Ferrari: Enginegate
Discussion
Zarco said:
Mr Dendrite said:
Kraken said:
Thing is though that, according to the reports, the FIA are refusing to clarify anything saying teams have to protest if they think Ferrari are doing something wrong.
Interesting, thanks.Although I've read this week that teams used to be able to approach Charlie Whiting unofficially to avoid lodging a protest. It's an unwritten rule that teams do not protect each other without hard evidence. Whiting's sudden death has left a gap in this process.
To avoid doing this to each other and causing bad blood for minor technical points they have an informal system for asking for clarification on certain ideas. They don't usually name the other team, but outline the technical way they think it's done and say "could we build it this way?"
Krikkit said:
This is exactly it- officially they have to lodge a protest with the FIA, who then clarify the issue and make a statement. If a team were found to be in breach that would potentially mean disqualification.
To avoid doing this to each other and causing bad blood for minor technical points they have an informal system for asking for clarification on certain ideas. They don't usually name the other team, but outline the technical way they think it's done and say "could we build it this way?"
And then the offending team quietly withdraws from whatever they were doing, and the following season the FIA update the regs to clearly outlaw whatever it was.To avoid doing this to each other and causing bad blood for minor technical points they have an informal system for asking for clarification on certain ideas. They don't usually name the other team, but outline the technical way they think it's done and say "could we build it this way?"
Happened countless times and it's an approach that avoids the risk of false accusation and the subsequent liability etc. It's also pretty sporting and, as said, avoids too much bad blood.
On the other hand, this warm and fuzzy arrangement is generally confined to the second half of the season for two reasons.. 1) Whacky and potentially rule breaking innovations are more likely to be risked by a team with nothing to lose at that point. 2) Once in the second half of the season, the damage done by any team with an unfair advantage is significantly limited, so typically no need to push for an official judgement. Just make the FIA aware so it doesn't continue into the following season.
If something that could give a real advantage AND was very likely in breach of regs was detected earlier on in the season, then it all becomes far less gentlemanly and the report will go to the FIA almost as fast as it is leaked to the press - just to make damned certain the FIA treat it as priority one and deliver a verdict ahead of the next race. Doesn't happen very often because, as I say above, for this exact reason such rule bending initiatives are normally held back until later in the season when the battle is already decided and no harm can come from testing the rules a little.
This is exactly why I don't think the Ferrari legality rumours won't come to anything. They may be doing something wrong, and without anything public being said they would stop doing it if others test the water and are publicly told 'no'. It's also why I give some credence to the Renault brake claims, because so late in the season there is little to gain from making the complaint official - therefore anyone that chooses to do so would have to be supremely confident their accusation was justified.
Unless I've totally misread or understood it haven't the FIA said they allow for leaky intercoolers but whatever is leaked cannot be atomized and combusted?
Has anyone noticed how the Ferrari releases out of the corners, it just bolts and it's gone, the merc can't then even make ground on it even with a tow and DRS even with it's proven raw power.
It's no coincidence that Ferrari's use of twin batteries for extra performance coincided with ex Zytek man Pete May heading to Ferrari to become their head of ERS design and development, Zytek now Gibson technology have known about the power advantage and been using twin batteries for years
Has anyone noticed how the Ferrari releases out of the corners, it just bolts and it's gone, the merc can't then even make ground on it even with a tow and DRS even with it's proven raw power.
It's no coincidence that Ferrari's use of twin batteries for extra performance coincided with ex Zytek man Pete May heading to Ferrari to become their head of ERS design and development, Zytek now Gibson technology have known about the power advantage and been using twin batteries for years
Whats interesting is that it gains on all the straights, impressively, and as mentioned above seemingly can out run a Merc with DRS (when Ferrari are running max power, K1+).
With the restrictions in MGU K, the extra power must be coming from the ICE, or they have somehow found a way to get the energy recovery gains the the MGU H, and channeling the extra power in to the MGU K, then using the battery on top of this for the 'jet' mode, perhaps?
