, due to the reduced requirement for exhaust blowing.
- The 2014 engines use direct fuel injection (fuel efficiency improvement).
- The 2014 power units will use the MGU-H to spool the turbo, reducing the need to waste fuel spooling it as was done with the twin Honda turbos.
- You have assumed that fuel flow rate has a perfectly linear relationship with maximum output power ("611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp").
- Rather than having a wastegate as a means of dumping excess boost pressure this will be recovered by power unit.
- We don't know enough about the properties of the tyres (e.g. rolling resistance) to compare them like for like.
- There have, of course, been improvements in manufacturing (better precision in engine parts, better tolerances), lubricants and fuel in the last 25+ years.
Close to the top speeds in the first Bahrain test of the season as at Monza in qualifying last year. Obviously this alone doesn't prove that in 2014 the engines will definitely be producing more power than last year (during most of the full-throttle running of the race), but I see it as a positive sign.
Apart from nay-saying, can you provide any sources or evidence to support your belief?
Last edited by amp88, .
Oh, I was trying to be sarcastic in reply to BlueFlame's post. Sorry for not being obvious enough.
When there were fuel limits in the last turbo era in F1 it didn't really do much to dampen the racing, so I think BlueFlame's assertion that fuel restrictions will "make the racing shit. That's a given" is totally ridiculous.
So true. At other times in the past when there have been fuel restrictions the racing has always been shit. That's a given.
edit: The above is an attempt at sarcasm.
Last edited by amp88, .
It's not the first time a company has taken issue with the portrayal of their car on Top Gear. A few years ago the makers of the Hawk Stratos replica did so.
It depends to what degree they were abusing it (perhaps in order to try and force a failure to reach their desired conclusion). For example, if they were clutch-kicking with lots of load on the transmission it's not difficult to see how they could damage the clutch in an hour.
It depends to what degree they were abusing it (perhaps in order to try and force a failure to reach their desired conclusion). For example, if they were clutch-kicking with lots of load on the transmission it's not difficult to see how they could damage the clutch in an hour.
I fail to see how discussing issues raised in the episode itself is "wildly off topic".
Quite similar to this incident (Coulthard + Wurz from the 2007 Australian GP). Note where Coulthard's car crosses over Wurz's. It's a good job he pulled his hands down or he could have got in a bit of trouble there.
Fair point. I think the film you're referencing is called Into Eternity: A Film for the Future (which is highly recommended viewing). One possible outcome (thinking in the ~50 year range) is that fusion or hybrid fission-fusion reactors may be a solution to dispose of the highly dangerous and long-lasting nuclear waste that results from current fission technology.
Saying there's "Nothing to fear" about nuclear power is stupidity too. What you'd be better off saying is something like "Modern nuclear power stations which are run responsibly and situated in carefully chosen locations provide a greater electrical output with a much lower environmental footprint than competing technologies and their health risks are fairly well understood and protected against." There certainly is a risk associated with nuclear power stations, but you have to try and compare that risk against the benefits of nuclear power and in the context of competing means of production. For instance, the risk of a complete meltdown at a modern, well-run and well-situated nuclear power station are very small. Conversely, coal & gas power production (favoured by numerous countries around the world) are a definite contributing factor to tens of thousands of early deaths and serious illnesses every year.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG