Two of the last three Grands Prix have been won with cars with Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems – and there’s every chance the Italian Grand Prix will too.
This year the passionate Tifosi will have something extra-special to cheer for. For the first since Nicola Larini steered a prancing horse to a forgotten second on that dark day in Imola, an Italian driver will be at the wheel of a Ferrari on home ground.
For Giancarlo Fisichella, simply getting to drive a Ferrari fulfils a life-long ambition in the twilight days of his 14-year career. Can he make it a fairytale finish at Monza?
Three chicanes, the two Lesmo bends, and the Parabolica. Each separated by long straights where F1 cars exceed 350pkh (218mph) – that’s 36kph (21mph) higher than any other circuit on the F1 calendar.
Like Monte-Carlo and Spa-Francorchamps, Monza is one of F1’s few remaining ‘extreme’ tracks. Its mixture of big braking zones and thundering long straights should make it perfect for KERS-powered cars.
This will be particularly so in qualifying, where drivers can deploy KERS on the sprint from the Parabolica to the start line, and then have a fully-charged device to use for the rest of the lap.
Even if they don’t qualify in the front two rows, with such a long run to the first corner a KERS driver starting fifth or lower will still fancy their chances of being in the lead on the run up to Variante della Roggia. Their biggest problem will probably be getting on the brakes early enough for the first corner.
The battle for the lead at Spa showed how difficult it is for a normal car to pass a KERS car – that effect will be magnified at Monza, as the non-KERS cars won’t even be able to get into the slipstream of their rivals.
So obvious are the benefits of the system at Monza that Renault are considering re-installing it on their R29s this weekend. They haven’t used KERS since the Bahrain Grand Prix.
As usual Ferrari and McLaren with have KERS – but the championship leaders Brawn and Red Bull won’t. That suggests that, once again, they will have a weekend of damage limitation. If the best they can hope for is the lower reaches of the points that will suit Jenson Button quite nicely – though of course he will be hoping he can put a stop to his poor run and nab a few precious points off his pursuers.
With Fisichella off to Ferrari, it falls to Adrian Sutil to lead the way for Force India. Can he replicate the form Fisichella showed at Spa?
Vitantonio Liuzzi had been thought likely to accompany him in the second VJM02. But there are rumours GP2 driver Vitaly Petrov – former team mate of Romain Grosjean – may get the seat instead.
The scene is set for an exciting and possibly historic weekend at Monza. But not for the first time this year, don’t be surprised if the championship battle takes a back seat, and is contested by drivers outside of the top three.
Drivers to watch
Giancarlo Fisichella – A huge opportunity that comes with huge expectations. Not likely to be able to best his new team mate and Spa sparring partner, but should be inordinately quicker than Luca Badoer was.
Lewis Hamilton – Clearly fancies his chances of a win around Monza, and the MP4/24 could well prove more composed over Monza’s kerbs than the F60, giving McLaren the edge over the home teams.
Adrian Sutil – Poor qualifying and a first-corner collision meant he couldn’t match Fisichella’s performance at Spa. Can he do better this weekend while taking on the role of team leader? And how will he fare against his new team mate?
Jenson Button – Brawn have made headway in the last two races but Button still hasn’t stopped the rotting away of his lead in the title race. A good result here will set him up in a strong position as the championship heads out for the final four fly-away rounds.
Join us for live blogging during every session this Grand Prix weekend
- More information on live blogging
- Want to help run the live blogs? Get in touch here
- 2008 Italian Grand Prix in pictures
- Sebastian Vettel brushes title rivals aside to win (2008 Italian GP review)
- How Raikkonen, Hamilton and Massa’s lap times compared at Monza
- Could Sebastien Bourdais have beaten Sebastian Vettel in the Italian GP?
- 2008 Italian GP facts and stats
- Rate the race: 2008 Italian Grand Prix
- 2008 Italian Grand Prix live blog
- Sebastian Vettel on pole as Massa leads title rivals (2008 Italian GP qualifying)
- Sebastian Vettel is youngest F1 pole man
2008 Italian Grand Prix coverage
sumedh
7th September 2009, 7:28
Another strange race in the offing then.
I would back Fisichella for the win this time, just to see what happens after the race. Are the fans gonna go crazy or what!!!
Meander
7th September 2009, 8:10
If that happens books will be written and movies made. After everyone calms down, of course. And no school
or work on Monday. And a statue in Rome.
But seriously, it’s kind of a long shot. But who knows :)
Joaqo (Max should resign now!!!)
7th September 2009, 7:29
What about BMW and Toyota? they were pretty quick at Spa, the only reason they didn’t get big results were due to the first lap mayhem I bet they’ll be there in front.
HounslowBusGarage
7th September 2009, 7:41
Keith, bit surprised you haven’t got Kimi as a ‘Driver to watch’. Is that because you think he will be so far in front, it’ll be boring to watch him?
Rahzam
7th September 2009, 8:21
I am not surprised. Keith don’t bother to watch him no matter he is in front or behind.
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 8:31
Well he didn’t mention Kubica either and that is one of his favorite drivers. He can’t mention every driver. I’d agree that the four mentioned drivers would be most interesting to watch.
Besides, Raikkonen said that the Ferrari won’t do so well at Monza.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
7th September 2009, 9:42
I picked him as a ‘driver to watch’ for the last race, you know…
https://www.racefans.net/2009/08/26/red-bull-aiming-to-strike-back-at-spa-belgian-grand-prix-preview/
C4
7th September 2009, 8:16
No excuses this time Fisi, you have a KERS button now. Your orders are to get the pole and block Kimi and Lewis for all you are worth.
Rahzam
7th September 2009, 8:17
Then Bang in the wall. LOL! Don’t make too much expectations on his first race in Ferrari.
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 8:37
I don’t recall any accidents where Fisichella was involved. I remember at least 4 with Sutil. So I guess you mixed up the Force India’s when you saw one “bang in the wall”.
I don’t expect too much from Fisi though. On James Allen’s blog there is a poll on how close Fisi will be to Raikkonen. I’m surprised that almost everyone thinks he’ll get into Q3.
Rahzam
7th September 2009, 9:08
I also think he’ll get into Q3 and I am not mixing him with Sutil. I am just saying that it is not fair to have too much expectations in his first race.
Indranil Dudhane
7th September 2009, 13:22
Well if he was as quick as Kimi in Spa, I don’t see any reason why he can’t be in Q3. How many for Fisi actually outqualifying Kimi?! Wouldn’t that be a little embarrassing for Kimi!
Adrian
7th September 2009, 8:57
Thing is, the KERS cars will have better accelleration when they deloy KERS…but it won’t improve their top speeds as they’re still rev limited.
What would be interesting would be to look at which cars have been fastest through the speed traps this season, since if they have enough extra top speed they might still be able to overhall a KERS car…
Ross Dixon
7th September 2009, 9:30
Thats not correct. The Kers Cars will alter their Gear Ratios so that they can have a higher top speed
Adrian
7th September 2009, 9:45
But the non KERS cars can do that too.
The engines are still rev limited so they won’t have a higher top speed, they’ll just get there quicker due to the extra power during accelleration…
Top speed isn’t dependant on BHP, it’s dependant on revs and drag… KERS affects accelleration NOT top speed.
Ruudje
7th September 2009, 9:57
top speed is determined by length of the straight and acceleration. Length remains the same for everyone, acceleration is higher for the Kers cars.
Adrian
7th September 2009, 10:43
And what propells the car to it’s top speed? The Engine.
What happens to the revs on an engine as it goes faster? They increase.
What happens when the engine hits it’s rev limit? It doesn’t go any faster.
Please could you explain to me how KERS is supposed to make a car go faster at it’s rev limit than a car without KERS…??
Tim
7th September 2009, 12:02
As Ross Dixon has already pointed out, gear ratios also play a big part here, given that they determine the top speed for a given RPM.
Imagine a straight line test using two cars with identical aero set ups, one geared for Monaco and the other for Monza. The terminal velocity of the car geared for Monaco will be lower than the terminal velocity of the car geared for Monza, despite the same rev limit applying to both both. The Monaco geared car would accelerate more quickly, however.
From experience, the advantage of an additional 80 bhp for six seconds probably isn’t enough to justify gearing the KERS-equipped cars for a higher top speed. However, they will be able to accelerate to the same top speed faster than a non-KERS car and will therefore carry that top speed for longer.
Adrian
7th September 2009, 12:28
“From experience, the advantage of an additional 80 bhp for six seconds probably isn’t enough to justify gearing the KERS-equipped cars for a higher top speed. However, they will be able to accelerate to the same top speed faster than a non-KERS car and will therefore carry that top speed for longer.”
Which was exactly my point. But there is nothing to stop a non-KERS car from setting their gearing and aero up so that their top speed is faster than a KERS car.
There seems to be this misconception that KERS gives a higher top speed because it gives extra bhp. Without a rev limit that would be true, but the rev limit means that the top speed of the car is not actually affected by the KERS being used, merely the time is takes the car to get to that top speed.
Noelinho
7th September 2009, 17:41
The thing is, the advantage isn’t for six seconds – it’s potentially for twelve. If you save your KERS for the end of one lap and then apply it for the start of the next, you get a 12-second advantage every two laps, instead of 6 per lap.
Now I would think doing that would make it worth it.
sato113
7th September 2009, 19:08
For sure, Adrian is right. KERS can’t give a higher top speed, just faster acceleration and therefore will reach their top speed a couple of seconds before the non-kers cars will. I’m sure of this, for sure.
John H
7th September 2009, 13:50
In my opinion, Adrian is correct and I think KERS won’t actually have more effect than at Spa.
On Kemmel straight (although it doesn’t look it on TV) is actually very steep uphill, and hence the cars potential to reach the rev limiter is increased exponentially.
At Monza however, regardless of the gear ratios, the KERS advatage will be just getting to that top speed as quickly as possible.
In my probably horribly misguided opinion, more undulations gives KERS cars more of an edge, not just long straights on a flat track.
Mark my words…. The Force Indias will be the fastest cars. Feel free to disagree :)
Random Chimp
7th September 2009, 16:08
I think the Force Indias will be faster than Ferrari
Ruudje
7th September 2009, 17:57
“Please could you explain to me how KERS is supposed to make a car go faster at it’s rev limit than a car without KERS…??”
the earlier named ‘gear ratios.
“From experience, the advantage of an additional 80 bhp for six seconds probably isn’t enough to justify gearing the KERS-equipped cars for a higher top speed. However, they will be able to accelerate to the same top speed faster than a non-KERS car and will therefore carry that top speed for longer.”
may I ask what experience you have? just out of curiosity.
if I understand correctly, you suggest they run on the limiter for some time at the end of the straight? sacrificing top speed for acceleration? Will this be a Monza special? because they haven’t done this on other tracks. At spa they could go full trottle for around 25 seconds coming out of la source without hitting the rev limiter in the end, so my guess is they won’t hit it at monza either.
the reason therefore must be that it is in fact not faster to sacrifice top speed for acceleration. one of the reasons is that gearing doesn’t have to be that much longer. they will only gain a couple of km/h at the end of the straight because of KERS.(everything else being equal) If we also consider teething issues maybe they will even run the same ratios, therefore only influencing acceleration very very slightly or even not at all.
for those interested he is a speed-distance graph of dc at monza some time ago:
http://www.team-integra.net/sections/members/images/bfdd894c-6921-40de-adbe-c74a2598aaf2.jpg
Adrian
8th September 2009, 8:52
“Will this be a Monza Special?”
Erm, yes. On the long straights at Monza (and formerly at the old Hockenheim) they do run on the rev limiter for large sections of the straights…
Tim
8th September 2009, 10:11
Setting and changing gear ratios in single seater racing cars.
And no, you didn’t understand correctly – I wasn’t suggesting cars should run on the limiter.
If the power boost from KERS was unlimited, not just for six seconds, then a team might opt for a taller top gear for a higher top speed, using KERS to make up for the slower acceleration. KERS could therefore be used to achieve a higher top speed. But with four long straights at Monza, I don’t think a 1.5 second boost from KERS per straight would be enough to make it worthwhile.
The best way of using KERS at Monza is almost certainly to get up to the same top speed (but just below the limiter, obviously) more quickly.
Ruudje
10th September 2009, 11:19
running on the rev limiter in hockenheim? formula1? when? again I stress, the longest full trottle stretch is @ spa and they did not reached the rev limiter.
what physics do you use to assume they reach the same top speed? the only way for that to happen is if they could reach the same maximum speed possible determined by drag and power.
as showed from telemetry from dc a couple of years ago, they keep accelerating all the way untill the brake point
Ruudje
7th September 2009, 18:05
“In my opinion, Adrian is correct and I think KERS won’t actually have more effect than at Spa.”
renault, heidfeld and heidfeld are amongst those that don’t agree with that:
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090826135455.shtml
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090904172324.shtml
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 18:18
When Martin Whitmarsh makes such a statement you don’t generally question it, do you?
Of course Kers will be a benefit, provided you have a fundamentally good car, setup for low downforce. Renault & BMW are fundamentally flawed, so you can’t expect them to perform well even if they use Kers.
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 16:19
That all hinges on the believe that the cars reach their top speed early on the sraight. That’s where you go wrong. They reach their top speed at or near the end of the straight.
Even at Spa they kept accelerating all the way up to Les Combes.
The KERS cars really do carry that advantage along the whole straight.
Hakka
7th September 2009, 9:06
Hmm.. italics are on for all comments it appears.
What if I italicize this sentence?
Hopefully Fisico will do well. I can’t wait to see the low-drag wings on the cars.
GR
7th September 2009, 9:34
I’m really excited to see a driver move from a backmarking to a leading car during the season. Does anyone know if that has happened in recent history?
It should give us some good analysis of performance differences and I’m hoping that Fisi will give us some good insights…
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 10:40
recent examples of changing driving seat during the season:
– Vettel (2007): from BMW to Toro Rosso (wasn’t really a leading of backmarking car any of them)
– Trulli (2004): from BMW to Renault
– Wilson (2003): from Minardi to Jaguar
– Frentzen (2002): from Arrows to Sauber (note, that the good Heinz-Harald drove for 4 teams in 2 years, that’s something unusal!)
– Frentzen (2001): from Jordan to Prost
– Alesi (2001): from Prost to Jordan
– Burti (2001): from Jaguar to Prost
– Salo (1999): from Bar to Ferrari (this has to be the closest and most relevant example, as Salo had 6 races to prove, and finished twice on podium (he could have won in Hockenheim, if Eddie Irvine wasn’t a title challenger, but struggled on his very first race)
– Trulli (1997): from Minardi to Prost (if you think about his sensational Austrian Grand Prix with qualifying 3rd and leading the race for such a long time, mmm, it was awesome!)
– Bernard (1994): from Ligier to Lotus
– Herbert (1994): from Lotus to Ligier to Benetton (even 3 teams in 1 season, wow!)
– Lehto (1994): from Benetton to Sauber
– M. Schumacher (1991): from Jordan to Benetton (and we know it’s a story of success)
that’s all i can remember from the recent past, but i think Salo’s performance could be the measure for this
GR
7th September 2009, 15:11
Wow AndrewT – thanks for such a comprehensive reply!!
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 15:48
@ Andrew
BMW were engine partners for williams in 04, I don’t remember Trulli moving from BMW to Renault. He moved from Renault to Toyota( which was an inferior team in 04) for the last 2 races in japan & brazil ;)
Could you plz explain as to why you think the 1994 Benetton was inferior to the 1994 Sauber??
Jordan finished the 2001 season 4th with 19 points.
Jaguar 8th with 9 points & Prost 9th with 4 points ;)
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 10:11
Some comments, guys.
1. Monza is a track that you push the throttle flatout about 70-80% of a lap. i think it won’t be that easy for the KERS-cars, as they have only 6 seconds of extra power, they have to use it wisely and use it on the right places, maybe have to leave some for the end of the laps.
2. what about the engines? Fisi used, i don’t know, about 4-5 engines at Force India, but according to the rules
(FIA Sporting Regulations 2009, 28.4/b: If a driver is replaced at any time during the Championship season his replacement will be deemed to be the original driver for the purposes of assessing engine usage)
he must live with the reamianing engines that Massa and Badoer didn’t used for car nr3. Do you guys happen know, how many engines has he got available?
