 |
|
|
|
Formula 1 news, results and statistics when you need it |
10% of a
jigsaw puzzle does not make a picture 24 August 1999 Volume 1 - Issue 3 |
||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Formula 1 news, results and statistics when you need it |
10% of a
jigsaw puzzle does not make a picture 24 August 1999 Volume 1 - Issue 3 |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
10% of a jigsaw puzzle does not make a picture If you think that it is a strange heading for a column on Formula One, then consider this: Formula One is the motor racing class least restricted by rules. In many ways it is the absolute frontier of motor racing development and if you add to that the prodigious amounts of money that is being spent by the leading teams on research and development, it is not surprising that they do not openly discuss the intricate factors that they believe will enable them to win. To do so would be stupid, as it will allow their competitors to catch up. We, therefore, are limited to information that is scanty guesswork, rumours and innuendo. From that we try to work out why some teams are doing well and the probability of their fortune to continue. We also do not know if our facts are correct and have no way of checking as the teams, who are the only people who know, will not confirm anything as it may compromise their competitive edge. In fact, a lot of the time they go to extraordinary lengths to mislead. So, we are not only working with a small part of the picture, we also do not know which part of the picture that we believe we are looking at is pure fiction. I believe that Benetton did well at Hugaroring because of their chassis, but it could possibly be because they have increased the output of their motor, they have discovered a way of stopping better, they have improved their aerodynamics or both their drivers just happen to be very good at this track. So, please do not write to me telling me that I have contradicted myself. It is inevitable, as I am guessing all the time. Do write to me if you wish to contradict me as I am always willing to learn. The intention of this column is not to bring you the latest news or rumours or to let you know the outcome of races or testing. There are several other sources that do this much better than I can. My intention is to put a slant on what is happening and what it means, taking into account that most of it is based on guesses. These are all my views or my opinion of the views of others. Years ago, one of the most dominant factors in the prediction of the probable outcome of a race was the power to weight ratio of the individual cars. If factors like reliability and the skill of the drivers were ignored a power to weight ratio advantage was hard to beat. Today the most dominant factor is the power to drag ratio. Or putting it even simpler: it all comes down to horse power. At first this does not appear to be a significant difference. One could even argue that in both cases the only variable is power as the regulations stipulate a minimum weight. This is not so. In the past it used to be a case of the more power you have the more mechanical grip you needed to manage the power. I can remember many occasions where drivers like Rossberg and Lauda could not take advantage of the available power because it caused too much oversteer. Often races were won by drivers that were better at looking after their tyres, maintaining the necessary grip to the end of the race. Today the more power you have the more grip you get. Aerodynamics has done that to the sport. It is now theoretically possible to take almost any corner at full speed as aerodynamic grip is directly related to how fast the car is going. Personally I do not like it as I believe that it has made the cars more dangerous and more difficult to drive. Now it is a case of “keeping the car in the groove” and relying almost totally on the massive downforce to glue the car to the track in the corners. Many drivers find that hard to do. Drivers like Zanardi, who were very successful behind the wheel of an Indy car, find this style of extreme commitment just too hard. Every race track has an optimum line that is not necessarily the fastest line on the road, but it is the line that maintains the optimum angle of attack to the airflow over the car. Any deviation from this line is unpredictable and hard to correct. I am concerned that this almost artificial grip is too dangerous. If the car gets too much out of line the aerodynamics do not work and often has the opposite effect. At that stage the driver has no chance of control and it is quite possible that the car will not decelerate until it hits something. It is this effect that put Michael Schumacher out of action. Schumacher’s back brakes failing may be the direct cause of his accident, but if the car had a reasonable amount of mechanical grip it could have spun, scrubbing off speed before it got to the wall. As it is, it is probably fortunate that the car did not spin because reversing the aerodynamics may have flipped it or flown it. The FIA are acutely aware of the dangers of the cars getting faster all the time. That is why they introduced grooved tyres with far harder compounds. They could not have foreseen the huge strides forward that would be made in aerodynamic design, overcoming this restriction and make the cars even more dangerous. There must be a limit to the downforce that can be applied and I suspect that McLaren have found it in Germany when Hakkinen’s tyre blew during the race. Hakkinen almost confirmed this theory, during the post qualifying press conference, when he stated that “The experience of the last Grand Prix left some negative memories, but at this circuit we are not loading the tyres as heavily as you do at Hockenheim and you don't give them such a hard time here as you do there.” McLaren have by far the most power and therefore can afford the drag that comes with the most downforce. Their experience at Hockenheim may cause them to moderate this at Spa and that may give Ferrari a chance to stay in touch. But my advice to the Ferrari fans out there: Do not hold your breath. From here onwards the tracks favour McLaren. Spa: Average speed is around 225mph. Out of 16 corners only 5 are below 100mph and of those only 3 are slower than 80 mph. Spa is the third fastest track of the season and the outcome here will give us some idea of what Monza will be like (which is the race after that and by far the fastest). McLaren should have a definite advantage here. Hakkinen will live up to his reputation and I suspect will be unbeatable but Coulthard may have an off day as he seems to struggle more with back markers on the faster tracks. But with Coulthard nobody knows. Irvine should have the pace to get on the podium and I am expecting Mika Salo to be very fast again. Jordan should be strong again and Frentzen will probably finish in fourth place like he has for most of the season. Hill? Who knows? Williams should do a lot better than Benetton and you can expect Ralf Schumacher in the points but not Zanardi. Zanardi has been getting better but Spa is one of those “commit and leave it up to the aerodynamics” circuits that I believe sits uncomfortably with Zanardi. On the other hand he seems as fast as Ralf in testing at Silverstone, so he may have come to terms with it. Spa will tell. Barrichello should also do well if the Stewart lasts the distance and like always will be miles ahead of team mate Herbert. A Sauber will finish in the top 10 and so will a Prost, but BAR will break both cars again. Arrows? Minardi? My mother taught me that if I can’t say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all. Agree or disagree ?Send any comments you have on this commentary to The Heretic |
|
|
|
