It might also explain why Hamilton was generally a little harder on his brakes given that he'd have been braking deeper in to the corners when using lift and coast.
I fear I'm about to move into territory that's going to have Cosicave/BLS laughing at me, but here goes: So I made a graph... please log in to view this image The blue line is a driver racing flat out, braking normally. The driver is leaving it as late as possible to stop accelerating, so is going to be braking from the fastest possible speed in the minimum distance. That's going to put the biggest possible load through the brakes. If the same driver is lifting and coasting (orange), they start braking at a lower speed, slightly later, and decelerate to the same speed. The harder you attack the corner, the greater the peak braking force is going to be, and braking is going to be extended over a longer period of time, heating the brakes up more. Seeing as we're suggesting that Hamilton is lifting and coasting far more than he's at maximum attack, he'd have to be significantly better on the brakes than Rosberg for it to be responsible for ruining his brakes. Whilst Hamilton is widely acknowledged as being one of the best drivers on the brakes, you'd also have thought a significant difference between them in that area would have translated into more Hamilton poles, as braking is far more important then than in the race.
Though you'd be braking from a lower top speed, the car is being slowed through a much shorter distance. I'm curious if that's something that might generate higher temps through the brakes in a shorter time frame. As you say, we'd need some Cosi input on that one. Just a thought though.
I guess another way of looking at it, is if the brake temps drop due to lift and coast... That could also bring about problems too.
Add in the complexity of brake by wire as well, you press the brake and the car is using 4 discs and PU braking together. All systems giving differing braking forces depending on many variables which you will have to adapt to throughout even a single braking zone.
Being a bit of a technical dunce, I fear I'm about to move into territory that's going to have everyone laughing at me but is it possible that the fuel consumption difference can be explained by a simple difference in set-up, the same difference that many have speculated meant Nico could shade Lewis in quali but lag during the race?
Great post. Just to add, the area between the two lines would equal the distance lost in the braking zone, and if you'd put distance along the x-axis the space would show time lost under braking. There was a post on the previous page mentioning that Hamilton may have been lifting and coasting without really losing time, but this isn't possible, there'll always be that area between the two curves if the driver attacking flat out gets his braking point right. It's always a trade off between whether the fuel saved is worth losing lap time. Generally speaking the quickest way to complete a race is to start with enough fuel to go flat out for the full distance, but the teams like to start the race light and fuel save because because the start is the best opportunity to make places and can make or break a race. Gear ratios! With them being locked in over a season now any difference would show up a similar trend race after race. If Nico had shorter ratios than Hamilton he'd get better in-gear acceleration, traction etc., but he'd spend a greater percentage of the lap at higher revs and therefore use less fuel. In Abu Dhabi they compared the two drivers' Q3 laps and DC noted that Hamilton took a chicane in first gear that Nico took in second, which would back up the idea that Nico perhaps had shorter ratios. I'd speculate that if you went back and looked through the speed trap classifications that Lewis probably shades Nico most sessions.
The task at hand, Average quali gap (season) please log in to view this image Average race gap (season) please log in to view this image Lot of work to be done to catch a team that won't exactly stand still. Add to this that Mercedes and Ferrari have the least work to do redesigning the nose area and it's a hefty task.
Ha! I almost wish I'd not read this thread! – But it has developed in a very interesting and creative way. I'm flattered at the faith shown (thanks all) and hope I will deal with at least some of the points adequately. This type of thread is enriching for all – which very much includes me. Relative to today's drivers, my experience and knowledge of the latest (extremely complicated) technology is sorely lacking. In this sense I am very much out of my depth. However, some principles never change, and those that do are usually evolutions of something similar. So, you've been warned: it's a bit foggy! – With a bit of luck and a bright enough lampshade though, maybe we can shed sufficient light on tarmac near the verge to get home safely. Lots of good thinking has followed Bando's original question. Doing justice to each point in one response will be a bit of a challenge and I may need to edit some quotes so as to keep things readable and logical. Apologies in advance to anyone overlooked but so far as I am able, I'll attempt to deal once with each new point. And there are a lot! Some raise further alternatives which I'll dip into only briefly so as not to bore people. For this reason though, it's likely one proper response will be inadequate in which case – and if people want it – I'll try to keep an eye on developments. Bigger post to follow. Hopefully before midnight but I'm likely to be interrupted…
Right. Here goes… (somebody please wish me luck!) Great question, Bando. Amazing that it's not been asked in this forum before, so far as I 'm aware. BLS's main point that 'lift and coast' "all adds up" is very true. This is a subtlety with longer races and is why Grands Prix should never be 'sprint races'. Also BLS, the distance before turn-in that lift and coast begins is usually more than 5m but can vary considerably. This opens a whole chapter's worth of driving theory. I will need to expand on an important point about Hamilton's braking (remind me if I forget); but for now will focus on principles. Let us imagine drivers of equal ability. Let us also imagine that every driver applies precisely the same force to the brake pedal throughout (this has implications for a response to DHC which follows) and that all take the same line through a corner and negotiate its apex at the maximum possible speed. DHC's clever graph and AbsGlo's further interpretation of it both allude to the question I will now present: is it possible for all these statements to be true whilst allowing drivers to brake at a different points on the track? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is yes! It should be intuitive that if all drivers apply the same braking force a slower car can be braked later in order to achieve the same optimum apex speed, and that this offsets (although does not eliminate) time lost by dint of the slower entry speed. Sometimes the difference is minimal. Importantly though, this short term disadvantage of losing a tiny bit of lap-time can be more than compensated for over the full race distance because tyre wear and fuel consumption are extended, thereby allowing a greater average speed over the course of the race. Ultimately, it is the driver with the fastest average speed who wins, not necessarily the guy who achieves the fastest possible lap – who may have to do slower laps later. With two equal cars that both finish, the winner will be the one who 'paces' him/herself best, taking into account myriad variables. Relative to Rosberg, who can be very quick over a lap, this is Hamilton's key strength: he is driving more 'within himself'. It also explains at least part of why he can pace his race according to those behind and turn up the wick at short notice when necessary, whilst Rosberg tends to have less in reserve (in every sense). It also hints at why Rosberg stands little chance of beating Hamilton if he's behind, whereas Hamilton can apply more sustained pressure and is more likely to overtake. Excellent graph, DHC! The following sentence also applies to Bhaji's question (quoted below). "Peak braking force" need not vary at all since it is the length of application that varies, rather than the pressure. In principle, a driver applies optimal force to the pedal for the shortest time, although there are subtleties which I will touch on later because explaining them now may interfere with establishing the principles. You are quite right about lift and coast requiring the brake to be applied for less time because of the lower speed. Therefore, with optimal braking done for less time, it should be clear that the lift and coast technique affords lower brake temperatures. – And yes, this can become an important consideration for a driver over the course of a full Grand Prix. Sometimes ignorance is the best approach to understanding. You are absolutely right about set-up being an important factor, Max. The trouble is differences in set-up are very rarely "simple" because every alteration affects every other part of the whole. Once again though, I want to avoid this for now because it can quickly become a very heavy plum pudding with cream, custard, brandy and if I'm not careful; prickly holly! Nice one AbsGlo! Although teams will usually choose very similar ratios for both of their cars, of course, they need not do so. P.S. Have you made an accidental error in this post? – Higher revs use more fuel! - - -o0o- - -Right. Clearly there are things (a can of worms?) which now need to be delved into, but for the sake of remaining focussed upon the principles of points so far raised, let's leave the skeleton without too much meat for now.
Hypothesis: Hamilton prefers less downforce on the car than Rosberg, which causes less aerodynamic drag, which means he uses less fuel. EDIT: I see Max raised this already.
Weren't the teams allowed to change gear ratios at some point? I think they were allowed one free change, which most used after Singapore when longer gear ratios became more favourable.
I think Mercedes drastically shortened their ratios after barely using 8th, even in monza. Slight miscalculation there
Cheers for the input Cosi. Just to throw another spanner in the works, how would engine braking effect the equation? You might be braking earlier and longer when not using lift and coast, but you'd also presumably downshift sooner?
My previous post was long-winded and inadequate. I think I should remove most, if not all of it and deal with separate points. Downshifting is unaffected by 'lift and coast' because changes are made according to speed - and as I tried to explain above, cornering speed is left unaffected since exactly the same 'optimal speed' is achievable with or without the technique. (This is demonstrated in DHC's excellent graph, where, all else being equal, the blue and red lines he's used will precisely overlap from the point where the lift and coast driver begins braking). To put it another way, although lift and coast causes the car to begin slowing before brakes are applied, they are used before dowshifts commence, even when trail-braking, thus leaving downshifts unaffected. Relatively speaking, for an F1 car, engine braking is probably the tiniest part of the equation. The brakes are so powerful and aerodynamic drag so great - especially at high speeds - that engine braking has negligible influence. That said, it can become a factor with differential settings but this is very tricky subject to get involved with on a forum. Later today, I will try to get to some of the points I deliberately avoided yesterday. The trouble is, it's a bit like trying to explain everything about car set-up in one short paragraph. Utterly impossible. There are loads of factors, some of which have been mentioned. All play a part. They also influence driver preferences and define driving styles, both of which are heavily influenced by engineering considerations. Until now, we've not even touched on these things. Nor has the fundamental requirement of economy (of both a limited fuel-load and driver workload) been mentioned. It really is an enormous subject.- - -o0o- - -P.S. I've simplified my previous post to make it a little easier to read. Please read the bold which I have added during this edit. – It is a key point I was going to make later and aims squarely at the big question.
