The Ferrari was more composed but on turn 14 Vettel struggled to get the car to the Apex perhaps showing signs of under steer. Less rotation, harder to get the power down, and more likely to destroy the front tires if you keep pushing too hard.
The Mercedes also looked to not enjoy bumps or curbs as much but as bouncy as it was it was still planted. And though Hamilton had to do more counter steering inputs than we are used to in formula 1 he was still quickest in qualifying and the oversteer looked like it was completely manageable and just the right amount. Probably around 15%-20% which is easy to control and quite fun to drive.
Reading the article it seems like the analysis is spot on. Not enough front grip because of the front wrong on the Ferrari which led to a tendency to perhaps under steer. What looked promising in testing was obviously Mercedes just not showing their full hand.
Still different tracks will suit different cars so will see how the first 3-4 races play out before giving the championship to Mercedes. Last year Ferrari was leading just about till the summer break and there were a couple of costly unforced errors from vettel that really cost him dearly.
That s-curve at turn 11 starting at the ~53 sec mark (video above) with 6.5 lateral G-force is taken at 300km/h, down to 250 at the apex. This is the same lap with the speedometer instead of g-force meter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mtjC9DozXs (turn 11 at the ~59 sec mark)
The camera angles Rarely do the cars justice in protraying their speed (though its gotten better). There's a great vid on HN with a Porsche 919 sportscar at the Nurbugring that portays the quick factor fairly realistically (you can quibble about the various diffrences between a Sportscar and an F1 car in terms of capabilities--both are other worldy quick, and fast). I like to post that vid when talk here turns to self-driving cars, but I digress; F1 pilots are simply amazing. The cars are too.
Those drivers can’t be human. Proof positive aliens live among us. Wow.
Sorry, pulled an all nighter, didn't notice. Too late to edit it now.
Always fun and andrenaline releasing to watch the Porsche 919 fly around the nurburgring!
I can't even. The fastest I've been was 185kph. I always think back to that experience when watching stuff like this and try and empathize with the feeling of speed. It was insanely exhilarating to go that fast and I felt like if I even make a tiny mistake I'm gonna end up in a flaming wreck. And that was just down a long straight. I simply cannot imagine going almost twice as fast and taking a corner.
It is a formula. The 13 inch wheel size is an example of where being a formula gets in the way of innovation. Plus the non-movable aero rule.
The rules are there to make it a sport with the drivers safe, close racing and the smaller teams not out-spent by the manufacturer teams.
At the moment there is a lot going on for the 2021 season to fix the 'close racing' problem. The aero will be changed to throw the 'wake' up and over cars following the leader. At the moment any car wanting to overtake has to battle against a tide of messy air that has been disrupted by the car in front.
The list of banned things is a list of technology that was not applied. Ten years ago Brawn F1 won with a 'double diffuser', 'spinner' wheel covers and a very different aero package than allowed today. They were bought out to become the Mercedes team.
The Williams team brought along innovations that were tantamount to magic in the 1980's and 1990's. Active suspension appeared and was banned. On the same car there was traction control - now banned. We don't hear the term 'driver aids' any more but things taken for granted today such as a semi-automatic flappy paddle gearbox were not introduced easily to the sport.
The engine is built to spec in F1. It has to have a certain amount of cylinders, the fuel rate is restricted as is the total fuel load. You would not be able to put a car together that didn't bother with the engine bit and had batteries to get through 200 miles of racing.
The mystique surrounding F1 engineering is cool but sometimes it is best to not meet your heroes.
If you go to a car meet such as at Goodwood you can see some fairly recent F1 cars and what is under the hood. Some of the engineering is quite shockingly primitive. There are reasons for this, for instance, if only having to get through a race and taking the car apart every weekend then bearings can be more basic than what you might find on a family mass market car. It is all a lot more bicycle workshop than NASA when you see these cars close up. This is not to deride what goes on, but, if engineering is bespoke, doesn't have to have customers fix it and only needs to last two hours of race distance then it has different production values.
I think that Formula E on 'proper circuits' rather than city streets would be the apex of technology in sport. I am not alone in this, Formula E has more sponsors and the Formula 1 people that have jumped ship to it are not 'has beens'. F1 really is in danger of getting stuck in the slow lane with an elderly audience who can remember when F1 was shown 'free to air'.
This is potentially a bit deceptive. The young Formula 1 guys who are driving in Formula E would rather have a seat in F1 and aspire to go back, and when it comes to money, sponsorship in Formula E costs approximately nothing compared to F1.
> I think that Formula E on 'proper circuits' rather than city streets would be the apex of technology in sport.
With some hypothetical, much faster, car that they haven't built yet. Is there some especially good technology that they're holding back from the sport?
The cool wall is every pub conversation ever.
Now it is just typical 100% staged reality TV bullshit.
Everything became "oh, look how witty and clever and snarky we are" rather than humor developing organically.
Don't you feel they are mocking staged reality?
If you gave up after the first season, you might want to give the later ones a shot. Though I have to admit I never cared too much about the reviews, so that's worth keeping in mind.
