rec.autos.simulators

Subject: TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY FROM F1 TO PRODUCTION CARS

Hi dear friends,

1. This article is very interesting. Please read it until the end. Thanks!

2. My father was LENINE1, that is, Vladimir Ilitch Lenine, that directed the
Bolchevique Revolution in 1917. I'm 80 years old. Following the example of my
father and inspired in Ayrton Senna da Silva, I want to direct a Revolution
in F1. If you want to participate in this Revolution, please tell me! My
mother was the very beautiful Brazilian journalist Ana Paula Francisca Teresa
Couto Rochedo that went to Russia in the beginning of 1917. I was born in 22
of November of 1917. :)

3. PRODUCTION CARS MAKERS: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH McLaren!

In F1 a better chassis means less drag with the same downforce. Once the Drag
is given by

? rho Cx Sx V^2                                         (1)

less drag means lower Cx (assuming the same speed V, the same air density rho
and the same frontal area Sx).

Once the downforce is given by

m g + ? rho Cz Sz V^2                                          (2)

the same downforce means the same Cz (assuming the same weight m, the same
speed V, the same air density rho and the same horizontal area Sz).

Once the Cx is related with the Cz by

Cx= Cx0 + k Cz^2                                    (3)

we conclude that a better chassis means lower Cx0 and lower k.

Mika told me the top speed, Vmax1, and the maximum deceleration
Gbrakes_top_speed1 of the German GP Qualification and the top speed, Vmax2,
and the maximum deceleration Gbrakes_top_speed2 of the German GP.

From these Telemetry Data I found that the McLaren chassis is characterised by
Cx0=0.57 and k=2.37.

Schumi told me the same Telemetry Data and I found that the Ferrari chassis is
characterised by Cx0=0.77 and k=4.89.

I don't  know the Telemetry Data of the remaining teams, but I have the
feeling that the McLaren chassis is the best chassis (that is, has the
smallest Cx0 and the smallest  k) and the Ferrari chassis is the worst
chassis (congratulations Schumi, you're the best F1 driver!).

In 1980 very few production cars have a Cx=0.30.

Today Opel Tigra, Audi A4, Audi A3 and Audi A6 have a Cx=0.28 (see the text in
the appendix).

Does this mean that the optimal Cx of a production car is 0.28?

Or does this mean that production car makers have lot of things to learn with
McLaren?

4. Cx=0.045, the Cx of an F-16 aircraft at the speed of 500Km/h.

5. Cx=1.8, the Cx of a motorbike.

6. PRODUCTION CAR MAKERS: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH FERRARI!

Once the Ferrari chassis is so bad, how to explain the good results of
Ferrari?

I have the feeling that the Ferrari engine has a much greater maximum torque
and a much more flat torque curve than the Mercedes engine.

This means that the Ferrari has more acceleration and, once the energy
efficiency is 'proportional' to the torque, the Ferrari has a smaller fuel
consumption (which means less fuel weight and so still more acceleration).

Actual production cars energy efficiency is very small, around 0.25 at the
speed of 120Km/h, and the theoretical limit is 0.45 (see the text in
appendix).

This means that production car makers have lot of things to learn with
Ferrari!

7. SEMI-AUTOMATIC GEAR BOXES

Almost all production car drivers don't know the torque curve and the
relations of the gear box of their cars and so they don't get the maximum
acceleration in overtaking, which means less insurance in overtaking.

A good automatic gear box will change gears at the right times (that is, at
the right RPMs) maximising the acceleration and so maximising the insurance
in overtaking.

The idea is 'pulling' the gear i until a RPM_i such that the RPM_i+1 at gear
i+1 is exactly equal to the engine RPM_maximum_torque.

For example, driving a Citro?n AX 1.1 we must 'pull' the second gear until
RPM_2=5500 RPM (that is 72Km/h) because the RPM_3 at 72Km/h in third gear is
3750 RPM, which is exactly the RPM_maximum_torque of the Citro?n AX 1.1. I
think that the Citro?n Saxo 1.1 has a very similar gear box and torque curve,
so these results are also valid for the Citro?n Saxo 1.1.

This means that a engine with a smaller RPM_maximum_torque will have a longer
life (Why?).

Of course that the Mercedes A140 engine will have a very short life! (see next
section to understand why!) :)

The main problem of the actual production car automatic gear boxes is that
they imply much greater mechanical losses (p_mec=0.45, p_mec is defined by

P (1-p_mec)= ? rho Cx Sx Vmax^3                                    (4)

and production cars with manual gear boxes have a p_mec=0.25. Note that these
values of p_mec include tyres friction).

F1 Semi-Automatic gear boxes have a much lower p_mec=0.15 (including tyres
friction). So it seems interesting to adapt this technology to production car
automatic gear boxes!