However it should be noted that the Ferrari runs far less drag than the Merc (making it far more efficient in acceleration), and the Merc are carrying 10kg (say 8%) less fuel on the starting grid, both giving advantages in different areas.
Personally I think we have got two very different aero philosophies in a GP distance race here, with 12 to 3 in favour of Merc, Quali pace however is 8 to 8.
With the restrictions in MGU K, the extra power must be coming from the ICE, or they have somehow found a way to get the energy recovery gains the the MGU H, and channeling the extra power in to the MGU K, then using the battery on top of this for the 'jet' mode, perhaps?
However it should be noted that the Ferrari runs far less drag than the Merc (making it far more efficient in acceleration), and the Merc are carrying 10kg (say 8%) less fuel on the starting grid, both giving advantages in different areas.
Personally I think we have got two very different aero philosophies in a GP distance race here, with 12 to 3 in favour of Merc, Quali pace however is 8 to 8.
jsf said:
The straight line pace is more to do with the lower drag and downforce philosophy they have followed this year, its been that way all year.
Even when a following Mercedes with slipstream and DRS can barely keep up? Seems there’s probably a little more to it than just a lower-drag aero package??Kraken said:
jsf said:
I know.
They have changed the way they exploit that.
So why do the other teams think it's not that then?They have changed the way they exploit that.
I think that burning oil from an inter cooler in a perfectly controlled way is plain daft and would be spotted by FIA monitoring (a valve, or injector) - it cannot be “just leaking”
I am with JSF, something has changed in the early deployment of electrical energy during the first 10-50 metres. Beyond that, I believe lower drag is more relevant.
But exploit it how? The MGU-K can deploy a maximum of 160BHP, and using a maximum of 4MJ/lap from the battery. I would imagine that Mercedes would be using all of that already. So if it is battery based, it seems unlikely it would be deployed that way.
The only other thing I can think of is that they could spin the turbo with it, which is unlimited - but they're already hitting the fuel flow limit on the ICE side, so not sure if there would be a huge benefit from that? Less back pressure I suppose
The only other thing I can think of is that they could spin the turbo with it, which is unlimited - but they're already hitting the fuel flow limit on the ICE side, so not sure if there would be a huge benefit from that? Less back pressure I suppose
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 21st October 13:41
Kenny Powers said:
Even when a following Mercedes with slipstream and DRS can barely keep up? Seems there’s probably a little more to it than just a lower-drag aero package??
Aero is king. Red Bull have never won a race on engine power and Williams are tooling around at the back, 3-4 seconds off the pace, with the same power Lewis Hamilton has under his right foot.Nexus Icon said:
Aero is king. Red Bull have never won a race on engine power and Williams are tooling around at the back, 3-4 seconds off the pace, with the same power Lewis Hamilton has under his right foot.
Yes it is king for lap time. The Williams is nearly always quicker in the max speed traps but the cornering speed means that even on the straights they are down on average speed.. What has happened is Ferrari are now the fastest as they exit the corners, which is why they are really hard to overtake and probably have the "Best" car.
Nexus Icon said:
Kenny Powers said:
Even when a following Mercedes with slipstream and DRS can barely keep up? Seems there’s probably a little more to it than just a lower-drag aero package??
Aero is king. Red Bull have never won a race on engine power and Williams are tooling around at the back, 3-4 seconds off the pace, with the same power Lewis Hamilton has under his right foot.Deesee said:
Mexico should be a bit of a leveller for the power units, the thinner air negates the HP/KW difference, if will be interesting here if Ferrari are much quicker here (straight line), as that should be aero gains..
Actually the thinner air could go some way to highlight where Ferrari is getting it's straight line speed from, the thinner air won't affect it's batteries or electric motor like it will the ICE and the thinner air/lower drag counts for every team unless you already have low drag then any further gains are less evidentGassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff