Ferrari: Enginegate
Discussion
rdjohn said:
No, because it’s banned - see Article 19 details for full a explanation.
I still feel certain that if Mercedes thought that leaky inter coolers were a serious proposition they would have already appealed it.
Would they? The drivers and constructors is in the bag, history has shown F1 needs Ferrari. If it's true and it's blatant cheating then it's bad for Ferrari but for F1 Ferrari might take their ball home. That gap at the top looks bad enough. Take Ferrari out and readjust the points it's worse. "They" have flagged it up which gives Ferrari a chance to make it go away, it also doesn't draw an even bigger target on the Mercedes back with the 2021 regs in the air. I still feel certain that if Mercedes thought that leaky inter coolers were a serious proposition they would have already appealed it.
Racing point V Renault is all gravy for Racing point. I haven't worked it out completely but I suspect the maths favours them.
Defcon5 said:
How does the oil burning work? Does it give extra power itself (avoiding a peak fuel flow rule) or does it simply act as extra fuel so they can push for longer without risking running out of fuel?
Once spoke to someone involved in formulating oil for Honda.Basically the engines used to be engineered to let significant amounts of oil past the piston rings into the combustion chamber at certain engine speeds. Normally at high RPM (i.e. end of straight) where you want the extra power.
Deesee said:
It actually suits Toro Rosso....
Quick maths I think shows, if they take Renault out Torro Rosso get 14 Points Alfa Romeo 6 and Racing Point 17. So yep Torro Rosso move up to 5th and Racing Point 6th but the Torro Rosso lead is cut to 2 points and the Racing Point lead over Alfa becomes a pretty much unassailable 30. No one is catching Mclaren and I think, technically, Mercedes haven't sealed the championship yet.. Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 23 October 14:44
MartG said:
That's the point - Article 19 only bans it in fuel - it says nothing about it ( or any similar compound ) being used as coolant in an air/liquid intercooler...which could then leak into the inlet airstream. AFAIK there are no regulations governing the composition of any coolant used in the car.
History has shown that the FIA will make a decision based on how they choose to intepret the regs, which are often vague.In this instance, such a system (oil/whatever passing through inter-cooler seals and into air intake) would only be of any use if the flow was relatively stable and predictable - as such it wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that is in effect altering the formula of the fuel mix in a measured way and is therefore qualifies as part of the formula they're using. In addition using an additive in the oil that has no purpose or benefit, other than if 'it happened to accidentally' become part of the fuel mix would make it almost impossible to argue their conclusion.
"19.1.3 Any petrol, which appears to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of this regulation, will be deemed to be outside it."
^^^ that's the bit I think the FIA could deem was contravened. But only if any of this inter-cooler theory is true - which it almost certainly isn't
In reality, as it wouldn't affect the championship at this stage, no team is likely to make a complaint even if they're all but certain it's true. The FIA are already going to be aware of the rumours and if they think it's anything other than a rumour, they just have to tighten the regs a little in this area before next season and also probably drop a major hint to Ferrari to stop taking the piss.
A few points I'd disagree with, firstly on the subject of the amount of effort they'd have to go to to pretend it was an accident.
Why? It's not in contravention of any of the rules? The fuel provided to the engine is petrol and follows the regulations.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any regulations prohibiting what they're doing, sure that's the 'spirit' of the rules, but that's not the point, if they've found a loophole, they can exploit it, no need to cover anything up.
We're talking Formula 1 engineering here, I don't suspect it would be particularly difficult for Ferrari to design and manufacture an intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm, or simply controllable electrically...
I don't imagine for a second Ferrari would question spending say an extra 10 or 20 million euros refining their intercooler to have a slightly different porosity if it would gain them what is a significant on track advantage... I'm sure they'd throw 100 million at it if it would gain them a few tenths as that's the difference between winning and losing.
Certainly there's an issue of how much is carried and burnt through a race etc. and what sort of advantage it gives, but realistically look at the advantage they have, it makes them extremely hard to overtake if nothing else, budget would not come in to it if they saw a way of creating that advantage.
Why? It's not in contravention of any of the rules? The fuel provided to the engine is petrol and follows the regulations.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any regulations prohibiting what they're doing, sure that's the 'spirit' of the rules, but that's not the point, if they've found a loophole, they can exploit it, no need to cover anything up.
We're talking Formula 1 engineering here, I don't suspect it would be particularly difficult for Ferrari to design and manufacture an intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm, or simply controllable electrically...
