The numbers that disprove Ferrari 'magic step' theories

What is the latest you have heard about Ferrari power unit development? At the British GP, it was said Ferrari had found an improvement.
@F1Eoin, via Twitter

I'm not so sure I'm seeing this big step that everyone is talking about. People like to talk and find reasons - no, make that excuses - for their own performance. But let's take a more rigorous look at the lap times, expressing the fastest lap either Ferrari or Mercedes has achieved at each event this season as a percentage relative to the fastest outright lap from that event, then averaging them out over three blocks of four races.

Since the figures don't vary dramatically over the course of these blocks, I can't see anything to back up the popular perception that Ferrari has taken a massive step relative to Mercedes.

Yes, Ferrari might be able to use more power for longer, so that will be beneficial - especially in a race - but Mercedes has had a bigger advantage in that area for far too long.

As far as out-and-out performance is concerned, I'm not seeing anything magical from the twin batteries or the MGU-K output.

Will Ferrari be dominant in Spa and Monza because the straights are so long?
matthewbroderick1, via Instagram

I think I've answered that above. At Spa, if Ferrari gets it right on the day then yes it will be right up there. But dominant? I don't think so.

Between Ferrari and Mercedes, neither is dominant this year. It's all down to who gets the rub of the green on the day. And don't discount Red Bull at Spa. Its car will probably be fastest through sector two, but to get an overall lap time out of it, the team will need to trim out some of the downforce and drag.

If Red Bull is shouting about how fast it is in sector two and how the Renault power unit is a waste of time in the other parts of the track, then Red Bull is going to need a bit of divine intervention to have a shot at winning.

Ferrari will do everything it can to win in front of its supporters, but Mercedes will want to get its own back for Silverstone

As for Monza, it is a track with its own requirements. It depends which of these two teams puts most effort into the Monza package.

I'm pretty sure Ferrari, being Italian, will do everything it can for success in front of its supporters - but, remember, Ferrari beat Mercedes at Silverstone, which is Mercedes' real home track.

The Mercedes factory is only seven miles down the road from Silverstone, so Mercedes will want to get its own back. Where better to do that then Monza?

What do you make of the 2019 trial wings that ran in Hungary, and what impact do you think they will have on the aero of the rest of the car - could it lead to big changes?
Sergio Lopez, via email

I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. The definitive regulations have not been made public yet, but if things can be controlled at the five closed elements over a certain width (a rule that confines the rear wing to two elements) and a simple endplate then it should be a step forward.

The size of that step will depend on how loose the wording is in the regulations that are finally issued, and therefore how many holes exist in them that will let 1000 or more engineers drive a horse and cart through.

What we have seen so far is by no means the finished product, but will reduce some of the downforce created at the leading edge of the underfloor. But the extra width and height should mean the front wing will still be powerful enough to achieve the required car balance.

Outwash, whereby teams turn the airflow outside of the otherwise very draggy front wheels, is the main problem for following cars - because then the bargeboards, and especially their trailing edges, need attention as well.

Most of the outwash that helps seal the underfloor and diffuser comes from that area. It then goes around the outside of the rear tyres, so if nothing is done to reduce this then it will still be there and, with it, the problem for a following car.

Is Red Bull's bad performance in the rain due to low downforce set-up to compensate for engine performance?
Pieter Bottema, via Twitter

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. With the slick tyre, all the air where the tyre contact patch rolls onto the ground is displaced either to the inside, or because it's what the teams try to optimise, mainly to the outside of the tyre contact patch.

With the intermediates and wets, you have what is called a land-to-sea ratio. Obviously, the slick tyres are 100% 'land' because you have no channels in the tread. For the intermediates, it's roughly 75/25, and for the wets roughly 60/40.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Pirelli doesn't make wet or intermediate tyres for the windtunnel models

This changes how the airflow structure around the tyres develops. This airflow and the vortices it sets up are critical to the performance of the underfloor and diffuser. On a car like the Red Bull, which runs at very high rake angles (high rear ride height), it is all about sealing the underfloor in front of the rear tyres with these vortices to get that extra performance.

But with this change on the tyre airflow, displacement will alter how this all works.

Ferrari, which also runs fairly high rake angles, also suffered whereas Mercedes, which doesn't run anywhere near as high a rear ride height, didn't. So, this is the area that I would be trying to research.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Pirelli doesn't make wet or intermediate tyres for the windtunnel models and CFD is a bit of a lottery when it comes to modelling rotating wheels and tyres.

Do you think the 18-inch wheels are going to cause a lot of change with less sidewall deflection, which will impact on suspension stiffness to absorb the required bumps?
topkarter1, via Instagram

The 18-inch rims and the resultant tyre size change to suit the new regulations will increase tyre stiffness. This will allow the cars to run with softer springs and anti-roll bars.

This will obviously be if a given team wants to run softer. At the moment, they can't because the tyre probably accounts for something in the region of 50% of the car's vertical and roll stiffness.

Allowing the teams to decide this is better than it just being a fait accompli. Also, the teams will be able to control that movement with dampers and inerters, etc, so it will allow them to use their expertise to put together a better package.

The lower sidewalls should also improve response time for the tyres. With the current 13-inch rims there is a lot of deflection when the driver turns the steering wheel, leading to a delay of building up the tyre slip angle. Until that happens, the tyre doesn't give the driver any confidence that the grip is there.

Some drivers can live with this delay and simply believe it will be OK. Others must tread (no pun intended) carefully until the car reacts to the lateral loading.

Why don't F1 cars use surface cooling for at least a portion of their overall cooling requirements, perhaps along the upper surface of the nose or sidepods? Or anywhere there is significant convective airflow, such as inclined, downforce-producing surfaces? This might allow for more favourable aero design and radiator ducting (smaller ducts).
Richard Gleason, via email

To cool a current F1 car, you would need the surface area of a couple of double decker busses.

Gordon Murray tried it years ago and actually that is what led to the Brabham fan car. The original design just didn't have the surface area, so front radiators were initially fitted and because of the head scratching required to solve that problem the fan car came about - with the other advantages that then brought.

I am not sure the complication of surface cooling would justify the return

The aerodynamic surfaces of a car are optimised to create the airflow direction required to allow the downforce producing devices to perform at their optimum. Most of these surfaces will be altered various times during the season, so designing them to flow some type of coolant would limit your design.

Radiator technology has improved over the last decade and now teams can design in much more complicated shapes of radiator.

There are possibly some small areas where you could do what you suggest, but I am not sure the complication would justify the return.

How do you become a Formula 1 engineer?
Adam Simpson, via Instagram

The first thing is to study something related to F1: aerodynamics, hydraulics, vehicle dynamics, structures, CFD modelling or whatever. Most importantly, study something that you are interested in. As they say, if you are doing something you enjoy you'll never work again.

During your studies, or after you have got some qualifications, then get involved with a team doing Formula 3, touring cars or basically anything that takes you racing, just so that on your thousands of application letters you can say you have circuit experience.

Then it is about applying for positions that suit your skill set. Be careful not just to take anything that happens to come your way. Again, focus on what you know and enjoy because if you do get a position it will be long and hard and any team will require total commitment.

Don't give up if you get turned down and don't give up if you don't hear anything. One day, your CV will land on the correct desk at the correct time and the rest is up to you.

If you had to pick one team as the best performer of the season, not just on results but based on their achievements relative to expectations and resources, who would you pick and why?
David Russell, via email

I would have to pick three - Sauber, Toro Rosso and Haas. And all for different reasons.

Sauber first. It started the season clearly at the back of the pack, but as Charles Leclerc got a little more experience and the team started to understand the car, it made big inroads in performance.

Sauber hasn't set the world alight by any means but if you consider that as far as performance is concerned it was behind both McLaren and Williams for the first few races, it has outdeveloped both of them.

Toro Rosso takes second. It took McLaren's cast-off engine and bolted it into the back of its car, which is no easy task for a small team like Toro Rosso. And on occasions this year it has done a better job than McLaren did over the past three years.

On occasions this year Toro Rosso has done a better job than McLaren did over the last three years

Its fourth place in Bahrain was actually better than McLaren has done this year (or in its three years with Honda). Toro Rosso has showed that working with Honda on an even footing is much better than trying to constantly beat it over the head.

Haas is third. I mention that team because I think it was bold in optimising its package from last year. Yes, it was still a new car but Haas didn't try to reinvent the wheel and knew what it had if time was dedicated to optimising everything.

Haas also knew that if it focused on being operationally better, then more points would be scored. Haas didn't quite achieve that and has thrown away points, but without doubt if it hadn't done that it would be comfortably leading the midfield pack. Even so, Haas is up to fifth in the constructors' championship now.