3. about Fisi’s recent stuff, compared to classics
– this 2nd place in Spa reminded most of us to Seb Vettel’s and Toro Rosso’s great race in Monza 2008. A small team coming from nowhere (almost) to the top.
however, it reminds me to another classic, back in 1997, the Hungarian Grand Prix and Damon Hill. i think it’s a similar situation, an experienced driver in a weaker car, on his beloved track surrealisticly outperforming almost everyone, would deserve the win, but at the end “only” second. little bit bitter for Hill then, same for Fisi last week, but still an outstanding and unexpected result of expert drivers
– the whole career of Fisi reminds me about Jean Alesi’s. they have raced for almost the same teams, there are exceptions of course.
For Alesi there was the Ferrari (1991-95), for Fisi now it comes.
Alesi drove for Benetton (1996-97), Fisi also did this from 1998-2001 and (as Renault) 2005-07.
Alesi was appointed by Peter Sauber (1998-99), Fisi drove for him in 2004.
Alesi was at Jordan as well (2001), Fisi as well (1997, 2002-03, 2008-09 as Force India).
And here comes the biggest similarity. Alesi went from the last row Prost to the bit of struggling Jordan during 2001 for the last 5 races of the season, Fisi is about to do the same, then both retired.
Great drivers of similar style, with the wasted talent, but hopefully Fisi has still some surprises for us this year :)
cheers
Damon
7th September 2009, 10:34
Awesome comparison!
I think Alesi was a greater talent. He was fast in every car and mostly known for his aggressive style of driving – being able to pull off every overtaking manover possible – on anyone.
His incredible Detroit 1990 performance in the Tyrrell was something that Fisichella was never able to do.
WOW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgIPmjGNFgo
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 10:48
i think you are right about this, Alesi had the balls for this, Fisi was always a bit too cautious, and of course i can’t remember too many races where he challenged the world champion race leader with such an aggressive overtaking manouver as Alesi did here with Senna, truley a joy to watch!
Maybe a greater talent as well, i’m a Fisi-fan, but i guess i have to admit it. but both of them signed their contracts legendary bad, based their decisions more on their heart rather than rational.
Damon
7th September 2009, 13:22
It’s hard to talk about bad decisions.
Alesi was just very unfortunate with the cars he drove.
In 1990 Alain Prost was fighting for the championship in the Ferrari, he won 5 races and finished runner-up.
Alesi’s move to Ferrari in 1991 seemed like the best thing that could happen to him.
But in 1991 Ferrari had no longer that speed. Prost didn’t win a single race and finished 5th in the WDC. Alesi was 7th, with 3 podium finishes. And Ferrari kept making poorer cars with each year to follow, which didn’t allow Alesi to win races and make the crucial leap forward.
The 94 and 95 Ferraris were not that bad – Berger won a race in 94, and Alesi won a race in 95. But that didn’t do justice to the potential of those drivers.
In 1995 Benetton had the total package, winning the WDC for the second time in a row with Schumi and winning the Constructors’ Championship; they had a very good chassis and the best engine in the field with Renault.
Alesi’s move to Benetton was the perfect move, and was supposed to enable him a breakthrough. Even though Benetton seemed a bit slower that year, Alesi scored 8 podium finishes… yet no wins. In 1997 the team went on a bit of decline, which didn’t however stop Alesi from scoring 5 podiums during the season.
In 1998, with 9 seasons under his belt and only a single win, Alesi joined Sauber – a young but already established team on a rise, but not with a winning car. But he couldn’t really go anywhere else. It was a beginning of an era when you could win races only if you drove a McLaren or a Ferrari. A driver with over 10 years of experience, but only one win would never have been a driver of choice for them. And so Alesi, coming to his years, slipped into oblivion driving for the struggling rookie team of his former Ferrari team-mate Alain Prost and later a very slow Jordan.
And so a once very promising career was over. :(
————
Fisichella drove the WDC and WCC winning Renault car in 2005 and 2006, but he scored fewer than half of his team-mates points. So he had his fair chance at becoming a top driver. But he wasn’t one.
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 15:05
yeah, maybe the “unfortunate” word expresses better what i tried to explain.
so to sum it up:
Alesi drove 13 seasons, but never had a car that he could fight for the championship, thats 0/13. however, he had cars in some seasons that would worth for a grand prix win, i would say 1994-1997, the lst 2 Ferrari years and the Benetton years, that makes 4/13. So it was his 6th season when he had a car that could win, and his 7th season brought him the win.
For Fisi the situation is a bit different. This is his 14th season, and in 2 of them he had a car that was worth the championship, in 2005-06, but he couldn’t make it, that’s 2/14. For the last 5 races he earned himself a car that could go for race wins maybe, so 3/14. But in general, 12/14 seasons he drove with cars that was fortunate to score points, and his 10th season was the first he had a race winner car, although he won in his 8th season already.
I would say, that both of them would have deserved much more than actually achieved during their careers.
and finally a quick analysis of Fisi’s unfortunate signings.
– Minardi was the first step in F1, no bad words
– Jordan was fine, but he left just before the golden era of the golden (yellow) cars of 1998-99 with 3 wins.
– Benetton was declined since Schumacher left, Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger reported, that the team seemed to lost their motivation because their champion left. I can guess they lost a bit more when these two top-class drivers left at the end of 1997 and two almost rookies came instead, Fisi and Wurz. They went deep down to the last row, slowly but surely, and sacrificed the season 2001 for the returning Renault to prepare a car.
– when Renault got back into the F1, and the situation seemed to be better for the former Benetton, Fisi moved to the Jordan, which was over it’s golden era and was on it’s way to went down.
– Sauber was a good decision. As a Fisi fan i consider 2004 as his best. He drove really reliably, professional and errorless, scoring a few points almost everytime, i really enjoyed watching this, because it has built up his reputation again.
– Renault was the right car, but maybe not the right time. Alonso’s performance was devastating, no question about it, and Fisi could’t even finish right behind him, i don’t think this is the place for blaming the circumstances, it happened as it happened. In 2007 the same thing happened to Renault that happened to Benetton a decade ago, their great champion left, and didn’t really trusted the “rest”.
– 2008 found him again in a Jordan called Force India for this time, and was an absolute tailender, but escaped the danger of leaving F1. 1 and a half years of visible struggling on GP’s and hard but invisible development in the background, and that FI seems to be able to fight for the podium with the continously imporvements, he leaves for Ferrari, which is a strong car, but the development for 2009 is over. So i just can hope this was the right decision for him, for the last time :)
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 16:15
My favorite Fisi moment was when he got owned by Kimi at Suzuka :) :)
Damon
7th September 2009, 16:18
Now the biggest difference between those two is how they end their careers.
Fisichella is going to end his on a very high note, and already more successfully than Alesi did in 2001 – with the podium finish in Spa and more prolly to come in the next 5 races.
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 18:36
yeah, Suzuka 2005 is a memorable event, and many people identifies Fisi about that race.
(however he was running on wet setup, performing fine on a rainy qualifying, and struggling somewhat on the race, while Raikkönen qualified with dry setup to the end of the grid and flew on the race.)
Alianora La Canta
7th September 2009, 12:33
Car 3 (the one Fisichella is due to drive) has three unusued engines, just like Car 21 (the one Liuzzi now has). I don’t think either car has any blown engines in its allocation, though both have some that have probably reached the end of their mileage.
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 15:06
3 engines for 5 races sounds fine to me!
Tengil
7th September 2009, 16:47
If Vettel and Webber should run out of engines before the end of the season, they could swap to Torro Rosso for the last races.
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 18:33
Not a bad idea, but Toro Rosso has to make such a huge step forward as did last year, outperforming the “big brother” :)
sainaa
7th September 2009, 10:14
Is there any possibility for the cars without KERS to compensate somehow to match the cars with KERS? To have even lower down force or something?
Doug
7th September 2009, 15:55
KERS cars are heavier then the no KERS cars
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 16:24
Before ballasting them to the minimum of 605kg you mean?
Anyway, the Force india’s were running with less downforce. They were even faster on the straight than Raikkonen. It’s just the moment that the KERS kicks in they pick up pace quickly
PJA
7th September 2009, 10:21
Although Fisichella has obviously been racing 2009 spec F1 cars he has not driven the F60 before and will have to get used to a new team, so I doubt he will be able to match Raikkonen in normal conditions. But if the favourites to challenge for a win are Ferrari and McLaren then I wouldn’t be surprised if Fisichella got some points.
PJA
7th September 2009, 10:36
Force India have confirmed Liuzzi will race at Monza
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78401
AndrewT
7th September 2009, 10:51
the muster of the Italian contingent remains 3, which is an awesome news for the fans! :)
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 10:38
My Analysis of Monza using Motec i2 pro(Mainly braking)
Monza has no shortage of heavy braking points, this should heavily aid the kers equipped mclaren, ferrari & possibly renault. The major braking points are Rettifilo Tribune, Variante della Roggia, Variante Ascari & the entry into the parabolica. I would classify the lesmo’s as moderate braking zones. So Kers can pretty much be deployed anywhere, as recharging won’t be a problem. Where the drivers actually use it will be interesting to watch. I suspect drivers will be using kers more for gain in acceleration than top speed, using kers to gain momentum out of the Lesmo’s & parabolica would be ideal.
I’ve used various parameters in my analysis
1) A map of the circuit with a small dot indicating the position of the car. (note the darker colour in the braking zones)
2) Brake pedal position (notice how it reaches peak position often)
3) Throttle position(green)
4)Then there is a numeric bar gauge displaying longitudinal & lateral g-forces
5) Then there is a red colour graph of brake-pedal position(in %) vs time(in sec) notice where it reaches its peak.
6) Then there is a green colour graph of throttle pedal position (in%) vs time(in sec)
7) One more graph depicts brake temperature vs time ( Notice that the brake temperatures easily exceeds 1000c, unlike spa)
8)There are 3 gauges displaying the Gear,engine rpm & cornering speed.
9) In addition to the above, I’ve included a Scatter Plot of Brake temperature( in Celsius) Vs Engine RPM(in rpm)
10) You can also see the variation of the brake temperature in the numeric bar gauge.
Inference:-
Monza is very much suited for KERS equipped cars, we can expect some strong performances from McLaren & Ferrari. I expect McLaren to outshine Ferrari for two reasons
1) Mercedes Engine & Kers are known to be more superior.
2) McLaren’s always seem to ride the kerbs better than most others.
Monza Brake Analysis by me :–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7P-Rkikv-U
mani
7th September 2009, 13:15
That was a nice analysis!!!
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 16:28
It looks nice, but what is it supposed to show? Not, “what do the guages show”, but which point is it supposed to make?
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 17:02
Monza Brake Analysis
The title is self explanatory
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 17:13
Well you call it brake analysis and then somehow you “infer” a conclusion about KERS. I don’t quite get that.
But I guess the idea was to shows that there is a lot of hard braking and that that enables KERS to recharge?
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 17:29
@Patrickl I’m basically trying to outline the braking characteristics of Monza. I’ve done this analysis, so that people can visually see it for themselves as to how various parameters involved change during the entire lap time. Not everyone is a tech guru like you, there are some laymen like me who understand things when they are graphically depicted.
what point do you want it to make?
It makes all the points regarding braking, that is what the analysis was meant to do.
But if you want me to include various other parameters like damper velocities, ride height,gyro(pitch,roll,yaw),suspension positions, tire loads, wheel rot speeds,engine mixture maps,oil pressures,Suspension fast Fourier transforms, scatter plots,friction circles etc I can do it, but the problem is only you will understand it, not the rest of us ;)
Ruudje
7th September 2009, 18:14
I don’t suppose you can make a run like that with ERS can you? (I don’t know/use the program myself so I don’t know how advanced it is)
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 18:38
Yeah, I guess the problem is that I’m not a tech guru.
You obviously put a lot of effort in these simulations and I’m trying to see what extra insight you are trying to give.
Not sure how to explain, but I understand what the graphs and gauges individually mean, but I don’t quite know how to “place” the data. How it compares to other circuits.
I guess it’s like showing a track map to a person who never saw a Formula 1 race and say “Look there are a lot of slow speed corners”. They would probably politely say “Uh-huh” and be on their way.
I think it’s a bit more clear to me now though. Thanks. I’ll try to keep up :)
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 19:24
More data regarding Monza braking zones
Type of brakings: Heavy
Number of brakings: 6
Time spent under braking per lap: 13%
Kurve 1
Initial speed: 344 Km/h
Final speed: 84 Km/h
Stopping distance: 148 m
Braking time: 2.95 sec
Maximum deceleration: 5.0 g
Maximum disc temperature: 984 °C
Maximum pedal load: 138 Kg
Kurve 2
Initial speed: 339 Km/h
Final speed: 106 Km/h
Stopping distance: 140 m
Braking time: 2.64 sec
Maximum deceleration: 4.5 g
Maximum disc temperature: 859 °C
Maximum pedal load: 131 Kg
Kurve 3
Initial speed: 271 Km/h
Final speed: 176 Km/h
Stopping distance: 93 m
Braking time: 1.57 sec
Maximum deceleration: 3.0 g
Maximum disc temperature: 879 °C
Maximum pedal load: 87 Kg
Kurve 4
Initial speed: 269 Km/h
Final speed: 168 Km/h
Stopping distance: 82 m
Braking time: 1.43 sec
Maximum deceleration: 3.3 g
Maximum disc temperature: 872 °C
Maximum pedal load: 94 Kg
Kurve 5
Initial speed: 343 Km/h
Final speed: 172Km/h
Stopping distance: 114 m
Braking time: 1.71 sec
Maximum deceleration: 4.8 g
Maximum disc temperature: 1000 °C
Maximum pedal load: 134 Kg
Kurve 6
Initial speed: 342 Km/h
Final speed: 185 Km/h
Stopping distance: 135 m
Braking time: 2.03 sec
Maximum deceleration: 4.5 g
Maximum disc temperature: 867 °C
Maximum pedal load: 126 Kg
sato113
7th September 2009, 19:48
how do u know if your analysis data is accurate and up to date? where did you get it from Mp4-19b?
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 20:04
@ sato113
Regarding the simulation, i did it myself. The brake data(i suspect previous year’s) i got it from f1passionates. You want me to answer on accuracy regarding my simulation or the brake data that i just have a link to?
mp4-19b
8th September 2009, 8:18
@ Patrick & Sato113
@ scotracer & callum,
Its not too complicated, i preassigned values to the parameters i’ve used in the simulation.