I don't imagine for a second Ferrari would question spending say an extra 10 or 20 million euros refining their intercooler to have a slightly different porosity if it would gain them what is a significant on track advantage... I'm sure they'd throw 100 million at it if it would gain them a few tenths as that's the difference between winning and losing.
Certainly there's an issue of how much is carried and burnt through a race etc. and what sort of advantage it gives, but realistically look at the advantage they have, it makes them extremely hard to overtake if nothing else, budget would not come in to it if they saw a way of creating that advantage.
The FIA will certainly have to clarify the position over the closed season, if they do nothing then I can see the sales of leaky intercoolers going through the roof
Another theory, are Ferrari using this low drag design as a smoke screen to kind of justify it's straight line speed? If it has no downforce or less than a merc how do you explain it's apparent ease it exits the corners and pulls away, the merc apparently is a little draggy according to Lewis which should put the merc right on the gearbox of the Ferrari (which has a lot less downforce) through the corners and exits and only maybe 100 metres onto the straight would you expect the higher drag to show but from what I can seen the Ferrari releases out of the corners like a coiled spring
The difference in aero to switch from advantage to disadvantage I would expect to see half way down a straight, from the on boards it's pulling away at the beginning, how does it do that when apparently it's meant to be slower out of a corner?
I think it has just as much downforce as a merc, the difference is it also has more power and can easily overcome the drag, the downforce explains better corner exit and the extra power shows up halfway along a straight pulling away from a merc that has it's rear wing open and is within distance still to get a tow
This 'we don't have enough downforce' theory Ferrari is trotting out is a red herring to take attention away from their PU
Another theory, are Ferrari using this low drag design as a smoke screen to kind of justify it's straight line speed? If it has no downforce or less than a merc how do you explain it's apparent ease it exits the corners and pulls away, the merc apparently is a little draggy according to Lewis which should put the merc right on the gearbox of the Ferrari (which has a lot less downforce) through the corners and exits and only maybe 100 metres onto the straight would you expect the higher drag to show but from what I can seen the Ferrari releases out of the corners like a coiled spring
The difference in aero to switch from advantage to disadvantage I would expect to see half way down a straight, from the on boards it's pulling away at the beginning, how does it do that when apparently it's meant to be slower out of a corner?
I think it has just as much downforce as a merc, the difference is it also has more power and can easily overcome the drag, the downforce explains better corner exit and the extra power shows up halfway along a straight pulling away from a merc that has it's rear wing open and is within distance still to get a tow
This 'we don't have enough downforce' theory Ferrari is trotting out is a red herring to take attention away from their PU
SturdyHSV said:
A few points I'd disagree with, firstly on the subject of the amount of effort they'd have to go to to pretend it was an accident.
Why? It's not in contravention of any of the rules? The fuel provided to the engine is petrol and follows the regulations.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any regulations prohibiting what they're doing, sure that's the 'spirit' of the rules, but that's not the point, if they've found a loophole, they can exploit it, no need to cover anything up.
We're talking Formula 1 engineering here, I don't suspect it would be particularly difficult for Ferrari to design and manufacture an intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm, or simply controllable electrically...
I don't imagine for a second Ferrari would question spending say an extra 10 or 20 million euros refining their intercooler to have a slightly different porosity if it would gain them what is a significant on track advantage... I'm sure they'd throw 100 million at it if it would gain them a few tenths as that's the difference between winning and losing.
Certainly there's an issue of how much is carried and burnt through a race etc. and what sort of advantage it gives, but realistically look at the advantage they have, it makes them extremely hard to overtake if nothing else, budget would not come in to it if they saw a way of creating that advantage.
The problem would be that they WOULD be exceeding fuel flow limits, even if they could claim it was an 'accident'. Oil = fuel, and whatever else they may in theory be able to get away with putting in the mix, part of the mix would still have to be oil, for obvious reasons.Why? It's not in contravention of any of the rules? The fuel provided to the engine is petrol and follows the regulations.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any regulations prohibiting what they're doing, sure that's the 'spirit' of the rules, but that's not the point, if they've found a loophole, they can exploit it, no need to cover anything up.
We're talking Formula 1 engineering here, I don't suspect it would be particularly difficult for Ferrari to design and manufacture an intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm, or simply controllable electrically...
I don't imagine for a second Ferrari would question spending say an extra 10 or 20 million euros refining their intercooler to have a slightly different porosity if it would gain them what is a significant on track advantage... I'm sure they'd throw 100 million at it if it would gain them a few tenths as that's the difference between winning and losing.
Certainly there's an issue of how much is carried and burnt through a race etc. and what sort of advantage it gives, but realistically look at the advantage they have, it makes them extremely hard to overtake if nothing else, budget would not come in to it if they saw a way of creating that advantage.