8. MERCEDES: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH McLaren AND WITH FERRARI!

The new small Mercedes production car A140 is a disaster!

Senna would say: Mercedes, o teu A140 uma bela carro?azinha! :-)

The Mercedes A140 has a Cx=0.45, EE(120Km/h)=0.13, RPM_max_torque=5250 RPM
and a fuel consumption of 12 litres in a course of 100Km done at the
stabilised speed of 120Km/h.

This means that making a course of 100Km at the speed of 120Km/h is heating
the air with the heat produced by the energy contained in 0.87*12=10.44
Litres of fuel, which is about 10.44*37*10^6= 386 *10^6 Joules= 386 Mega
Joules!

So, although the Mercedes A140 is the worst production car of its class (small
cars), it's very hot! :-)

If you like hot cars, buy a Mercedes A140! :-)

Note that a very small Energy Efficiency means a very small maximum torque,
that is very small acceleration in overtaking, that is the Mercedes A140 is a
very dangerous car! :-)

Senna would say: Mercedes, por favor interrompe a produ??o da tua
carro?azinha, imediatamente!  :-)

The other Mercedes production cars are also a disaster and, of course, very
very hot! :) (see the text in appendix).

Senna would say: Mercedes, quando chegares aos calcanhares da Ferrari e aos
calcanhares da McLaren, por favor avisa-me! :)

So Mercedes have also a lot of things to learn with McLaren and with Ferrari!

I'm sorry, Mercedes, you're...  I'm sorry, I can't find the words! :)

I'm so sorry Mercedes... Do you forgive me?!! :)

9. ACTIVE SUSPENSIONS

1994: Who did permit the realisation of a GP in a track that had a corner
done at the speed of 270Km/h (remember Senna's Telemetry Data), with a 5
meters long escape that ended in a wall without any tyre before?

1994: First FIA KILLED Active Electronics. Next FIA KILLED 'Drive By Wire'
Systems. Next FIA KILLED Active Transmissions. Next FIA KILLED Active
Suspensions. Next FIA KILLED RATZEMBERGER with -722g's during 13ms. Next FIA
KILLED SENNA with -66g's during 48ms.

Note that 1ms=10^-3=0.001 seconds and g=9.81 m/s^2 and the maximum
deceleration the Brain supports (without suffering irreversible lesions), in
the +Gx direction (frontal crash) or in the +Gy direction (lateral crash), is
-45g's during 50ms.

Note that a F1 car (Cx=0.81, Sx=1.5 m^2, c_friction=1.37, m=700Kg) at the
speed of 270Km/h needs 120 m of good track to reduce the speed to 76Km/h, the
maximum crash speed in a frontal crash (see the exercise1 bellow).  Of course
that this braking distance is the minimum length that the Senna's escape
should have. If you want I can send you the Excel model that I used to
calculate this braking distance. Please tell me the format: Excel 97 or Excel
5.0-7.0.

Exercise1: Considering a frontal crash with Chassis_deformation=0.5 m and a
constant crash deceleration G=-45g, calculate the crash speed Vcrash and the
crash time delta_t. Note that we have

Chassis_deformation= Vcrash delta_t + ? G delta_t^2

and

delta_t= -Vcrash/G

Solution: Vcrash=sqrt(-2*Chassis_deformation*G)=76 Km/h, delta_t=47.8 ms.

Exercise2: Calculate the 'Lady Di' crash speed Vcrash and the crash time
delta_t considering a constant crash deceleration G=-40g and a
Chassis_deformation=1.75 m and that the 'Lady Di' crash was a frontal crash.

Solution: Vcrash= 133 Km/h, delta_t=94.1 ms.

FIA didn't know these numbers?!! I'm sorry FIA, you don't have any excuse.

Congratulations FIA, you're the Serial Killer of the year 1994.

If  FIA hadn't KILL Active Suspensions, perhaps today almost all production
cars would have Active Suspensions, that is, they would have much greater
corner speeds, that is, they would have much greater driving insurance.

I'm Sorry FIA, you're nothing more than a Serial Killer.

Senna would say: A F1 est mesmo a precisar dum 25 de Abril Americana!

10. I still have a lot of things to say but I can't find the words. I'm sorry,
I'm crying...

11. Senna would say: FIA, CAPITULAS OU QUERES MORRER COM MILH?ES DE BALAS NO
CORA??O? FIA, VAIS REINTRODUZIR AS SUSPENS?ES ACTIVAS NA F1 J NA PRXIMA
TEMPORADA OU QUERES SER FUZILADA?

12. Senna would say: 1. ISOLAR A FIA.  2. CERCAR A FIA.  3. APERTAR O CERCO
AT QUEIMA ROUPA.  4. FIA, CAPITULAS?  5. SE N?O, FOGO!

13. Senna would say: Ai, FIA, Ai dos vencidos! Agora alm das suspens?es
activas, vais reintroduzir a Electrnica Activa, os Sistemas de 'Drive by
Wire', as Transmiss?es Activas e vais introduzir novos motores de 5 litros,
pois eu j estou farto de andar a pisar ovos a 340Km/h! :-)

Note that assuming that a 5 litres V10 Ferrari engine would have a power
P=1917 HP (1HP=746 watt), assuming very little downforce, that is, Cx=0.89
(remember that the Ferrari chassis is very very bad :)  ), Sx=1.5m^2,
p_mec=0.15, we would have a top speed, Vmax, of

P (1-p_mec)= ? rho Cx Sx Vmax^3 Vmax=( 2 P (1-p_mec) / (rho Cx Sx) )^ 1/3

Vmax= 414 Km/h !!!

14. I'm so sorry, FIA... Do you forgive me?!!  :)

15. Ora bolas, se tivesse feito isto 4 anos o Senna estaria hoje a
experimentar o seu novo V10 de 6.9 litros de 3000 HP! I'm sorry Senna, I'm
sorry Ratzemberger...

Exercise3: ...

read more »

boy.... you are spending way too much time in math class......

..........but count me in for the revolution...

SteveG

In article <6rpfop$a1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, j...@mail.telenet.pt writes
but don't quote it all    ;-)
And also a better balance.  Natural Over/Understeer characteristics also
improve/reduce chassis performance.

I seriously doubt that Ferrari's Drag Coeff is a third worse than
McLarens. Although it would help explain their performance at
Hockenheim.

Prost?

Commercial Car Makers don't put huge tyres or wings in the airflow (well
maybe a few do) so their drag coeffs are lower. An F1 car is infact not
very aerodynamic in the coventional sense. A 700-800BHP road car (or
McLaren F1 etc..) would have a higher top speed because of a lower Cd.
This despite a larger frontal area.

A very needle - like shape

Is that with the driver flat on the fuel tank ;-)
Schumacher

Probably caused by the throttle electronics. I think all top teams use
these now. Legal or illeagal? - it would be much easier and clearer if
they had to use a cable!

I think the Ferrari car is not much better than the Williams. I think it
has less power across the board than Mercedes, but I think that
Schumacher can get the power down better than anyone else.

Yes, but.....
Torque at wheels = engine torque x gear ratio.

eg.  - I've just estimated the figures to prove a point (they may be
wrong) - that doesn't sound to good does it?

If we guess the torque curve:    @ 3750 rpm = 100 NM
                                 @ 5500 rpm =  70 NM

And to go the same speed the gears must be of ratio: 5500/3750 = 1.46

So if 1.46 Engine torque @ 5500 rpm >  Engine torque @ 3750 rpm
then we should stay in the lower gear.

So torque at wheels  @ 5500 rpm  =  70 NM * 5.5  = 385 NM @ 5500rpm

                     @ 3750 rpm  = 100 NM * 3.75 = 375 NM @ 3750rpm  

Of course there should be lower mechanical losses in a lower gear as
well.

Hope you see what I mean - power.

Low rpm means lower stresses in the engine (particularly on con-rods,
bearings, etc) - lower acceleration of pistons etc....

Production car auto-boxes use epicyclic (or planetary) gearing which is
inherently less efficient - also use torque converters which sap power.
F1 cars use conventional (Like Lego!) with remote operation.  

It certainly *looks* like a disaster.  

The energy efficiency of the A class is surely not 13% @120 kmh

Following Your calcs I make it 29%  about right for a modern petrol
engine.

And Mercedes are committed to the environment? What about Global
warming?  :-)

Or it could be a small engine!

How can a low EE mean a low torque???

An aircraft jet engine has a low EE but I rekon the torque's pretty
useful.

Most big US cars with V8's are very innefficient but they have high
torque.  

It depends on engine size too.

I have no love of the FIA but it is obvious to most people that an F1
driver could be killed on any race on the calender even now.

I agree, but Senna left at a tangent to the curve (obviously) and so had
more than 5m. Also he did not strike the wall head on and so the impact
would be reduced. If at 45 degrees - reduced by sqrt 2 = 1.41

How come Berger, Piquet, Patrase etc... survived the same thing then?

We know it was not the actual impact that killed him..

This is rubbish - every driver in the last 50 years has known the risks
of F1 - they themselves achknowledge this. Does your government kill
every victim on your roads?

Yes, it is a tradgedy but if you wan't a safe life you don't become an
F1 driver, don't travel on the space shuttle, don't drink, don't eat
fast food, don't leave the house, don't have a life.

Of course F1 should be as safe as possible, but by taking that to
extremes you would have to end racing as we know it, let's face it while
cars dice for position at 100+ mph in F1 or domestic racing people can
(and will) die.

btw
Next they rigged the 94 + 96 drivers championships to come down to the
last race.

...

read more »