I’ve used ISI’s gmotor2 physics simulator to simulate both vehicle & track dynamics. Here are a few parameters I’ve assigned values to:– (note:- I’m documenting most of the parameters)
Mass=700.0 // All mass except fuel
Inertia=(646.5,1282.0, 110.2) // All inertia except fuel
FuelTankPos=(0.00, 0.255,-1.38) // Location of tank relative to center of rear axle in reference plane
FuelTankMotion=(560.0, 0.65) // Simple model of fuel movement in tank (spring rate per kg, critical damping ratio)
CGHeight=0.1752 // Height of body mass (excluding fuel) above reference plane
CGRightRange=(0.480, 0.002, 21) // Fraction of weight on left tires
CGRearRange=( 0.540, 0.002, 21) // Fraction of weight on rear tires
WedgeRange=(0.0, 0.25, 1) // Rounds of wedge
[FRONTWING]
FWRange=(0.0, 1.0, 40) // Front wing range
FWSetting=21 // Front wing setting
FWMaxHeight=(0.30) // Maximum height to take account of for downforce
FWDragParams=(0.0992, 0.00393, 0.000016) // Base drag and 1st and 2nd order with setting
FWLiftParams=(-0.2305,-0.011498, 0.000026) // Base lift and 1st and 2nd order with setting
FWDraftLiftMult=0.50 // Effect of draft on front wing’s lift response (larger numbers will tend to decrease downforce when in the draft)
FWLiftHeight=(0.930) // Effect of current height on lift coefficient
FWLiftSideways=(0.435) // Dropoff in downforce with yaw (0.0 = none, 1.0 = max)
FWLiftPeakYaw=(3.0, 1.07) // Angle of peak, multiplier at peak
FWLeft=(-0.05, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving left
FWRight=(0.05, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving right
FWUp=( 0.0,-0.168, 0.020) // Aero forces from moving up
FWDown=(0.0, 0.168,-0.012) // Aero forces from moving down
FWAft=( 0.0, 0.045,-0.04) // Aero forces from moving rearwards
FWFore=(0.0, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving forwards (recomputed from settings)
FWRot=(0.15, 0.06, 0.22) // Aero torque from rotating
FWCenter=(0.00, 0.11, -0.5075) // Center of front wing forces (offset from center of front axle in ref plane)
[REARWING]
RWRange=(0.0, 1.0, 40) // Rear wing range
RWSetting=20 // Rear wing setting
RWDragParams=( 0.065, 0.00548, 0.000023) // Base drag and 1st and 2nd order with setting
RWLiftParams=(-0.2405,-0.014598, 0.000063) // Base lift and 1st and 2nd order with setting
RWDraftLiftMult=0.42 // Effect of draft on rear wing’s lift response
RWLiftSideways=(0.425) // Dropoff in downforce with yaw (0.0 = none, 1.0 = max)
RWLiftPeakYaw=(2.5, 1.05) // Angle of peak, multiplier at peak
RWLeft=(-0.10, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving left
RWRight=(0.10, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving right
RWUp=( 0.0,-0.192, 0.050) // Aero forces from moving up
RWDown=(0.0, 0.192,-0.030) // Aero forces from moving down
RWAft=( 0.0, 0.10, -0.10) // Aero forces from moving rearwards
RWFore=(0.0, 0.0, 0.0) // Aero forces from moving forwards (recomputed from settings)
RWRot=( 0.20, 0.18, 0.30) // Aero torque from rotating
RWCenter=(0.00, 0.62, 0.355) // Center of rear wing forces (offset from center of rear axle at ref plane)
[BODYAERO]
BodyDragBase=(0.35222) // Base drag
BodyDragHeightAvg=(0.258) // Drag increase with average ride height
BodyDragHeightDiff=(0.486) // Drag increase with front/rear ride height difference
BodyMaxHeight=(0.15) // Maximum ride height that affects drag/lift
DraftBalanceMult=0.025 // Effect of draft on aerodynamic downforce balance of car (bigger numbers exaggerate the effect)
BodyDraftLiftMult=0.06 // Effect of draft on body’s lift response
BodyLeft=(-0.70, 0.030, 0.00) // Aero forces from moving left
BodyRight=(0.70, 0.030, 0.00) // Aero forces from moving right
BodyUp=( 0.00,-1.700, 0.02) // Aero forces from moving up
BodyDown=( 0.00, 1.700,-0.01) // Aero forces from moving down
BodyAft=( 0.00, 0.105,-0.95) // Aero forces from moving rearwards
BodyFore=( 0.00,-0.171, 0.37) // Aero forces from moving forwards (lift value important, but drag overwritten)
BodyRot=(4.00, 2.70, 1.90) // Aero torque from rotating
BodyCenter=(0.0, 0.254,-1.413) // Center of body aero forces (offset from center of rear axle at ref plane)
RadiatorRange=(0.0, 1.0, 8) // Radiator range (front grille tape)
RadiatorSetting=6 // Radiator setting
RadiatorDrag=(0.00210) // Effect of radiator setting on drag
RadiatorLift=(0.00000) // Effect of radiator setting on lift
BrakeDuctRange=(0.0, 1.0, 7) // Brake duct range
BrakeDuctSetting=2 // Brake duct setting
BrakeDuctDrag=(0.0050) // effect of brake duct setting on drag
BrakeDuctLift=(0.0012) // effect of brake duct setting on lift
[DIFFUSER]
DiffuserBase=(-1.0607, 0.15, 1.0) // Base lift and 1st/2nd order with rear ride height
DiffuserFrontHeight=(1.450) // 1st order with front ride height
DiffuserRake=(-0.003, -20, 450.0) // Optimum rake (rear – front ride height), 1st order with current difference from opt, 2nd order
DiffuserLimits=(0.013, 0.105, 0.044) // Min ride height before stalling begins (0.0=disabled), max rear ride height for computations, max rake difference for computations
DiffuserStall=(0.1, 0.60) // Function to compute stall ride height (0.0=minimum, 1.0=average), downforce lost when bottoming out (0.0=none, 1.0=complete stall)
DiffuserSideways=(0.332) // Dropoff with yaw (0.0 = none, 1.0 = max)
DiffuserPeakYaw=(0.0, 1.0) // Angle of peak, multiplier at peak
DiffuserCenter=(0.0, 0.01, -1.265) // Center of diffuser forces (offset from center of rear axle at ref plane)
[SUSPENSION]
CorrectedInnerSuspHeight=0.245 // Instead of moving inner susp height relative with ride height, use this offset (set to -1 for original behavior)
ApplySlowToFastDampers=0 // Whether to apply slow damper settings to fast damper settings
LimitFastDampers=0 // Whether to limit the fast damper rate to be less than or equal to the slow damper rate (actual rate, not numerical setting)
AdjustSuspRates=1 // Adjust suspension rates due to motion ratio (0 = direct measure of spring/damper rates, 1 = wheel rates)
AlignWheels=1 // Correct for minor graphical offsets
FrontWheelTrack=1.4615 // If non-zero, forces the front wheels to be specified track width
RearWheelTrack=1.4752 // If non-zero, forces the rear wheels to be specified track width
LeftWheelBase=0 // If non-zero, forces the left side to use specified wheelbase
RightWheelBase=0 // If non-zero, forces the right side to use specified wheelbase
SpringBasedAntiSway=1 // 0=diameter-based, 1=spring-based
AllowNoAntiSway=0 // Whether first setting gets overridden to mean no antisway bar
FrontAntiSwayBase=0.0 // Extra anti-sway from tube twisting
FrontAntiSwayRange=(80000.0, 1000.0, 116)
FrontAntiSwaySetting=30
FrontAntiSwayRate=(1.00e11, 4.0) // Not applicable with spring-based antisway
RearAntiSwayBase=0.0 // Extra anti-sway from tube twisting
RearAntiSwayRange=(20000.0, 1000.0, 76)
RearAntiSwaySetting=12
RearAntiSwayRate=(1.00e11, 4.0) // Not applicable with spring-based antisway
FrontToeInRange=(-1.0, 0.025, 73)
FrontToeInSetting=36
RearToeInRange=(-0.8, 0.025, 73)
RearToeInSetting=34
LeftCasterRange=(-1.5, 0.1, 71) // Front-left caster
LeftCasterSetting=30
RightCasterRange=(-1.5, 0.1, 71) // Front-right caster
RightCasterSetting=30
LeftTrackBarRange=(0.0, 0.0, 1) // Rear-left track bar
LeftTrackBarSetting=0
RightTrackBarRange=(0.0, 0.0, 1) // Rear-right track bar
RightTrackBarSetting=0
//THIRD SPRING
Front3rdBumpTravel=-0.005 // Travel to bumpstop with zero packers and zero ride height (5mm compression)
Front3rdReboundTravel=-0.065 // Prevents rebound travel (for example, when upside down), 55mm max front ride height plus 10mm leeway
Front3rdBumpStopSpring=150000.0 // Initial spring rate of bumpstop
Front3rdBumpStopRisingSpring=7.00e6 // Rising spring rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
Front3rdBumpStopDamper=2400.0 // Initial damping rate of bumpstop
Front3rdBumpStopRisingDamper=7.00e5 // Rising damper rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
Front3rdBumpStage2=0.060 // Speed where damper bump moves from slow to fast
Front3rdReboundStage2=-0.060 // Speed where damper rebound moves from slow to fast
Front3rdPackerRange=(0.000, 0.001, 41)
Front3rdPackerSetting=5
Front3rdSpringRange=(0.0, 2000.0, 101)
Front3rdSpringSetting=35
Front3rdSlowBumpRange=(0.0, 125.0, 25)
Front3rdSlowBumpSetting=6
Front3rdFastBumpRange=(0.0, 125.0, 21)
Front3rdFastBumpSetting=2
Front3rdSlowReboundRange=(0.0, 250.0, 33)
Front3rdSlowReboundSetting=4
Front3rdFastReboundRange=(0.0, 250.0, 29)
Front3rdFastReboundSetting=2
Rear3rdBumpTravel=-0.010 // Travel to bumpstop with zero packers and zero ride height (10mm compression)
Rear3rdReboundTravel=-0.090 // Prevents rebound travel (for example, when upside-down), 80mm max rear ride height plus 10mm leeway
Rear3rdBumpStopSpring=150000.0 // Initial spring rate of bumpstop
Rear3rdBumpStopRisingSpring=7.00e6 // Rising spring rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
Rear3rdBumpStopDamper=2400.0 // Initial damping rate of bumpstop
Rear3rdBumpStopRisingDamper=7.00e5 // Rising damper rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
Rear3rdBumpStage2=0.060 // Speed where damper bump moves from slow to fast
Rear3rdReboundStage2=-0.060 // Speed where damper rebound moves from slow to fast
Rear3rdPackerRange=(0.000, 0.001, 61)
Rear3rdPackerSetting=10
Rear3rdSpringRange=(0.0, 2000.0, 101)
Rear3rdSpringSetting=40
Rear3rdSlowBumpRange=(0.0, 125.0, 25)
Rear3rdSlowBumpSetting=6
Rear3rdFastBumpRange=(0.0, 125.0, 21)
Rear3rdFastBumpSetting=2
Rear3rdSlowReboundRange=(0.0, 250.0, 33)
Rear3rdSlowReboundSetting=6
Rear3rdFastReboundRange=(0.0, 250.0, 29)
Rear3rdFastReboundSetting=2
DRIVELINE]
ClutchEngageRate=1.2 // How fast to engage clutch
ClutchInertia=0.0085 // Inertia of parts between clutch and transmission
ClutchTorque=700.0 // Maximum torque that can be transferred through clutch
ClutchWear=0.0 // Unimplemented
ClutchFriction=8.20 // Friction torque of parts between clutch and transmission when in gear (automatically reduced in neutral)
BaulkTorque=500.0 // Maximum torque transferred through gears while engaging them
AllowGearingChanges=1 // Whether to allow gear ratio changes
AllowFinalDriveChanges=1 // Whether to allow final drive ratio changes
FinalDriveSetting=1 // Indexed into GearFile list
ForwardGears=7
ReverseSetting=3
Gear1Setting=0
Gear2Setting=22
Gear3Setting=39
Gear4Setting=59
Gear5Setting=77
Gear6Setting=93
Gear7Setting=107
DiffPumpTorque=250.0 // At 100% pump diff setting, the torque redirected per wheelspeed difference in radians/sec (roughly 1.2kph)
DiffPumpRange=(0.00, 0.01, 101) // Differential acting on all driven wheels
DiffPumpSetting=30
DiffPowerRange=(0.00, 0.01, 101) // Fraction of power-side input torque transferred through diff
DiffPowerSetting=30 // (not implemented for four-wheel drive)
DiffCoastRange=(0.00, 0.01, 101) // Fraction of coast-side input torque transferred through diff
DiffCoastSetting=30 // (not implemented for four-wheel drive)
DiffPreloadRange=(80.0, 4.0, 26) // Preload torque that must be overcome to have wheelspeed difference
DiffPreloadSetting=5 // (not implemented for four-wheel drive)
RearSplitRange=(1.00, 0.10, 1) // Torque split to the rear, defaults to
RearSplitSetting=0 // 50:50 if these entries aren’t here.
Pump4WDEffect=( 1.0, 1.0, 1.0) // Effect of various diff settings on
Power4WDEffect=( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0) // the center diff, then the front diff,
Coast4WDEffect=( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0) // and then the rear diff. Sorry, no
Preload4WDEffect=(0.0, 0.0, 0.0) // separate settings for each diff.
[brakes]
BumpTravel=-0.005 // Travel to bumpstop with zero packers and zero ride height (5mm compression)
ReboundTravel=-0.057 // Prevents rebound travel (for example, when upside-down), 45mm max front ride height plus 12mm leeway
BumpStopSpring=150000.0 // Initial spring rate of bumpstop
BumpStopRisingSpring=7.00e6 // Rising spring rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
BumpStopDamper=2400.0 // Initial damping rate of bumpstop
BumpStopRisingDamper=7.00e5 // Rising damper rate of bumpstop (multiplied by deflection squared)
BumpStage2=0.060 // Speed where damper bump moves from slow to fast
ReboundStage2=-0.060 // Speed where damper rebound moves from slow to fast
FrictionTorque=2.40 // Newton-meters of friction between spindle and wheel
SpinInertia=0.9040 // Inertia in pitch direction including any axle but not brake disc
CGOffsetX=0.000 // X-offset from graphical center to physical center
PushrodSpindle=(-0.120,-0.110, 0.00) // Spring/damper connection to spindle or axle (relative to wheel center)
PushrodBody=( -0.560, 0.295, 0.10) // Spring/damper connection to body (relative to wheel center)
CamberRange=(-5.0, 0.1, 56)
CamberSetting=9
PressureRange=(90.0, 1.0, 106)
PressureSetting=30
PackerRange=(0.01, 0.001, 11)
PackerSetting=0
SpringMult=1.0 // Take into account suspension motion if spring is not attached to spindle (affects physics but not garage display)
SpringRange=(100000.0, 2000.0, 101)
SpringSetting=8
SpringRubberRange=(5000.0, 5000.0, 1) // Spring rubbers can potentially be changed at pitstops if available, first value is automatically detached
SpringRubberSetting=0
RideHeightRange=(0.030, 0.001, 26)
RideHeightSetting=25
DamperMult=1.00 // Take into account suspension motion if damper is not attached to spindle
SlowBumpRange=(3000.0, 125.0, 29)
SlowBumpSetting=12
FastBumpRange=(1500.0, 125.0, 25)
FastBumpSetting=8
SlowReboundRange=(5250.0, 250.0, 28)
SlowReboundSetting=15
FastReboundRange=(3000.0, 125.0, 29)
FastReboundSetting=12
BrakeDiscRange=(0.026, 0.001, 3) // Disc thickness
BrakeDiscSetting=2
BrakePadRange=(0, 1, 5) // Pad type (not implemented)
BrakePadSetting=2
BrakeDiscInertia=0.820 // Inertia per meter of thickness
BrakeResponseCurve=(-70,540,700,1730) // First value is cold temperature (where brake torque is half optimum), min temp for optimum brake torque, max temp for optimum brake torque, and overheated temperature (where brake torque is half optimum)
BrakeWearRate=5.650e-011 // Meters of wear per second at optimum temperature
BrakeFailure=(1.45e-02,7.00e-04) // Average and variation in disc thickness at failure
BrakeTorque=3980.0 // Maximum brake torque at zero wear and optimum temp
BrakeHeating=0.00172 // Heat added linearly with brake torque times wheel speed (at max disc thickness)
BrakeCooling=(3.650e-02,4.200e-04) // Minimum brake cooling rate (base and per unit velocity) (at max disc thickness)
BrakeDuctCooling=0.8000e-04 // Brake cooling rate per brake duct setting (at max disc thickness)
Engine Data:–( I re-programmed it using matlab)
RPMTorque=( 0.0, -32.6, -32.6)
RPMTorque=( 500.0, -32.5, -20.0)
RPMTorque=( 1000.0, -33.4, -3.0)
RPMTorque=( 1500.0, -35.2, 31.8)
RPMTorque=( 2000.0, -37.2, 60.5)
RPMTorque=( 2500.0, -39.1, 84.3)
RPMTorque=( 3000.0, -40.9, 99.2)
RPMTorque=( 3500.0, -42.8, 124.5)
RPMTorque=( 4000.0, -44.7, 161.4)
RPMTorque=( 4500.0, -46.6, 217.5)
RPMTorque=( 5000.0, -48.6, 273.3)
RPMTorque=( 5500.0, -50.7, 314.0)
RPMTorque=( 6000.0, -52.8, 334.2)
RPMTorque=( 6500.0, -55.0, 345.7)
RPMTorque=( 7000.0, -57.2, 357.2)
RPMTorque=( 7500.0, -59.4, 370.2)
RPMTorque=( 8000.0, -61.7, 381.7)
RPMTorque=( 8500.0, -63.9, 384.6)
RPMTorque=( 9000.0, -66.2, 383.1)
RPMTorque=( 9500.0, -68.5, 379.8)
RPMTorque=( 10000.0, -70.9, 374.4)
RPMTorque=( 10500.0, -73.4, 368.8)
RPMTorque=( 11000.0, -76.0, 364.4)
RPMTorque=( 11500.0, -78.9, 358.6)
RPMTorque=( 12000.0, -82.0, 354.8)
RPMTorque=( 12500.0, -85.4, 350.9)
RPMTorque=( 13000.0, -89.3, 347.6)
RPMTorque=( 13500.0, -93.6, 343.7)
RPMTorque=( 14000.0, -98.3, 341.4)
RPMTorque=( 14500.0, -103.4, 339.9)
RPMTorque=( 15000.0, -109.1, 337.0)
RPMTorque=( 15500.0, -114.9, 332.6)
RPMTorque=( 16000.0, -120.9, 327.2)
RPMTorque=( 16500.0, -127.0, 320.8)
RPMTorque=( 17000.0, -133.3, 314.3)
RPMTorque=( 17500.0, -139.6, 308.9)
RPMTorque=( 18000.0, -146.0, 303.1)
RPMTorque=( 18500.0, -152.7, 297.7)
RPMTorque=( 19000.0, -160.1, 292.4)
RPMTorque=( 19500.0, -160.1, 280.9)
RPMTorque=( 20000.0, -160.1, 266.5)
RPMTorque=( 20500.0, -160.1, 242.5)
FuelConsumption=2.700e-005 // affected by throttle position and engine speed
EngineInertia=0.0518 // rotational inertia of engine components
IdleThrottle=1.0 // throttle multiplier to help maintain idle speed
IdleRPMLogic=(3925.0, 4150.0) // attempt to maintain idle speed between these RPMs
LaunchEfficiency=0.0 // efficiency (0.0-1.0) of launch control, or 0.0 if N/A
LaunchRPMLogic=(7800.0, 11000.0) // holds RPM in this range before launch
RevLimitRange=(18000.0, 0.0, 0)
OptimumOilTemp=106.5 // degrees Celsius at which engine operates optimally
CombustionHeat=68.1 // degrees Celsius added per liter of fuel burned
EngineSpeedHeat=1.325e-003 // heat added linearly with engine speed
OilMinimumCooling=5.050e-004 // heat dissipated without radiator
OilWaterHeatTransfer=(2.28e-2,3.45e-4) // heat transfer from oil to water (base, w/ engine speed)
WaterMinimumCooling=2.000e-004 // heat dissipated without radiator
RadiatorCooling=(8.90e-04, 1.120e-04) // cooling rate with velocity (base, per setting)
LifetimeEngineRPM=(18100.0,300.0) // (base engine speed for lifetime, range where lifetime is halved)
LifetimeOilTemp=(110.50, 4.5000) // (base oil temp for lifetime, range where lifetime is halved)
LifetimeAvg=5700 // average lifetime in seconds
LifetimeVar=0 // lifetime random variance
EngineEmission=(0.00, 0.5000, 0.52) // where flames and smoke are emitted (relative to ref frame at rear axle
EngineSound=(0, 0.5000, 0.2500) // where engine sound is played (relative to ref frame at rear axle)
SpeedLimiter=1 // whether vehicle has a pitlane speed limiter
OnboardStarter=0 // whether vehicle restarts when stalled
StarterTiming=(1.40, 0.4000, 1.5000) // average and variable cranking time, then time to blend with starting sound
RamCenter=(0.00, 0.80,-1.50) // location of ram air intake
RamDraftEffect=3.0 // multiplier for effect that draft has on ram air velocity
RamEffects=(2.0e-5,2.0e-5,2.5e-5,3.5e-5) // torque % increase per m/s, power % increase per m/s and RPM, fuel increase per m/s, engine wear increase per m/s
Track dynamics:-( got data from another friend, but it was for indy, doesn’t affect simulation much)
RoadDryGrip=1.00
RoadWetGrip=0.80
RoadmetalGrip=0.80
RoadDustGrip=0.90
RoadBumpAmp=0.010
RoadBumpLen=13.0
RumbleDryGrip=0.95
RumbleWetGrip=0.60
RumbleBumpAmp=0.015
RumbleBumpLen=8.0
MiscBumpAmp=0.08
MiscBumpLen=4.0
Terminal velocities are not way too low, it was around 327kmph peak approaching turn 1. But you can infer from the data that i’ve simulated the lap for an average case. Of course it can be simulated for Monza trim parameters, like using lower ride hight, less wing, reducing body drag base etc. But I always prefer to simulate the conditions for average cases. It serves as a benchmark for later reference, when you simulate for ultra-low downforce.
Hakka
8th September 2009, 13:06
Great effort – nice to see.
I think your qualitative conclusions are very valid, but I see your top speeds are down by about 10% or more when compared to reality, which should color any quantitative conclusions (It doesn’t look like you’re making any though).
What would be awesome to see is if you could integrate and come up with the area under the braking curve and compare it from race to race – that would offer some good insights about KERS.
In particular, I’m a little intrigued that most teams said KERS wouldn’t be that useful in Spa, but they’re saying it’ll be very useful here in Monza; while Spa and Monza have many similar properties – long straights, lots of full-throttle stretches.
The difference in Braking between Spa and Monza would be interesting to see (a quantitative number).
mp4-19b
8th September 2009, 14:57
Thanx Hakka :) yes you are right in saying that terminal velocities are on the lower side, but are not too low, it was around 327 kmph peak approaching turn 1. But you can infer from the data, that i’ve simulated the lap for an average case(medium down force setup). Of course it can be simulated for Monza trim , like lowering ride hight, less wing, reducing body drag base etc. But I wanted to simulate the conditions for average cases. It serves as a benchmark for later reference, when you simulate for ultra-low downforce levels. I’ll try to do a better job for Singapore :)
Ruudje
10th September 2009, 11:29
monza has the added advantage of using kers twice on a flying q lap (it limits q to single flying lap stints though).
at spa they couldn’t do that. furthermore monza has much more laps, so they use kers for a higher percentage of the time. Monza suits kers more, but I cant remember teams saying it wouldn’t be helpful in spa.
Marcus
7th September 2009, 11:25
Had a dream who would win Monza it was Kimi 1st Hamilton 2nd and Vettel 3rd. i know is sounds stupid but i did dream vettel to win Silverstone this year and it doesnt happen on every race. so it’s time to place my bet on Kimi.
roser
7th September 2009, 13:21
I dreamed Algersuari and Alonso incidents at Spa… it was mostly a nightmare, but it happened.. Didn’t dream of Monza yet
DanThorn
7th September 2009, 15:23
The other night I dreamed Bourdais 1st, Alonso 2nd and Badoer 3rd. I think that’s going to be a good bet for me in the predictions championship! ;)
Steph90
7th September 2009, 11:36
mp4-19b, that is really great insight and analysis! Kers probably will be used more to get up to speed and shoot away and keep other cars at bay.
Cars will also need to be quite good over the kerbs and out of non-kers cars it will be good to see who does well. Perhaps Force India will continue to do well as when looking at their previous speed traps they’ve been quite good. That said I’m putting bet on Hamilton for the win
:PNet.Sticks
7th September 2009, 11:40
Aren’t you forgetting anybody?!
What about Rubens Barrichello?
He’s been better than Jason at least, in the last 2 races. (SPA counts only the qualifying, because the race to Button and Hamilton was ended on lap 1, courtesy of Renault’s rookie – maybe another attempt to eliminate some rivals of our very best Formula One’s disgusting boy – Fernando Alonso – he gain the title from Schumacher)…
wasiF1
7th September 2009, 12:35
I will be surprise the top 4 title contender to be on the podium if it stays a clean battle and nobody retires.
Lewis Kimi Fishi Hekki are the man to watch.
Keith please make sure this my prediction are copied so that I dont loose 15 points as I did last time.
McPhil
7th September 2009, 13:12
Pat Symonds says that KERS will be worth at least a 1/4 of a second per lap, and on the start line “well over 15 meters” to the first corner.
Should be an interesting race then…
vitor
7th September 2009, 13:40
renault confirm KERS in monza.
kimi will match this race…mclaren will be strong too.
the extra power will be a advantage…like first and third sector in spa…
Vincent
7th September 2009, 14:03
Apparently, Renault is reintroducing CORS on Singapore. Crash On Request System
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 14:13
LOL!! :) :)
James G
7th September 2009, 18:20
And we all thought Piquet would never get an F1 drive again…
sainaa
7th September 2009, 14:12
Renault’s Pat Symonds said KERS gain will be around 0.25 sec. It’s not a big advantage then. Toyotas, Force Indias even Brawns can be faster than KERS cars with better braking, cornering and tires managements.
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 14:32
What the hell are Mercedes doing?? They’ve had only on WCC till date. That was ages ago in 1998. Poor McLaren :( :( were supplied with engines suffering from asthma, but now after all these years of sputtering & coughing, merc finally deserts them, just cuz they have somehow managed to manufacture reliable engines?? Until 2006 merc engine was the most unreliable engine in F1. Kept blowing up every few feet. It is cuz of mercedes that mclaren potentially lost the titles in 2000,2003,2004,2005!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78399
Bigbadderboom
7th September 2009, 14:49
Mercedes have said they just want to strengthen their presence in F1 and that their commitment to McLaren is as strong as ever…….calm down dear!!!!!!
Steph90
7th September 2009, 15:03
Yea mp4 I think mclaren and mercedes are just going to stop making road cars together rather than stop f1 relations. You can see why mercedes would want to strengthen their presence when they are serving up so many engines (possibly expanding to Williams and Rbr) and with Brawn’s success this year they may as well get more out of it.
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 15:17
Look at this article by Jay Leno !!!
He says”The fact McLaren is building its own engine is key………I mean, the one thing that bothered me about the SLR in partnership with Mercedes was that was a little too much Mercedes and not enough McLaren.
Why? Why do they have to design & build their own engine? Never in history have they done that. The 1994 McLaren F1 has a BMW 6.1 L 60-degree V12 engine. Couldn’t they have asked Mercedes to build them an engine? Strange to say the least. I would like to know where are mclaren designing, manufacturing this indigenous engine?? Can’t be at Brixworth, cuz that whole plant is owned by Mercedes. Is there enough space at woking to manufacture engines? Is it McLaren dumping mercedes or the other way round? Keith any idea?
Bigbadderboom
7th September 2009, 15:43
That is a 6.2ltr monster based on the Mercedes engine and is being built by Mahle in Northampton. But will be a Mclaren badged engine.
As for their supply deals, they will still own 40% of Mclaren and will continue supplying them, Brawn, FI and either Williams or Red Bull, but my understanding is that they can only supply 4 teams, and that was granted under special despensation on request by the FIA.
Bigbadderboom
7th September 2009, 15:44
And 6.2lts is slightly over capacity for an F1 car..:)
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 15:58
Then what is the point in having merc as engine partners when a third party is building them engines. As jay Leno mentioned in his article The Mclaren SLR was too much merc, now the mp4-12c will be too much Mahle.
Are you sure that Mahle are building them engines? i can’t see anything mentioning this on their website
Bigbadderboom
7th September 2009, 16:20
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21793.html
But I read it elsewhere a couple of weeks ago as well, ill try find it.
Bigbadderboom
7th September 2009, 16:40
Mahle are showing a PDF of their production, and they lis a tuned Mercedes 6208cc, V8 but I think that ois the one Merc use in their standard production.
http://www.mahle.com/C1256F7900537A47/vwContentByKey/W26HTDDZ813STULEN/$FILE/09%20wrds%20chrt%20inside.pdf
mp4-19b
7th September 2009, 17:04
thanx for sharing :)
lawan.us
7th September 2009, 15:56
blog’ good and news
if bisa ada b. indonesia
Patrickl
7th September 2009, 16:31
Que?
Random Chimp
7th September 2009, 19:05
lol
Shagrathian
7th September 2009, 17:53
Lewis will bu competitve at Monza, for sure. He always has great performance on that venue. Besides Mercedes’ KERS and engine are the best ones of the field. And MP4-24 has a good mechanical grip which provides to be strong on kerbs.
rfs
8th September 2009, 0:58
that word again :)
sato113
7th September 2009, 19:52
aren’t we forgetting that if the KERS cars do use up all their KERS on the start/finish straight to defend or attack, the non KERS car has the rest of the entire lap to catch up! (and make a move on the final straight before the last turn)
Alex-Ctba
7th September 2009, 20:44
Part of this whole discussion over kers and engines and back to drivers to watch in Monza and more trials specifically to debut on Fisichella’s red team, I think the key to good performance of the Italian driver will be the harmony between him and his engineer. With limited time to learn the secrets from his F60 and KERS system, I think that Fisichella will depend a lot on your team to perform well and aim Q3 for the next Saturday and for the more enthusiastic a warning: Not so fast! ‘cos the Italian will not be able to get close to the Finnish
KNF
8th September 2009, 4:49
He’s worked with Smedley before when they were both at Jordan, so it’s not entirely an unfamiliar situation they are in.
StrFerrari4Ever
7th September 2009, 21:36
Taking into account what some of the team principals and engineers have said KERS will play a massive part this weekend at Monza.
Experts on various F1 sites are convinced KERS cars will reach a higher top end speed then the non KERS equipped cars. Their rough guestimation using simulation programmes and just rough estimates say that with the possibility of KERS double deployment the KERS cars could max at around 355km/h or even up to 360km/h!! whilst non KERS cars will probably max out at 350km/h.
Now I know their many of you who will disagree but that sounds pretty convincing to me but KERS will be such an advantage out of Rettifilo and other acceleration zones on the circuit.
Ral
7th September 2009, 22:45
Kers cars will only reach higher speeds than non-kers if you assume that F1 cars don’t reach their top speed on Monza without kers. The extra 80hp is still deployed through the same engine, not through an additional small engine. This engine still has the same limits any of the non-kers cars engines have, so the top-speed (ignoring the chassis for a second) is the same. As has been said, they’ll get to it a bit quicker though.
I’m not convinced the Ferraris will do well. They might be able to make up for a lack of kerb-climbing ability with kers, but they’ll fall short of the McLaren pace. Now that Renault is reintroducing kers, I think they might do well, especially Alonso abviously.
StrFerrari4Ever
7th September 2009, 23:19
You make interesting points but will just have to wait and see the real thing on Friday.
Nat
8th September 2009, 9:57
Don’t forget that Monza isn’t a really a high speed circuit, it is a high speed braking circuit. There a chance that KERS screws up the cars performance under hard braking. For instance if the cars finish recharging part way through a braking zone, how does that effect the retardation force experienced by the rear wheels and its effects on balance?. Also the weight distribution is different laterally in a KERS car and that is going to have a massive effect on handling over the curbs if the inside wheels are unloaded and you haven’t got high down force. It might be closers between KERS and non KRES cars than most think.
Nik
8th September 2009, 23:02
The KERS cars will reach a higher speed than the non-KERS cars.
Both kinds of cars can set their gear ratios higher to hit a higher top speed. The limiting factor isn’t so much the rev limit, but the length of the straight and the time it takes to get to top speed. The teams can’t set the gear ratios to some massively high top speed because eventually they will run out of straight on which to accelerate on (even if they had the capability to set it that high, which I don’t know do, but it doesn’t matter).
This is where KERS will benefit. Since they have 6 seconds of 80 bhp, they will be able to reach that limit sooner than the non-KERS car will. And of course, if you hit a top speed earlier than another car, you will be going faster than them. Hence the advantage of KERS. You can argue that they won’t be able to set their gears any differently than non-KERS car, but they will still hit that top speed sooner. I would have thought, however, that since the extra 80 bhp for 6 seconds is in effect a shortcut to reaching the top limit, they’ll be able to set their top limit higher than the non-KERS cars because they don’t have to worry about running out of time and track before reaching top speed.
Nik
8th September 2009, 23:05
What I meant by that last bit is that without KERS, they wouldn’t have enough time to reach top speed before they had to brake for the corner, if they set their gear ratios higher than the non-KERS cars’ top limit. With KERS, they will because of the “shortcut” effect I mentioned. Again, I don’t know if they can go higher than the non-KERS cars because I don’t know the limits of gear ratios – perhaps the limit for Monza is as high as the gearbox can go. If that’s the case, they can still reach top speed earlier anyway, in the manner I mentioned above.