This bit of what you say has got my fluid engineering brain going though...
"...intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm..."
It would be possible I think to design the airflow through the intercooler to exploit the venturi effect, in essence the intercooler gasket material could be complete without flaws but also slightly porous, with an cell density that was sufficiently high that the fluid inside could not leak through at normal operating pressures. However, the venturi effect at high speed, and high turbine rpm, would create increased negative pressure on the airflow side of the intercooler, sufficient to drag some of the oil+whatever through. That would be a simple and none mechanical way of achieving the flow of 'extra whatever' to increase power, but only when the cars really shifting and sucking huge quantities of air. It's an interesting possibility.
I'm still stuck on the biggest problem of all though.. It is a risk as it could be seen as extra fuel or changing the formula from what is acceptable. That possibility always remains when you stretch the definition AND spirit of the rules to this sort of extreme. It would depend how the FIA were minded I guess, probably safer for Ferrari than any other team but still a risk on some level. And unless their intercooler is more like a sieve and they have several litres each race running through (that's a problem regards both car weight and also the fact their oil system would be dangerously low on fluid), it's hard to imagine anything additive that would make enough of a difference to be worth any level of risk of penalty.
Doink said:
The FIA will certainly have to clarify the position over the closed season, if they do nothing then I can see the sales of leaky intercoolers going through the roof
Another theory, are Ferrari using this low drag design as a smoke screen to kind of justify it's straight line speed? If it has no downforce or less than a merc how do you explain it's apparent ease it exits the corners and pulls away, the merc apparently is a little draggy according to Lewis which should put the merc right on the gearbox of the Ferrari (which has a lot less downforce) through the corners and exits and only maybe 100 metres onto the straight would you expect the higher drag to show but from what I can seen the Ferrari releases out of the corners like a coiled spring
The difference in aero to switch from advantage to disadvantage I would expect to see half way down a straight, from the on boards it's pulling away at the beginning, how does it do that when apparently it's meant to be slower out of a corner?
I think it has just as much downforce as a merc, the difference is it also has more power and can easily overcome the drag, the downforce explains better corner exit and the extra power shows up halfway along a straight pulling away from a merc that has it's rear wing open and is within distance still to get a tow
This 'we don't have enough downforce' theory Ferrari is trotting out is a red herring to take attention away from their PU
Most of the cars rotation has happened by the time the car passes the apex of the corner. From that point on, far less down force is required to open the throttle and fire back out. The worse that typically happens post apex is the cars can skip wide and impact a kerb etc more than intended. Even a very low downforce F1 car still has considerable downforce and enough to power out of the second half of most corners without too much drama.Another theory, are Ferrari using this low drag design as a smoke screen to kind of justify it's straight line speed? If it has no downforce or less than a merc how do you explain it's apparent ease it exits the corners and pulls away, the merc apparently is a little draggy according to Lewis which should put the merc right on the gearbox of the Ferrari (which has a lot less downforce) through the corners and exits and only maybe 100 metres onto the straight would you expect the higher drag to show but from what I can seen the Ferrari releases out of the corners like a coiled spring
The difference in aero to switch from advantage to disadvantage I would expect to see half way down a straight, from the on boards it's pulling away at the beginning, how does it do that when apparently it's meant to be slower out of a corner?
I think it has just as much downforce as a merc, the difference is it also has more power and can easily overcome the drag, the downforce explains better corner exit and the extra power shows up halfway along a straight pulling away from a merc that has it's rear wing open and is within distance still to get a tow
This 'we don't have enough downforce' theory Ferrari is trotting out is a red herring to take attention away from their PU
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 23 October 17:08
TheDeuce said:
The problem would be that they WOULD be exceeding fuel flow limits, even if they could claim it was an 'accident'. Oil = fuel, and whatever else they may in theory be able to get away with putting in the mix, part of the mix would still have to be oil, for obvious reasons.
Fuel flow measurements don't include coolant flowing round the intercooler system - and it just needs a big enough header tank to last the race without running low.TheDeuce said:
The problem would be that they WOULD be exceeding fuel flow limits, even if they could claim it was an 'accident'. Oil = fuel, and whatever else they may in theory be able to get away with putting in the mix, part of the mix would still have to be oil, for obvious reasons.
This bit of what you say has got my fluid engineering brain going though...
"...intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm..."
It would be possible I think to design the airflow through the intercooler to exploit the venturi effect, in essence the intercooler gasket material could be complete without flaws but also slightly porous, with an cell density that was sufficiently high that the fluid inside could not leak through at normal operating pressures. However, the venturi effect at high speed, and high turbine rpm, would create increased negative pressure on the airflow side of the intercooler, sufficient to drag some of the oil+whatever through. That would be a simple and none mechanical way of achieving the flow of 'extra whatever' to increase power, but only when the cars really shifting and sucking huge quantities of air. It's an interesting possibility.
I'm still stuck on the biggest problem of all though.. It is a risk as it could be seen as extra fuel or changing the formula from what is acceptable. That possibility always remains when you stretch the definition AND spirit of the rules to this sort of extreme. It would depend how the FIA were minded I guess, probably safer for Ferrari than any other team but still a risk on some level. And unless their intercooler is more like a sieve and they have several litres each race running through (that's a problem regards both car weight and also the fact their oil system would be dangerously low on fluid), it's hard to imagine anything additive that would make enough of a difference to be worth any level of risk of penalty.
One of my many beefs about F1 these days is that the few people who are actually interested in F1 technology never actually get to understand just what is going on. Historic F1 let’s us know what teams used to get up to, but since it takes 4-guys with laptops to start the engine and several $million to rebuild one, current cars will only ever be seen as dummy museum pieces.This bit of what you say has got my fluid engineering brain going though...
"...intercooler with an appropriate amount of leakage as and where needed when subject to say appropriate air forces or internal system pressure, e.g. if the coolant pump is mechanical or electrical, both of those would mean either increased system pressure was either created at high rpm..."
It would be possible I think to design the airflow through the intercooler to exploit the venturi effect, in essence the intercooler gasket material could be complete without flaws but also slightly porous, with an cell density that was sufficiently high that the fluid inside could not leak through at normal operating pressures. However, the venturi effect at high speed, and high turbine rpm, would create increased negative pressure on the airflow side of the intercooler, sufficient to drag some of the oil+whatever through. That would be a simple and none mechanical way of achieving the flow of 'extra whatever' to increase power, but only when the cars really shifting and sucking huge quantities of air. It's an interesting possibility.
I'm still stuck on the biggest problem of all though.. It is a risk as it could be seen as extra fuel or changing the formula from what is acceptable. That possibility always remains when you stretch the definition AND spirit of the rules to this sort of extreme. It would depend how the FIA were minded I guess, probably safer for Ferrari than any other team but still a risk on some level. And unless their intercooler is more like a sieve and they have several litres each race running through (that's a problem regards both car weight and also the fact their oil system would be dangerously low on fluid), it's hard to imagine anything additive that would make enough of a difference to be worth any level of risk of penalty.
The main reason for not using air-to-air intercoolers is packaging, but as soon as you move to air / fluid you need additional pumps and radiators to make them effective - plus significant additional weight gain. We seem to be assuming here that Ferrari are also using a separate oil supply with a header tank to replace oil loss - a huge chunk of additional weight. The oil level of the “main” oil tank is now closely monitored, so it could not be a combined system.
To be effective this extra Oil system, with super additive, would also need to be able to “leak” at the appropriate power demand points. The passive system described by TheDeuce would be unlikely to fulfil that role. Air is forced into the (Plenum) and Turbo under Ram effect - it then gets compressed. At no point is there likely to be sufficient vacuum created to draw oil vapours into the intercooler. (Like a carburettor) In reality, a leaky intercooler is more likely to blow air into the oil because of the pressure boost.
The only obvious route would be using an actuated valve and they are now forbidden under
Article 7.8 Oil injection
The use of active control valves between any part of the PU and the engine intake air is forbidden.
I suspect that this rumour was started by a few bored journalists when there was no Saturday racing in Japan.
Viz Ferrari were pumping oil last year until it was banned - they use an oil / air intercooler - QED - it must be leaking somehow.
Hopefully, someone will ask relevant questions at the TP’s press conference on Friday and finally put this tosh to bed.
Its completely bonkers to think any team is injecting extra combustible material into the engines.
The rules are clear that this would be a breach of rules that would lead to exclusion.
The old oil burn methods were based around normal engineering of the engine oil vapours and ring bypass, which is a normal process the teams exploited. That option has been closed off.
What you guys are now talking about is blatent cheating, no team will try that one.
Im not even going to go into how absurd the engineering is thats being discussed here.
The rules are clear that this would be a breach of rules that would lead to exclusion.
The old oil burn methods were based around normal engineering of the engine oil vapours and ring bypass, which is a normal process the teams exploited. That option has been closed off.
What you guys are now talking about is blatent cheating, no team will try that one.
Im not even going to go into how absurd the engineering is thats being discussed here.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff