Technical 2014 Technical Regulations
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
I've been thinking more about the implications of the 100 kg/hr fuel flow restriction butting up against the 100-kilo petrol tank. So I ran the numbers on Monaco, which is the lowest petrol use circuit because it is both the shortest race distance (by ~45 km) and has the lowest top speeds.
At Monaco, cars spend ~42% of lap time at full throttle and ~12% under braking, leaving ~46% of each lap at partial throttle. For the sake of argument, I fixed partial throttle fuel flow at 1/3rd of the TR's maximum, which come to 0.556 kg/minute.
The winner of the 2012 Monaco GP's average lap time was 1:27.3, so I used that as my representative lap time.
Now we have 36.7 seconds at full throttle and 40.2 seconds at 1/3rd throttle, which come to 1.39 kilos of fuel per lap. Times 78 laps equals 108.4 kilos. Except they only will be allowed 100 kilos. And that ignores the fuel needed for formation lap and tech inspection, which isn't addressed in the 2014 TR currently available at FIA.org.
The fast circuits will be even worse. At race pace, petrol power only will get them through about 50 of Hockenheim's 67 laps.
So the CURSE v.2 obviously will be far more critical than 2013's CURSE v.1, a necessity for simply completing the race, much less winning it. But my question is whether it will be possible for anyone to implement a CURSE capable of delivering the full output allowed for in the 2014 TR. Or, more to the point, whether they would want to.
2014-spec CURSE v.2 is too dramatic an increase in thermal output from 2013, and CURSE v.1 cooling already is overtaxed as is. In fact, I'll wager the teams have a cost/benefit algorithm written for the CURSE v.1, which they use to estimate the increase in lap time due to overheating of CURSE versus the increase resulting from loss of grip due to reduced airflow available to the rear wing and/or diffuser.
Give precedence to cooling of the CURSE v.2 and your car has greater top speed. Give precedence to the downforce and your car has greater cornering speed. And I think the track record of Adrian Newey's designs has given us insight which tactic on balance produces lower lap times. In fact, Red Bull at one point were running something the press termed a mini-CURSE, which made no effort to take full advantage of the output allowable under the TR for CURSE v.1 in favour of packaging and downforce concerns.
It stands to reason they simply will tweak the current algorithm to determine the break-even point with CURSE v.2 and the 1.6L V-6T.
I also imagine tyres will be pivotal. If the disinte-Pirellis survive to 2014, I think that further reduces the teams' motivation to build a full-spec CURSE v.2. If the FIA sincerely want teams developing it to its fullest potential, they need to source a tyre that will make that extra power not only useable but also critical to victory.
On the other hand, if the disinte-Pirellis are back for 2014, I think we will see the pecking order largely unchanged, with familiar team and driver names always appearing at the top of the time sheet (and Vettel favoured to take his fifth consecutive WDC). But if they switch to proper racing tyres, there is such an enormous performance advantage to be had in full implementation of CURSE v.2 -- potentially as much as 22% of total available thrust -- the teams who find their way to the top of the time sheet will be those who best are able to strike a "golden mean" between generating cornering grip and cooling the CURSE v.2, and it won't much matter whose logo is on the side of the car or which driver's bum is in the seat.
At Monaco, cars spend ~42% of lap time at full throttle and ~12% under braking, leaving ~46% of each lap at partial throttle. For the sake of argument, I fixed partial throttle fuel flow at 1/3rd of the TR's maximum, which come to 0.556 kg/minute.
The winner of the 2012 Monaco GP's average lap time was 1:27.3, so I used that as my representative lap time.
Now we have 36.7 seconds at full throttle and 40.2 seconds at 1/3rd throttle, which come to 1.39 kilos of fuel per lap. Times 78 laps equals 108.4 kilos. Except they only will be allowed 100 kilos. And that ignores the fuel needed for formation lap and tech inspection, which isn't addressed in the 2014 TR currently available at FIA.org.
The fast circuits will be even worse. At race pace, petrol power only will get them through about 50 of Hockenheim's 67 laps.