Will reserve judgement on the new-new line up with McGuinness and Flintoff . McGuinness used to be funny, and Flintoff's podcast  is/was brilliant.
*  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45937945
*  https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08fr7t1/episodes/downloads |
As someone working with semiconductors, I think the limit should be watts instead of flops to encourage competition in this aspect too.
Can't they use a secret cloud somewhere?
The fines for cheating (unless you are Ferrari, usually) are catastrophic (for a non-works team): Lots of money and probable disqualification from the WCC
Of course they could cheat but the penalties of getting caught are severe.
The limit isn't very high, though. A single box with a few GPUs is enough to hit the limit.
also 30 teraflops of RANS simulations is a lot.
basic cfd with turbulence modelling can get you pretty close and then refine in wind tunnels.
the other techniques are LES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_eddy_simulation
genetic algorithms and iterative optimization is leading to more organic and nature inspired shapes in the latest generations.
https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2018/races/979/aust... - 2018 Aus GP Quali result
https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2019/races/1000/aus... - 2019 Aus GP Quali result
As a Ferrari fan this makes me sad.
Is there some sort of feedback when you're really close? I've only had a couple of track days, never came close to understanding it.
Usually drivers are going to test that limit in an area with less risk, for example a corner with lots of paved runoff. But small factors such as the ambient wind changing direction, or the sun coming out or going behind a cloud, can affect grip enough that the limit changes enough to catch a driver out. In these cases there's usually warning, that the car very slightly stops responding as exactly to your inputs as it was the lap before.
However the most common scenario for a single car shunt is when the driver is testing the track limits; for example riding 3 inches of his tire over the kerb instead of 2, or using up the edge of the track to where the tire is now on a painted line rather than bare asphalt. In these cases there is often no warning, the car just steps out.
Plus, 4 tyres may have different traction depending on car balance (braking, accelerating or cornering), downforce (nearly zero at 50km/h but at 300km/h F1 car is on rails, and different for the front and the rear), track specifics (for example, most clock-wise tracks put a lot of pressure on the front left tyre) and many little other things. It's really complicated.
If you watch the practice for the race coming up shortly in Australia, you'll see one corner in particular where pretty much everyone including the fastest guys slid off the track. So a lot of it's a feel thing, but you've also got engineering data telling you all the measurable stuff about how the car is performing, which you can then feed into a computer simulator which knows the exact (one hopes) layout of the race track.
One of the younger guys who qualified surprisingly well supposedly spent hundreds of hours on a PC simulator before this latest race.
I don’t know if they have any on-board telemetry to measure this.
I don't follow F1 - is this true about the increasing downforce and if so, why is that so?
Is it simply that the drivers get more comfortable pushing the limits?
All of the technical regulations are set in advance of the season (this year’s is https://www.fia.com/file/78015/download/26184). The teams are only allowed to test their cars during a fixed number of “test days”, so they do a _ton_ of simulation pretty much all the time (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/04/formula-1-technology/).
The chassis (the tub that the driver & engine sit in) doesn’t change much over a season, so the time will be occupied by the team finding ways to move and re-shape things like front and rear wings, so as to increase downforce.
Downforce is king because it allows you to make sharper turns at higher speed without understeeting (where the front refuses to turn) or oversteering (where the back refuses to stop turning). And the technical regulations are really finicky about many areas of the car. And in many ways, the three “free practice” sessions before qualifying are as much about in-season development as they are about getting used to the track.
Yes, as drivers get time in the real car, they begin to understand where they can push. But also the engineers are seeing how the car is responding during real-world conditions, to feed that into the simulation.
The regulations have changed this year so the teams can't use the same aerodynamic designs they had last year. The idea of the new aero regulations is that they will promote overtaking, but it also means the cars will lose downforce:
They'll regain some (and maybe even all) of the lost downforce through new aero approaches that are allowed under the new regulations. The designs will be developed and refined as the season progresses.
The new regulations are intended to promote overtaking. Teams of course are trying to maximize downforce within the new regulations.
My understanding is that to reduce drag, the intakes for cooling air (engine and possibly intercooler) have been minimised to the point where they are sufficient for clean air but insufficient for turbulent air. The engine loses power.
"What’s the change: A wider, higher – and much simplified – front wing
Why has it been made: To help chasing drivers follow the car in front more closely - and in turn increase the possibility of overtaking."
A very astute question. Yes, as much effort goes into the design of the underside as does the shiny side.
The most recent article I found via a quick G search is from 2013. For sure the rules have changed since then, but it's still a fair benchmark to illustrate the complexity of overall design with regards to the aero.
Right now this ground effect has been banned and it is mostly flat, except for some things in the tail.
The rear diffuser is sometimes blocked from cameras when the car is parked. For example 2009 with the double diffuser.
While you don't see the underside of the car much (for obvious reasons), the occasional roll-over crash (or crane lift after a 'regular' crash) gives us a glimpse from time to time. Check out Nico Hulkenberg's crash at Abu Dhabi pay year for a good example.