| Current mood: |  full |
The 2004 season
I read an articleabout the first race of the season from F1technical.com It's a pretty good read, and actually had some interesting informatino. I'll pull out some of the highlights, but overall it's a pretty good read.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McLaren seem to be going through a hard time, since the day they decided to start with the development of the MP4/18. The current car has problems with getting the Michelins to work at the rear, while the front lacks downforce. While a change from Hitco brakes to Carbone Industries solved their overheating problems, the bite of the Carbone discs is much more aggressive. As the MP4-19 is already a nervous car, this aspect does not please the drivers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing really new here, but i guess it appears that the Mclaren is a bit twitchy, I suspect it's from them still not completely understanding the twin keel. I still think their roll centers are way the fuck out of wack, which can cause soem really interesting behavior. I'm also not convinced that having the lower control arms shorter than the uppers is the way to go. Soemthing strikes me as not quite right about that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams have a totally different approach, with low and flat sidepods, therefore justifying the missing of the downward starting flipup. It appears as if two flip ups are more efficient since this second one has now been added, compared to last year's car. It now seems like Williams have simply been too busy with their tusked nose, and forgot to really develop the car aerodynamically at the back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought that was pretty funny ...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though Williams completed 15585 test kilometres, the car was not as fast as hoped for, particularly slowing down towards the end of the stints, marking too much tyre wear. It also has too much downforce in front compared to that in the rear and it also has poor traction. During testing at Imola the car was 10km/h slower than the Ferrari 100 m after the exit of the final chicane. The reason for that weakness is partly due to insufficient traction control and suspension geometry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was an interesting statistic as well. If you look at an on car video for one of the ferrari's vs. one of the williams, you can hear very clearly in pretty much every corner the TC engaging on the ferrari, while it is much less evident, even nonexistant on the williams. I just thought it was wierd, but it appears that this is actually a problem for the williams. According to this, the Ferrari must have neat little system going on. As does the renault...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The engine now weighs approximately 93 kg and has 910 hp at 18,600 rpm and the piston problems they had in winter testing are now solved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have to admit i was rather takne by these numbers. But it stands to reason, the bar's were shifting right at about 18600, which makes sense if that's where their power peak was. If this is to be believed completely, i'd recon they hae one of the best 3 or 4 engines. Probably right on par w/ the toyota. It also means that hey have a healthy bit more power than mercedes at teh moment, and also a bit more than the renault. Could BAR be 3rd this year??
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams FW26 ? 15585 kms over 33 test days
Ferrari F2004 ? 5565 kms over 21 test days
McLaren MP4/19 ? 13922 kms over 31 test days
Renault R24 ? 6745 kms over 17 test days
Toyota TF104 ? 10149 kms over 24 test days
Minardi PS04B ? 3236 kms over 10 test days
Sauber C23 ? 7261 kms over 19 test days
BAR 006 ( and 005 concept) ? 5290 kms over 13 test days
Jaguar R5 ? 6317 kms over 13 test days
Jordan EJ14 ? 3629 kms over 12 test days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was probably the statistic that really got me thinking.
Williams and mclaren both put in significantly, we are talking almost 3 times the amount of testing that ferarri did over teh winter. Obviously this can be down to the fact that they unveiled their cars first. But if you look at it, that means that ferrari were able to work out their reliability gremlins, as well as develop the car, complie setup data, and prove components in significantly less time than thier competitors. They are the class of the field, yet they have done only more miles than minardi and jordan. I have been of the opinino for a long time that ferrari are the class of the field w/ respect to testing and R&D, this only further cements that fact. They can do an arse load of testing, as we saw last year, when they tested 5 different drivers at 3 different tracks in the same weeklong test. But they can accomplish a whole lot of testing very efficiently, as we see here. I think it's also a testiment to their design philosophy. They must really make sure things are well thought out, and simple before they start building. I jus tthought htat was pretty impressive.
Ferrari are in a pretty good position, because they can do less of the, "well [insert favorite team here] is doing it so i guess that means theat we need a similar solution" that is in general what happens to some degree in designing race cars, and do more of the "ok guy's, what do we actually want to accomplish here ... and how are we going to do that" b/c it seems that the teams are reacting to them currently to a certain respect. Which is to be expected when you are on top of a sport for so long ...
Anyway, hope you all found the article as interesting as i did.
-cheers
--------------------
SUV's seem to be an exception when it comes to tires. People don't mind noisy tires on those cars. The knobby, wide-open treads on SUV tires are there for one reason-less grip. SUVs have a nerrow track and a high CG so they tip over easily. A tire with NORMAL grip would be a saftey HAZARD. SUV tires are actually designed for low grip to avoid rollovers. What about braking/driving traction? It looks to me like that would be less also.
For me, better tires are those taht generate more grip in all conditions. If your vehicle is so big and unwieldy that better tires are a hazard, maybe that type of vehicle is a poor choice!
(Read comments)
|