So the CURSE v.2 obviously will be far more critical than 2013's CURSE v.1, a necessity for simply completing the race, much less winning it. But my question is whether it will be possible for anyone to implement a CURSE capable of delivering the full output allowed for in the 2014 TR. Or, more to the point, whether they would want to.
2014-spec CURSE v.2 is too dramatic an increase in thermal output from 2013, and CURSE v.1 cooling already is overtaxed as is. In fact, I'll wager the teams have a cost/benefit algorithm written for the CURSE v.1, which they use to estimate the increase in lap time due to overheating of CURSE versus the increase resulting from loss of grip due to reduced airflow available to the rear wing and/or diffuser.
Give precedence to cooling of the CURSE v.2 and your car has greater top speed. Give precedence to the downforce and your car has greater cornering speed. And I think the track record of Adrian Newey's designs has given us insight which tactic on balance produces lower lap times. In fact, Red Bull at one point were running something the press termed a mini-CURSE, which made no effort to take full advantage of the output allowable under the TR for CURSE v.1 in favour of packaging and downforce concerns.
It stands to reason they simply will tweak the current algorithm to determine the break-even point with CURSE v.2 and the 1.6L V-6T.
I also imagine tyres will be pivotal. If the disinte-Pirellis survive to 2014, I think that further reduces the teams' motivation to build a full-spec CURSE v.2. If the FIA sincerely want teams developing it to its fullest potential, they need to source a tyre that will make that extra power not only useable but also critical to victory.
On the other hand, if the disinte-Pirellis are back for 2014, I think we will see the pecking order largely unchanged, with familiar team and driver names always appearing at the top of the time sheet (and Vettel favoured to take his fifth consecutive WDC). But if they switch to proper racing tyres, there is such an enormous performance advantage to be had in full implementation of CURSE v.2 -- potentially as much as 22% of total available thrust -- the teams who find their way to the top of the time sheet will be those who best are able to strike a "golden mean" between generating cornering grip and cooling the CURSE v.2, and it won't much matter whose logo is on the side of the car or which driver's bum is in the seat.
KERS... am I missing something? 
Something you chaps don't have to put up with...
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
I say you should just get 50 sets of tyres and let the teams waste them over the season as they feel
If it was up to me, I would allow the teams the same number of sets per race weekend, leave the wet allocations as-is, and allow the teams to choose how they would like the rest to be allocated, as long as they provide sufficient notice for production.
Take away all the other tyre regs, and allow the teams to race as they see fit.
Take away all the other tyre regs, and allow the teams to race as they see fit.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
I'm not crazy... yet!
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
Renault have released information stating their V-6T will pull "a typical maximum" 3.5 bar (absolute) boost. The only way I can make the maths work is if the 100 kg/hour limit provided for by the TR is not further reducible to 1.67 kg/minute (or 27.8 grams/sec). That is, they can exceed 1.67 kg/minute, provided total delivery in any 60 minute period is no more than 100 kg. Which means boost pressure comes closer to being limited by the 500 bar fuel pressure limit than the 100 kg/hour fuel mass delivery limit (the 2013 TR limit fuel line pressure to 100 bar).
Then again, a 15,000 rpm, 1.6 litre 4-pot under 2.5 bar pressurization should be capable of producing well in excess of the 550-600 bhp that has been estimated. And maybe they will, in spurts (time will tell), but that can't happen without skyrocketing fuel consumption. And then you're back to limping home under battery power.
Josh
Champion Elect
Even better than that, the high noses will be properly gone too.
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
Kinna git an AMEN!
Until I saw the Renault numbers, I hadn't noticed that the 2014 ERS can store twice as much energy per lap as it can expend. Seems to me, that serves to the detriment of overtaking because a driver who is in the lead can sit on an enormous (and rather constant) reserve of energy, while any pursuing driver will have to be expending his, else he'll never be able to close the gap. And when (if?) they do join up, the pursuing driver will be SOL because the leading driver always will have more battery power remaining for use with his 160 bhp electric motor.
So from a competitive aspect, I fear the primary use of ERS will be defensive. But even the last place driver still is going to need it, just to reach the finish line.