Yep, Mercedes' new 8th gear was shorter than their old 7th gear. Original gearing: please log in to view this image Changed gearing: please log in to view this image (courtesy of Hollus et al from F1technical)
Posted by Cosicave Relative to Rosberg, who can be very quick over a lap, this is Hamilton's key strength: he is driving more 'within himself'. It also explains at least part of why he can pace his race according to those behind and turn up the wick at short notice when necessary, whilst Rosberg tends to have less in reserve (in every sense). It also hints at why Rosberg stands little chance of beating Hamilton if he's behind, whereas Hamilton can apply more sustained pressure and is more likely to overtake. But Cosi how do we explain the race when Rosberg fell behind Hamilton when Hamilton started at the back. Rosberg could not get within overtaking distance of Hamilton and was crying for the team to ask Hamilton to move over. His tyres weren't bad and I couldn't understand how he couldn't pass. He took on new faster tyres but stll had to settle for the place behind Hamilton. Most people were of the opinion that Hamilton would have flew pass Rosberg in a lap or two. That one was very puzzling. But I think when Rosberg couldnt pass there he lost a lot of confidence in his ability to fight Hamilton that's why I think he was asking for Hamilton to pull aside for him. The only race where he really kept Hamilton behind was in Brazil where I think Hamilton was very slow in certain parts of the track..I guess that was due to race setup not being quite right. Even so if Hamilton hadn't spun before his pitstop my guess was that he might have overtaken Rosberg in the pits. And I belive if Rosberg was overtaken and beaten in that race it would have totally devastated him as he was already very downbeat. But overall Rosberg, even though he drove very well, couldn't keep Hamilton behind in equal machinery and during the season he hasn't overtaken Hamilton even once to win a race despite having about 11 poles to Hamilton's seven. My fear now is that if Mercedes gets reliability spot on for 2015 and Hamilton starts well with no gremlins and if the other teams don't step up then Hamilton may win the next championships very early, because I think Rosberg although doing very well to get lots of poles seems to be lacking confidence in the races. Another thing that I noticed was Rosberg was totally dead in the wet race. He didn't seem to be able to get any heat into his tyres while Hamilton was going faster and faster. Do you think it was because Rosberg was playing the percentages and may have been playing it too safe hoping Hamilton might have a moment or even something worse? I think sometimes Hamilton puts too much pressure on himself with little mistakes and he need to iron them out. Now another question is..with all the telemetry sharing how come Rosberg's side of the garage hasn't quite worked out what Hamilton and his side of the garage have been doing throughout 2014? They must have gone over and over that data all year... What was it that they didn't quite get right or totally overlooked?
[1] Hamilton drove a very good race. Rosberg didn't. [2] Interlagos is one of Hamilton's weakest circuits but I agree; if he'd not spun, it is quite possible he'd have been ahead after the pit stops. This is a good example of your 5th point. [3] Your "fear"? That's a surprise! I thought you were a HAM fan through and through! However, although at this stage I can't see another team being quite on their pace, it will be closer; of that you can be sure. The reason is that whenever there are significant rule changes – especially if they involve more novel technology than usual – the likelihood is that in the early days there will be bigger differences between teams. Mercedes dominated 2014 but they will find it progressively difficult to hang on to such a big advantage. Other than that, I very much to agree with you. [4] Rosberg wasn't playing safe. He was doing all he could to manage his race at what he felt was the optimum speed. But of course, all competitors hope their opponents make mistakes! I think most agree the Mercedes has been by far the best car and therefore, as you know, we can only compare Rosberg with Hamilton. Hamilton's braking style is the biggest factor in him maintaining favourable tyre temperature (I was going to speak of this before, so thanks for reminding me). Rosberg does not brake in the same way and usually sets the brake bias differently. Hamilton's style is to brake very late (even when employing 'lift and coast', he brakes later than others doing the same thing) with more rear bias and a looser rear differential which helps him turn in sharply, often in a four wheel drift. This style of driving is very difficult to be consistent with, which may explain the occasional excursion as witnessed in Brazil. The danger is that the rear of the car will snap around very suddenly, so most drivers are less extreme. However, Hamilton is very very good at it and for the most part gets it right. It means his brakes and tyres are more likely to be at optimum temperatures, especially in the wet where they can lose temp quickly if a driver goes 'off the boil', so to speak. [5] Hamilton certainly does put a lot of pressure on himself. You cited Brazil and it is a good example. However, we should also recognise that these errors are becoming rarer with each season as he continues to hone his technique. No race driver will compete successfully without over-cooking things occasionally: it's how one defines one's limit and is the reason a lone driver (with no-one else around) is more likely to go off during practice. [6] If sharing telemetry was all that is needed, after three practice sessions and qualifying all team mates would be identical. Although various aspects of set-up are likely to be similar amongst between mates (gearing in particular), drivers are individuals and some of their settings may be radically different. This is purely down to how they feel they can get most out of the car. Going back to your example again, Hamilton has still not really sorted a decent set-up for Interlagos.
