Ponderbox

[Myrvold]

So, each language have different persons?

[Peter]

I wondered if Adrian Newey could do magic if he were to join HRT and immediately give them about 4 seconds faster pace. Then I realized, talented as he is, he needs money for his own R&D, just like every designer, which they wouldn't have.

Which made me ponder even more. Is a designers car being so great down more to his skill, or his budget and facilities given by the team? I mean, Newey has only been designing for huge budgeted teams, Williams probably had the biggest on the grid at the time, McLaren were mighty high, and Red Bull is spending somewhere over $200 million a year I believe. Would he still be able to create a fast car with, say, a team that runs on $100 mil, or even less?

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

I wondered if Adrian Newey could do magic if he were to join HRT and immediately give them about 4 seconds faster pace. Then I realized, talented as he is, he needs money for his own R&D, just like every designer, which they wouldn't have.

Which made me ponder even more. Is a designers car being so great down more to his skill, or his budget and facilities given by the team? I mean, Newey has only been designing for huge budgeted teams, Williams probably had the biggest on the grid at the time, McLaren were mighty high, and Red Bull is spending somewhere over $200 million a year I believe. Would he still be able to create a fast car with, say, a team that runs on $100 mil, or even less?

Newey did wonders when he was with March, if you remember. 1988 in particular, and in 1990 Capelli was about to win in France when something broke. This is how he caught the attention of Patrick Head.

[Peter]

True, but I was just pondering on how much a designer's skill matters as opposed to the budget they have at their team and the resources they have at their disposal. I mean, I think I could, with $200 million and oodles of resources I could design a race winning car

[MinardiFan95]

I mean, I think I could, with $200 million and oodles of resources I could design a race winning car

*cough* Toyota *cough*

[Jordan192]

Williams probably had the biggest on the grid at the time, McLaren were mighty high,

Williams in the early '90s were certainly running on less money than McLaren, who in turn were running with less than Ferrari. I remember it being about about 40 million, 50 Million and 80 million repsectively, but this would have been an article I read best part of 20 years ago.

Newey is (annoyingly) just that good.

[mario]

I mean, I think I could, with $200 million and oodles of resources I could design a race winning car

*cough* Toyota *cough*

Well, it would be fair to say that money alone cannot buy you success, but on the other hand, it is fair to say that a strong budget does help attract the brightest engineers to your team, along with being able to provide them with some of the best tools in the business (such as Toyota's wind tunnels, which were said to be some of the best in the paddock - which is why Toyota Motorsport Group now has a pretty good side line as a consultant to F1 selling time in their wind tunnel to other teams).

It's certainly true that Newey is a great designer, but it should be borne in mind that just popping a single great designer into an otherwise underperforming team will not automatically guarantee success. After all, whilst Newey's first car, the March 881, was, considering that it was using the normally aspirated Judd engine, more competitive than you might have expected, the following car, the CG891, suffered as the fortunes of March Engineering declined.
After all, whilst Newey might still lead development within the team, one man alone cannot design every single fine detail on the car - there will be those refining the transmission, the electronics, the KERS and so forth. To a certain extent, Newey will guide them, but there are many other designers within the design team at Red Bull Technology who have, no doubt, played their part in turning the concepts that Newey might have had into a workable design.

[Peter]

I mean, I think I could, with $200 million and oodles of resources I could design a race winning car

*cough* Toyota *cough*

Toyota failed because their engine had about as much power as a lawnmower and they an unexplosive lineup. The 2005 car could've won at least 1 race, but we all know how that turned out. And in 2009, they got a 1-2 qualy, but being the idiots they are, screwed up strategy for both drivers.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

I mean, I think I could, with $200 million and oodles of resources I could design a race winning car

*cough* Toyota *cough*

Toyota failed because their engine had about as much power as a lawnmower and they an unexplosive lineup. The 2005 car could've won at least 1 race, but we all know how that turned out. And in 2009, they got a 1-2 qualy, but being the idiots they are, screwed up strategy for both drivers.

I'm pretty sure their engine wasn't the problem. At least, I was watching China 2004 a moment ago, and Brundle and Allen were commenting on how the Toyota should be able to stay ahead of the big-teams on the long straight.

[Peter]

*cough* Toyota *cough*

Toyota failed because their engine had about as much power as a lawnmower and they an unexplosive lineup. The 2005 car could've won at least 1 race, but we all know how that turned out. And in 2009, they got a 1-2 qualy, but being the idiots they are, screwed up strategy for both drivers.

I'm pretty sure their engine wasn't the problem. At least, I was watching China 2004 a moment ago, and Brundle and Allen were commenting on how the Toyota should be able to stay ahead of the big-teams on the long straight.

Low downforce perhaps. I've known Toyota over the years for having a considerably underpowered engine, but a very reliable and fuel efficient one.

[mario]

Toyota failed because their engine had about as much power as a lawnmower and they an unexplosive lineup. The 2005 car could've won at least 1 race, but we all know how that turned out. And in 2009, they got a 1-2 qualy, but being the idiots they are, screwed up strategy for both drivers.

I'm pretty sure their engine wasn't the problem. At least, I was watching China 2004 a moment ago, and Brundle and Allen were commenting on how the Toyota should be able to stay ahead of the big-teams on the long straight.

I assume that Peter is referring to the RVX-06 to RVX-09 series engines - during the V10 era, Toyota did produce a fairly competitive engine (it's thought that their engine was producing around 940bhp by 2005, which would be comparable with the other engines from that time - BMW, for example, were producing around 950bhp, and they were towards the upper end of the power spectrum).

But for the V8 era, the engine probably had the lowest power output (generally put at about 735bhp, compared to about 755bhp for the Mercedes engine), albeit with the advantage of better fuel consumption. Unfortunately, with refuelling possible during that era, the fuel consumption advantage was offset by the power disadvantage, which is why perhaps it was even more unfortunate for them that they pulled out before refuelling was banned.

[dnhrudi]

My feeling is that the way that the administrative management was structured impacted on all aspects of the teams function from driver selection to race strategy etc, all the way through to design and development. It appeared that pretty much all major resource aspects of the teams function had to pass through the senior Management of Toyota (the company, not the team) which would have delayed and delayed and delayed response to design at the initial stages, and when the car was completed, good or bad, and lets face it Toyota did manage a couple of base cars that looked useful, would have effected all aspects of updates and developments throughout the year, resulting in going backwards in performance against rapidly developing rivals. The same environment existed at Honda, and although I acknowledge somewhat simplistic, look what happened when the Honda exec component was removed and left the race team alone to get on with it.
I think there was a culture of face and respect issues in play here which suggests that A major East Asian manufacturer will never be truly successful incorporating a western race team. Now if Honda had thrown all their efforts behind Aguri Suzuki for example, well I'm not saying it would have been successful, but it just might have been because in their short span Aguri and the boys showed us they could race, and they would have spoken the same cultural language as their manufacturer partner. They just might have been allowed to have just gone out there and given it some gas.
I think the way that the Japanese public (and everyone else) responded to Aguri compared with Toyota and Honda sums it all up, Aguris boys responded to being cheered on, the manufacturers got themselves damned by polite applause

[Aerospeed]

I think this question might have been asked before, but...

What in the world is Mark Webber doing wrong?

Webber has the same car, mechanics, pit crew, etc. So why has Vettel won SIX races, podiumed in the first EIGHT races, and we see Webber earn four podiums, three third places and one second (which was the ONLY Red Bull 1-2 thus far this season). Is it the way he drives? Is it the team ordering him about? Or is Vettel just that dominant?

(To Webber's credit, he IS the only driver besides Vettel to have a pole position thus far)

[dnhrudi]

I think this question might have been asked before, but...

What in the world is Mark Webber doing wrong?

Webber has the same car, mechanics, pit crew, etc. So why has Vettel won SIX races, podiumed in the first EIGHT races, and we see Webber earn four podiums, three third places and one second (which was the ONLY Red Bull 1-2 thus far this season). Is it the way he drives? Is it the team ordering him about? Or is Vettel just that dominant?

(To Webber's credit, he IS the only driver besides Vettel to have a pole position thus far)

I think in his head he retired in October 2010, to me he looks like someone totally fed up with the F1 circus, maybe he just wants to drive a car without a Helmut?

[Peter]

I think this question might have been asked before, but...

What in the world is Mark Webber doing wrong?

Webber has the same car, mechanics, pit crew, etc. So why has Vettel won SIX races, podiumed in the first EIGHT races, and we see Webber earn four podiums, three third places and one second (which was the ONLY Red Bull 1-2 thus far this season). Is it the way he drives? Is it the team ordering him about? Or is Vettel just that dominant?

(To Webber's credit, he IS the only driver besides Vettel to have a pole position thus far)

Because Red Bull is almost a carbon copy of what Ferrari used to be in the Schumacher era, except that the team is leaning over to Vettel even more than Ferrari did to Michael. The car, and the team is entirely built around him, and he is the utmost priority in that team right now.

I might have exaggerated that a bit. But I think Mark is finding it hard getting used to a car built more to fit Vettel.

[JeanDenisAlcatraz]

maybe he just wants to drive a car without a Helmut?

That wouldn't be very safe...

[DanielPT]

I think this question might have been asked before, but...

What in the world is Mark Webber doing wrong?

Webber has the same car, mechanics, pit crew, etc. So why has Vettel won SIX races, podiumed in the first EIGHT races, and we see Webber earn four podiums, three third places and one second (which was the ONLY Red Bull 1-2 thus far this season). Is it the way he drives? Is it the team ordering him about? Or is Vettel just that dominant?

(To Webber's credit, he IS the only driver besides Vettel to have a pole position thus far)

Because Red Bull is almost a carbon copy of what Ferrari used to be in the Schumacher era, except that the team is leaning over to Vettel even more than Ferrari did to Michael. The car, and the team is entirely built around him, and he is the utmost priority in that team right now.

I might have exaggerated that a bit. But I think Mark is finding it hard getting used to a car built more to fit Vettel.

I partially agree with this. This year, Vettel reveled on Pirelli tyres while Mark went the other way around. The gadgetry may also have affected more Mark. He should give one more try next year. If the difference stays the same then I am afraid it is all over for Mark...

[FullMetalJack]

This year, Vettel reveled on Pirelli tyres while Mark went the other way around. The gadgetry may also have affected more Mark. He should give one more try next year. If the difference stays the same then I am afraid it is all over for Mark...

This. Mark surely hasn't got much longer, he turns 35 in August.

[dnhrudi]

maybe he just wants to drive a car without a Helmut?

That wouldn't be very safe...

As Seb B and Scott Speed discovered......

[McJaggers]

Because Red Bull is almost a carbon copy of what Ferrari used to be in the Schumacher era, except that the team is leaning over to Vettel even more than Ferrari did to Michael. The car, and the team is entirely built around him, and he is the utmost priority in that team right now.

I might have exaggerated that a bit. But I think Mark is finding it hard getting used to a car built more to fit Vettel.

Ive always wondered; how is it that 2009, mark was relatively unsuccessful compared to Sebastian (ok 14 1/2 points isnt that bad, but the qualifying was something else); despite logic dictating that the car was designed around the specifications and the input of Mark.

Whereas the 2010 efforts, which would've been a joint effort, tended to be relatively even. (often beating each other by tenths).

[WeirdKerr]

Because Red Bull is almost a carbon copy of what Ferrari used to be in the Schumacher era, except that the team is leaning over to Vettel even more than Ferrari did to Michael. The car, and the team is entirely built around him, and he is the utmost priority in that team right now.

I might have exaggerated that a bit. But I think Mark is finding it hard getting used to a car built more to fit Vettel.

Ive always wondered; how is it that 2009, mark was relatively unsuccessful compared to Sebastian (ok 14 1/2 points isnt that bad, but the qualifying was something else); despite logic dictating that the car was designed around the specifications and the input of Mark.

Whereas the 2010 efforts, which would've been a joint effort, tended to be relatively even. (often beating each other by tenths).

Remember that Vettel didnt come from another team as torro rosso is the red bull b team its possibly Seb's input came earlier than '09

[Peter]

I'm pondering. How much faster or slower are 2011 cars than the cars post V10 era. Are we at a peak in speed since then? The cars are around a second a lap, or even more, faster than last year, which in turn was faster than 2009.

[DanielPT]

I'm pondering. How much faster or slower are 2011 cars than the cars post V10 era. Are we at a peak in speed since then? The cars are around a second a lap, or even more, faster than last year, which in turn was faster than 2009.

The record for the Australian GP is, for instance, 1:24.125 in 2004. This year, Vettel pole was 1:23.529 and the fastest lap was Massa's 1.28:947. Now, bear in mind that those conditions were different at the time with a different qualification system and refuelling allowed. I say that these V8 units are faster but many things changed in the cars to make them go slower.

[Phoenix]

I'm pondering. How much faster or slower are 2011 cars than the cars post V10 era. Are we at a peak in speed since then? The cars are around a second a lap, or even more, faster than last year, which in turn was faster than 2009.

The record for the Australian GP is, for instance, 1:24.125 in 2004. This year, Vettel pole was 1:23.529 and the fastest lap was Massa's 1.28:947. Now, bear in mind that those conditions were different at the time with a different qualification system and refuelling allowed. I say that these V8 units are faster but many things changed in the cars to make them go slower.

By no means these V8s are more powerful than the V10s. At 2004/2005, V10s were around 900 hp. Today's V8s produce approximately some 750 hp.

[Peter]

I'm pondering. How much faster or slower are 2011 cars than the cars post V10 era. Are we at a peak in speed since then? The cars are around a second a lap, or even more, faster than last year, which in turn was faster than 2009.

The record for the Australian GP is, for instance, 1:24.125 in 2004. This year, Vettel pole was 1:23.529 and the fastest lap was Massa's 1.28:947. Now, bear in mind that those conditions were different at the time with a different qualification system and refuelling allowed. I say that these V8 units are faster but many things changed in the cars to make them go slower.

By no means these V8s are more powerful than the V10s. At 2004/2005, V10s were around 900 hp. Today's V8s produce approximately some 750 hp.

Bump those power figures up a bit. The V10's were almost touching 1000hp, in fact, I think the Honda engine in the BAR had 1000hp, it certainly sounded like it. Today's V8's should be producing around 800hp.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

No chance in hell the V10s were near the 1000 mark. In all the documentaries I've seen, they've always maintained that only the turbos reached and surpassed it.

[Peter]

No chance in hell the V10s were near the 1000 mark. In all the documentaries I've seen, they've always maintained that only the turbos reached and surpassed it.

Wikipedia says otherwise. Not saying that Wikipedia is always right, but, I doubt that only the turbos went past 1000hp. I'm sure that in 2005, the BAR was churning out 1000hp, I think that was the most powerful engine at the time.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

No chance in hell the V10s were near the 1000 mark. In all the documentaries I've seen, they've always maintained that only the turbos reached and surpassed it.

Wikipedia says otherwise. Not saying that Wikipedia is always right, but, I doubt that only the turbos went past 1000hp. I'm sure that in 2005, the BAR was churning out 1000hp, I think that was the most powerful engine at the time.

It's true that Honda did produce it's Suzuka Specials or something, which had insane power, but I still doubt they went over 1000. I don't know, I'm no insider. Perhaps Faustus or mario could explain.

[TomWazzleshaw]

No chance in hell the V10s were near the 1000 mark. In all the documentaries I've seen, they've always maintained that only the turbos reached and surpassed it.

Wikipedia says otherwise. Not saying that Wikipedia is always right, but, I doubt that only the turbos went past 1000hp. I'm sure that in 2005, the BAR was churning out 1000hp, I think that was the most powerful engine at the time.

It's true that Honda did produce it's Suzuka Specials or something, which had insane power, but I still doubt they went over 1000. I don't know, I'm no insider. Perhaps Faustus or mario could explain.

From memory the Suzuka Specials produced something in the region of 950-980bhp.

[DanielPT]

I'm pondering. How much faster or slower are 2011 cars than the cars post V10 era. Are we at a peak in speed since then? The cars are around a second a lap, or even more, faster than last year, which in turn was faster than 2009.

The record for the Australian GP is, for instance, 1:24.125 in 2004. This year, Vettel pole was 1:23.529 and the fastest lap was Massa's 1.28:947. Now, bear in mind that those conditions were different at the time with a different qualification system and refuelling allowed. I say that these V8 units are faster but many things changed in the cars to make them go slower.

By no means these V8s are more powerful than the V10s. At 2004/2005, V10s were around 900 hp. Today's V8s produce approximately some 750 hp.

I don't question that the V10's are more powerful than the V8's. But the V8 are lighter and more compact. Perhaps they have other advantages that makes them a better proposition. That is what I am saying as unlikely as it looks like.

[DonTirri]

Comparing the Raw power of engines is stupid anyway. Of course bigger engines are more powerful than smaller engines. What matters though is the Power-to-weight-ratio. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the V8's of today have more Horse-per-pound than the V10's and the Turbos of the eighties

[mario]

No chance in hell the V10s were near the 1000 mark. In all the documentaries I've seen, they've always maintained that only the turbos reached and surpassed it.

Wikipedia says otherwise. Not saying that Wikipedia is always right, but, I doubt that only the turbos went past 1000hp. I'm sure that in 2005, the BAR was churning out 1000hp, I think that was the most powerful engine at the time.

It's true that Honda did produce it's Suzuka Specials or something, which had insane power, but I still doubt they went over 1000. I don't know, I'm no insider. Perhaps Faustus or mario could explain.

I've seen a figure of 986bhp for the 2005 engine (which would correspond to about 1000 metric horsepower - I suspect that it is a misinterpretation of that figure which lead to claims of over 1000bhp being bandied around).

BMW were also often rumoured to have a very powerful engine, although that again seems to be a slightly more complicated affair. BMW had originally designed an engine, the P85 series, for 2005, which was an incredibly aggressive design (scarbsf1 and others came across an excellent paper on the BMW F1 engine program, which provides a good deal of technical detail about BMW's engine design). They were really pushing their design to the limit there - the cylinder walls were cut down to 4mm, for example - with a power output exceeding 950bhp.

Unfortunately, the late change in engine regulations to extend the lifespan from one to two race weekends forced BMW to ditch the P85 engine - ironically, in pushing their design to the limit, they had no margin for a redesign, so they had to modify the 2004 engine and use that in 2005 instead (which might be part of the reason why Williams were not entirely happy about BMW's performance that year). Perhaps, though, when people talk about BMW's V10 producing nearly 1000bhp, they are thinking of the unraced P85, not the P84/5 that was actually used in 2005.

Comparing the Raw power of engines is stupid anyway. Of course bigger engines are more powerful than smaller engines. What matters though is the Power-to-weight-ratio. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the V8's of today have more Horse-per-pound than the V10's and the Turbos of the eighties

Then may I surprise you - the V10 engines actually have a significantly better power to weight ratio than the current V8 engines, because they were not only more powerful but lighter too.

Again, drawing on the paper about BMW's engines, in 2005 the P84/5 engine weighted 84kg, as there were no minimum engine weight regulations at the time and the restrictions on exotic materials were not quite as strict as they are today. To put it in perspective, BMW reckon that if they'd been allowed to, even with the increased mileage requirements of the V8 era, they could have cut the engine weight of the current engines to 69kg - and even with the current restrictions on exotic materials, a number of engine manufacturers are having to add ballast to their engines to reach the 95kg minimum weight.

Also, whilst the turbo engines produced a lot of power in qualifying trim, in race trim the maximum recorded power output seems to be 900bhp, which would be below the power output of the V10's at their peak. On top of that, once you factor in the intercoolers and turbo chargers, the turbo engines were pretty heavy, at around 150+kg - so the power to weight output of those engines was actually not that great when you think about it.

Technically speaking, probably the most effective method would be to calculate the Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) value for the various engines, which is a measure of the ability for the engine to do work independently of the engine capacity. Unfortunately, there probably isn't quite enough engine data out there to be able to do that - you'd need to know at what rpm the peak power or peak torque values occurred - but if you did, then it'd probably be the fairest way of comparing the different engine types.

[dnhrudi]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

[the Masked Lapwing]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

I think Toyota might disagree with you on that one.

[madmark1974]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

Well I heard that Red Bull have an asymmetric colour scheme in their garages, in their eyes, the number one side is golden, and the number two side is mud

[TomWazzleshaw]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

What differences?

[tommykl]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

What differences?

The left side isn't a mirror image of the right side.

[Aerospeed]

While watching the Silverstone Grand Prix, had a bit of a relevation. The Force India team have been running illegaly all season. Why? because they do not have a symterical colour scheme, which If I remember correctly, was introduced in 2000 after the zip up BAR Honda's. Just a thought

What differences?

The left side isn't a mirror image of the right side.

Who cares?

Anyways, I have a question about GP2; why is Abu Dhabi a non-championship round?

[dinizintheoven]

Technically, Toyota ran an asymmetric livery - yes, it was mainly red and white, but the stripe than ran diagonally across the nose made it asymmetric. See: TF102, TF103, TF104, TF105, TF106, TF107 - they all had that diagonal stripe. At least, other than that, the livery was the same on both sides.

...and they brought it back on the TF109 as well.

[dr-baker]

Anyways, I have a question about GP2; why is Abu Dhabi a non-championship round?

Because they have a contract obliging them to attend. But why it can't now count towards the main series instead of the intended Asia series, I have no idea.