Ferrari: Enginegate

[Wingo]

There are many factors that come into play that can make an F1 car faster in a straight line other than the propulsion systems.

Sure more power helps, but reducing other resistances that are inherent in the design of the aero, other components and set up can all bring benefits.


Wingo.

[Deesee]

Doink said:

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 evident

If there is a ICE difference the teams can bench mark this against there own GPS traces vs GPS traces at sea level, the turbo (mgu h) will struggle with collecting enough O2 to keep sending additional energy to the mgu K (and battery).

I’d i were Ferrari I would run non of the engine modes and keep the other teams guessing for next year, but as above I’m sure the gains are aero.

Edit as I posted on the official Mexico thread, for me it’s Aero efficiency vs Max downforce this week, as the PU’s are effectively even this weekend.

[Kraken]

With the amount of data teams have these days with GPS, acoustic traces etc etc they'll be very much aware of whether it's ICE, battery or aero. They're asking questions about oil burn for a reason.

[Deesee]

Kraken said:

With the amount of data teams have these days with GPS, acoustic traces etc etc they'll be very much aware of whether it's ICE, battery or aero. They're asking questions about oil burn for a reason.

It’s a self regulation formula now, and anyway the fia have confirmed the question askers but not the cause (oil)?

[DS240]

They have found a way of harnessing power from moaning and whinging when the radio button is pressed.

[Doink]

Deesee said:

If there is a ICE difference the teams can bench mark this against there own GPS traces vs GPS traces at sea level, the turbo (mgu h) will struggle with collecting enough O2 to keep sending additional energy to the mgu K (and battery).

I was mindful of that when I typed, ok so what if the mgu h takes two laps to fully charge the batteries as opposed to one, my point was once the power was deployed the electric motor will still work regardless of the altitude thus Ferrari still having a straight line advantage when the rule book says if it was purely down to the ICE then the altitude would level the playing field

No?

[rdjohn]

Kraken said:

With the amount of data teams have these days with GPS, acoustic traces etc etc they'll be very much aware of whether it's ICE, battery or aero. They're asking questions about oil burn for a reason.

Well, it eliminates what it isn’t - so they know where to do the research more quickly.

[Teddy Lop]

That kind of initial punch when accellerating, quickness with apparently no more power, could be said to look a little... Traction controlly? Some clever way of regulating just the battery pack/ motors input?

Pure mischief FWIW;)

[Doink]

Teddy Lop said:

That kind of initial punch when accellerating, quickness with apparently no more power, could be said to look a little... Traction controlly? Some clever way of regulating just the battery pack/ motors input?

Pure mischief FWIW;)

I guess vettell didn't get that memo then, how many times has he spun now getting on the power? Then again........it could be

[Deesee]

Doink said:

I was mindful of that when I typed, ok so what if the mgu h takes two laps to fully charge the batteries as opposed to one, my point was once the power was deployed the electric motor will still work regardless of the altitude thus Ferrari still having a straight line advantage when the rule book says if it was purely down to the ICE then the altitude would level the playing field

No?

Hi Doink, I think we both have the same end point here just slightly different starting points (and of course aka ghost busters ‘don’t cross the streams’)!

The electric power mgu k to and from battery is limited at all races/circuits.

The deployment of that energy is limited (4mj per lap).

However Mgu h straight to mgu k is unlimited.

The mgu k (under recovery) could potentially in some circuits supply say 3/4x more energy than currently allowed ( and I think they will double this on the next regs) however this energy has no where to go other than the battery, it should not be allowed back any where else than the energy store (battery).

The electrical deployment as you say will be the same, the recovery from the mgu k to the energy store will be the same.

The mgu h may struggle to ‘recoupe’ as per ground level, as will the ICE as part of the PU.

So therefore

H will be less
K will be the same
Ice will be less.

Ferrari low drag low downforce philosophy (for 2019) should show the gains as aero here.

[anonymous-user]

Air in Mexico is very thin, which gives you massive cooling issues, this is going to impact battery exploitation.

[Flooble]

Kenny Powers said:

I don’t doubt it, but when a Mercedes is driving through a Ferrari-sized hole in the air, AND has its rear wing wide open, and still can’t catch up, it seems to me that there’s a very sizeable power advantage at play. Not that I’m an expert by any means, but something about it all just seems a bit Whacky Races, in my opinion. We’ll probably never know for sure anyway.

Leclerc couldn't get past Bottas in Russia though. Which was the inverse of the above scenario - so are we saying Mercedes had more power there?

[Kenny Powers]

Flooble said:

Leclerc couldn't get past Bottas in Russia though. Which was the inverse of the above scenario - so are we saying Mercedes had more power there?

Good point well made. I dunno, it just feels to me like something is a bit fishy. They seem absolutely invincible on power. I’m probably wrong, but it’s just a general feeling from the racing I’ve seen. We’ll almost certainly never know either way.

[skinny]

How would a leaking intercooler let oil in, surely it's always at atmospheric pressure minimum, and most of the time significantly above

[StevieBee]

p1stonhead said:

say they haven’t been doing anything silly; where the hell HAS their insane recent speed come from?

There was something written a few months back (where, I cannot remember but may have been Autosport) that was looking why their pre-season test speed wasn't translating into race pace. The suggestion offered was that they had development something that was on the edge of legality and were advised that running whatever it was would expose them to the risk of exclusion without some adjustment. They were due to consult with Charlie Whiting ahead of the Australian GP ahead of a formal submission to establish legality of the refined 'part' or 'process'. Sadly, that consultation never took place and the rest of the FIA delegation had a differing view to what Charlie might have had which delayed the introduction of whatever it was.

Pure speculation of course but adding everything else up, there seems to be a modicum of logic in the suggestion.

[anonymous-user]

Plenty of sand bagging in testing, as always.

[MartG]

skinny said:

How would a leaking intercooler let oil in, surely it's always at atmospheric pressure minimum, and most of the time significantly above

Pressurise the coolant so it is forced into the engine.

I'd like to see a chemical analysis of the 'oil' Ferrari are using as coolant in their intercooler

[anonymous-user]

There is some serious lack of understanding of engineering in this thread.

[Doink]

This is proper fag packet stuff this

[MartG]

jsf said:

There is some serious lack of understanding of engineering in this thread.

MartG B.Eng said:

Pressurise the coolant so it is forced into the engine.

I'd like to see a chemical analysis of the 'oil' Ferrari are using as coolant in their intercooler