The Official F1 2021 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
jsf said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Everybody knows they cheated!
Officially they didnt.As I understood it the FIA said they couldn't prove the cheat, and asked Ferrari to show them the cheat, in exchange for not pursuing the matter.
So officially Ferrari did cheat as far as the FIA are concerned, and the FIA know how, but no reprimand was issued for the cheating, due to how the FIA got to gather the evidence.
Strikes me as the similar situation we used to have with the flexible RedBull. It didn't meet the rules (and the FIA knew it as did everybody else), but it did meet the tests, so it was technically illegal but allowed because it couldn't be "proved" using the FIA tests.
kiseca said:
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
I'd be here all week if i explained everything in detail to debunk false understandings. That's not my "job".
I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.
The guy just wanted to know why F1 doesn't limit the level of downforce permitted as he'd heard it created drag and dirty air! Knowing that the incoming specs allow the creation of more downforce in a different manner pretty much answers the question/concern.I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.
I'd be here all week too if I had to explain why it's wrong that most people think an airplane wing is pushed upwards due to its angle and direction air hits it, they don't understand that the leading edge and sectional form accelerates airflow above the wing and creates lower pressure and that unaccelerated air beneath the wing expands to equalise the pressure and pushes the wing up - 'lift'.
Then to try and invert that principle and add in the venturi effect extracting air to create low pressure beneath the car...
I said "Put a max limit on downforce, say 1000lbs downforce at 180mph."
Someone replied "They'll just create more dirty air looking for ways to get more downforce."
I said they can't, because they'd be limited to 1000lbs.
How they create that downforce, I don't care. The focus would shift to efficiency, which I also said.
You seem to be talking about allowing cars to follow more closely by reducing the amount of turbulent air created by the car in front. What I'm suggesting is not to reduce the turbulent air specifically, but to make the car following less affected by turbulent air, by limiting its maximum downforce.
By limiting that downforce and focussing on getting that 1000lbs in the most efficient way, you'd probably also happen to reduce the amount of turbulent air the car in front creates, but as I say, I was looking for a way to make that matter less to the car behind anyway.
Now, if you want to discuss that point, then cool, but it does read to me like you've gone somewhat off track with your replies. Unless you were talking about someone else while you were trying to educate us with venturis vs wings.
I don't disagree that the aero changes and return to ground effects tunnels may well have the same end result, but whether it does or not, it has no relevance to what I was suggesting. They still aren't limiting max downforce so the door is still open for someone to find some new trick, the next double diffuser or whatever, that creates more downforce and either creates more turbulence, or struggles in someone else's turbulence.
I've read back and I can see that maybe I had misunderstood your point/angle. I was a little dismissive I think and I apologise for that.
Regard the idea of maximum downforce, I think...:
- How can it be measured as an absolute? A car which in a wind tunnel delivers 950 Ib of downforce could easily generate more than the 'limit' if a strong breeze hits it on track.
- 1000 lbs is far too low, its approx 450kg. The current cars deliver massive downforce, probably around 2000 kg's for most of them. Perhaps far higher at certain circuits... 1000 lbs wouldn't be enough for an F1 car to do anything we recognise as 'F1'. You can't corner at 160mph in a car that generates less downforce than it weighs..
- It would remove a major area of innovation. The most basic aero attempts would easily hit the 1000 lb limit so innovation in terms of aero would be killed off by such a move.
I was perhaps a bit abrupt in shifting the conversation from your proposed limits on downforce to my own preference for instead changing the rules of how downforce can be generated.. But in the end, given that our sport is supposed to reward innovation and the results it brings, I really wouldn't ever support anything that limits those results. Imo - it's best to set the rules for all and let the results be whatever they will be. That's pretty much the point of the technical exercise that we call 'F1'.
Munter said:
jsf said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Everybody knows they cheated!
Officially they didnt.As I understood it the FIA said they couldn't prove the cheat, and asked Ferrari to show them the cheat, in exchange for not pursuing the matter.
So officially Ferrari did cheat as far as the FIA are concerned, and the FIA know how, but no reprimand was issued for the cheating, due to how the FIA got to gather the evidence.
Strikes me as the similar situation we used to have with the flexible RedBull. It didn't meet the rules (and the FIA knew it as did everybody else), but it did meet the tests, so it was technically illegal but allowed because it couldn't be "proved" using the FIA tests.
MissChief said:
So The FIA couldn't conclusively prove Ferrari were cheating without spending a lot of money having the Engine taken, having it inspected by competent third parties, etc which Ferrari didn't want to happen either. Ferrari agreed to stop use of the Engine and 'workaround' if it meant no fines or docked points and no Engine disassembly. The FIA agreed to this, much to the distaste of the other teams. But then the FIA can't inflict a penalty on a suspicion either so it was a bit of an impasse.
I though the FIA could seize any engine in parc fermé for inspection?vaud said:
I though the FIA could seize any engine in parc fermé for inspection?
It wasnt the engine that was illegal. As there is no official illegality issued, we can only go off what the padock gossip says, which is that the fuel flow sensor was not reading the true fuel flow because of an electronics interference technique being used.This is why the FIA introduced the second fuel flow sensor last year.
Using the legal fuel flow the engine wasnt competitive, or if Salo is to believed, the engine was relatively competitive but as punishment the FIA put a lower flow limit on them for the year.
This is the problem with how the FIA handled this, there is nothing in the public demain, but everyone knows Ferrari engines lost a lot of performance.
jsf said:
It wasnt the engine that was illegal. As there is no official illegality issued, we can only go off what the padock gossip says, which is that the fuel flow sensor was not reading the true fuel flow because of an electronics interference technique being used.
This is why the FIA introduced the second fuel flow sensor last year.
Using the legal fuel flow the engine wasnt competitive, or if Salo is to believed, the engine was relatively competitive but as punishment the FIA put a lower flow limit on them for the year.
This is the problem with how the FIA handled this, there is nothing in the public demain, but everyone knows Ferrari engines lost a lot of performance.
It's easy to criticise the FIA, but it's far more likely that they did what they could. As with all the best cheats, this one probably left almost no evidence and was well nigh impossible to prove. Ferrari's engine IP protection will have prevented widespread dissemination of the design and data to third parties. In time it will probably be quietly regarded with admiration in F1 circles, made only a failure by being found out. This is why the FIA introduced the second fuel flow sensor last year.
Using the legal fuel flow the engine wasnt competitive, or if Salo is to believed, the engine was relatively competitive but as punishment the FIA put a lower flow limit on them for the year.
This is the problem with how the FIA handled this, there is nothing in the public demain, but everyone knows Ferrari engines lost a lot of performance.
Wolff will continue to get on his high horse about it, mainly due to the apparent effort made to match it through other means and the possibility that his team didn't think of it first. He'll also conveniently forget Mercedes' own dieselgate defeat devices scandal and continue to blindly ignore the hilarious hypocrisy in the sanctimony involved.
In the end further fuel flow meters simply covered the cheat for Ferrari and anyone else that might have gone down the same route. Remember, if Ferrari had been more subtle, it probably wouldn't have been detected. If Merc, Renault or Honda had figured the same thing out, could they have utilised it in any way? Absolutely no way of knowing.
TheDeuce said:
kiseca said:
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
I'd be here all week if i explained everything in detail to debunk false understandings. That's not my "job".
I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.
The guy just wanted to know why F1 doesn't limit the level of downforce permitted as he'd heard it created drag and dirty air! Knowing that the incoming specs allow the creation of more downforce in a different manner pretty much answers the question/concern.I think in the case of basics like downforce generation, most could understand pressure differential between the top and bottom of a body and how producing that via different devices have trade offs in efficiency.
I'd be here all week too if I had to explain why it's wrong that most people think an airplane wing is pushed upwards due to its angle and direction air hits it, they don't understand that the leading edge and sectional form accelerates airflow above the wing and creates lower pressure and that unaccelerated air beneath the wing expands to equalise the pressure and pushes the wing up - 'lift'.
Then to try and invert that principle and add in the venturi effect extracting air to create low pressure beneath the car...
I said "Put a max limit on downforce, say 1000lbs downforce at 180mph."
Someone replied "They'll just create more dirty air looking for ways to get more downforce."
I said they can't, because they'd be limited to 1000lbs.
How they create that downforce, I don't care. The focus would shift to efficiency, which I also said.
You seem to be talking about allowing cars to follow more closely by reducing the amount of turbulent air created by the car in front. What I'm suggesting is not to reduce the turbulent air specifically, but to make the car following less affected by turbulent air, by limiting its maximum downforce.
By limiting that downforce and focussing on getting that 1000lbs in the most efficient way, you'd probably also happen to reduce the amount of turbulent air the car in front creates, but as I say, I was looking for a way to make that matter less to the car behind anyway.
Now, if you want to discuss that point, then cool, but it does read to me like you've gone somewhat off track with your replies. Unless you were talking about someone else while you were trying to educate us with venturis vs wings.
I don't disagree that the aero changes and return to ground effects tunnels may well have the same end result, but whether it does or not, it has no relevance to what I was suggesting. They still aren't limiting max downforce so the door is still open for someone to find some new trick, the next double diffuser or whatever, that creates more downforce and either creates more turbulence, or struggles in someone else's turbulence.
I've read back and I can see that maybe I had misunderstood your point/angle. I was a little dismissive I think and I apologise for that.
Regard the idea of maximum downforce, I think...:
- How can it be measured as an absolute? A car which in a wind tunnel delivers 950 Ib of downforce could easily generate more than the 'limit' if a strong breeze hits it on track.
- 1000 lbs is far too low, its approx 450kg. The current cars deliver massive downforce, probably around 2000 kg's for most of them. Perhaps far higher at certain circuits... 1000 lbs wouldn't be enough for an F1 car to do anything we recognise as 'F1'. You can't corner at 160mph in a car that generates less downforce than it weighs..
- It would remove a major area of innovation. The most basic aero attempts would easily hit the 1000 lb limit so innovation in terms of aero would be killed off by such a move.
I was perhaps a bit abrupt in shifting the conversation from your proposed limits on downforce to my own preference for instead changing the rules of how downforce can be generated.. But in the end, given that our sport is supposed to reward innovation and the results it brings, I really wouldn't ever support anything that limits those results. Imo - it's best to set the rules for all and let the results be whatever they will be. That's pretty much the point of the technical exercise that we call 'F1'.
To respond to your points and questions:
Measured as an absolute: My first thought was actually using a wind tunnel - the same one for all cars. If one gets a boost from a breeze, it wouldn't matter. All the cars around it would get the same boost. But, that would have to be repeated every time a team made a change to the car, so could be logistically challenging. But, as far as I know, all the teams are actually already measuring the downforce on the car in real time, I assume through load cells in the suspension or by measuring suspension deflection under load or something, but if the tech is on the cars, then the measurement standard could be built on that base. This would of course be subject to local weather as you point out, so would need some way to compensate for that.
The limit of 1000lbs at 180mph? Just numbers I sucked out of the air. Adjust to taste
Only real premise would be that it's less than what the current cars are running by a big enough margin to make a difference to the reaction to turbulence. Mid '80s cars seemed to be happy following eachother closely so is that the benchmark? I don't know.However, once you hit your max downforce, the aero advance now becomes how do you keep it there but make the car faster? And for me the obvious answer is same downforce for less drag = more straight line speed (e.g. the ground effect advantage as you explained before). If the limit is high enough, you have room to innovate. If the limit is low enough, you get closer following distances and hopefully better racing. Are both those limits compatible with eachother? There I have no idea.
jsf said:
we can only go off what the padock gossip says, which is that the fuel flow sensor was not reading the true fuel flow because of an electronics interference technique being used.
I thought they were intentionally "leaking" oil, which was burnt in addition to what the fuel flow sensor showed?Edited by aston80 on Sunday 28th February 05:22
aston80 said:
jsf said:
we can only go off what the padock gossip says, which is that the fuel flow sensor was not reading the true fuel flow because of an electronics interference technique being used.
I thought they were intentionally "leaking" oil, which was burnt in addition to what the fuel flow sensor showed?Edited by aston80 on Sunday 28th February 05:22
aston80 said:
I thought they were intentionally "leaking" oil, which was burnt in addition to what the fuel flow sensor showed?
That was a couple of years ago, when the FIA tightened up the limit for how much oil could be consumed by the engine. There were suspicions that MB and Ferrari were burning oil, and the red car did for a few events generate a plume of smoke on start-up (but weirdly none of the other Ferrari-engined cars). The issue with the third 2019 engine was believed to be an electronic tricking of the fuel flow sensor, to pulse fuel past it in such a way as to make it under-read, therefore allowing the use of more fuel than permitted under the regulations.
The addition of a second sensor, to which the teams have no access, has ‘fixed’ the issue, after Ferrari apparently came clean to the FIA (in secret) about what they were doing. The FIA couldn’t punish them, as they had no evidence the cheat was actually used at an event.
Leclerc ‘accidentally’ having 5% too much fuel in his car, compared to the team’s declaration, at the start of the final race in Abu Dhabi, does give something of a hint though. It wasn’t over the maximum level allowed under the regulations though, so they got off with a fine. With hindsight, the suggestion is that they had to under-declare the fuel level at the start of the race, otherwise the fuel flow meter readings during the race wouldn’t match the actual fuel used. But again, they couldn’t prove it was anything more than a clerical error at that one event.
I’m not usually one to side with the Red Bullies, but in this case they have a fair point that a cheating Ferrari team deprived them of a second place finish in the 2019 Constructors’ Championship.
Edited by Sandpit Steve on Sunday 28th February 07:42
Sandpit Steve said:
aston80 said:
I thought they were intentionally "leaking" oil, which was burnt in addition to what the fuel flow sensor showed?
That was a couple of years ago, when the FIA tightened up the limit for how much oil could be consumed by the engine. There were suspicions that MB and Ferrari were burning oil, and the red car did for a few events generate a plume of smoke on start-up (but weirdly none of the other Ferrari-engined cars). The issue with the third 2019 engine was believed to be an electronic tricking of the fuel flow sensor, to pulse fuel past it in such a way as to make it under-read, therefore allowing the use of more fuel than permitted under the regulations.
The addition of a second sensor, to which the teams have no access, has ‘fixed’ the issue, after Ferrari apparently came clean to the FIA (in secret) about what they were doing. The FIA couldn’t punish them, as they had no evidence the cheat was actually used at an event.
Leclerc ‘accidentally’ having 5% too much fuel in his car, compared to the team’s declaration, at the start of the final race in Abu Dhabi, does give something of a hint though. It wasn’t over the maximum level allowed under the regulations though, so they got off with a fine. With hindsight, the suggestion is that they had to under-declare the fuel level at the start of the race, otherwise the fuel flow meter readings during the race wouldn’t match the actual fuel used. But again, they couldn’t prove it was anything more than a clerical error at that one event.
I’m not usually one to side with the Red Bullies, but in this case they have a fair point that a cheating Ferrari team deprived them of a second place finish in the 2019 Constructors’ Championship.
Edited by Sandpit Steve on Sunday 28th February 07:42
Sadly it's also oft mis-explained both by fans and journalists who state Ferrari were somehow using electrical interference to cheat the sensor. That doesn't really make any sense and suggests a failure to understand the more obvious cheat. Let the sensor do its job, don't interfere with it at all. Instead inject the extra fuel when the sensor isn't reading... It's a neater and tougher to prove cheat - and tallies perfectly with the FIA's solution.
The fact it was never concluded openly/officially I suspect is due to the FIA needing Ferrari to agree to a few awkward changes to the sport, and neither Ferrari of the FIA really wanting to officially brand Ferrari as cheats that can't build an engine as well as Mercedes, Renault or Honda. However fair it may have been.
Speaking of fairness, what about the Red Bull pov? That they were cheated from 2nd place in 2019. However... As a result of Ferrari getting caught out (#unoffical...) part of what they suddenly supported to make the sport more affordable effectively left them unable to be competitive last season, which directly ensured RB would take 2nd as it turns out. And there remains a strong possibility Ferrari will still be weakened by the dev freezes they agreed to when they were caught out, and will fail to beat RB as a result this season.
Somehow I think justice was kinda done in the end. Just not publicly and it all stinks to high heaven. But hey, it's F1... That's not all that unusual
DanielSan said:
Publicly or not it's nice to see Ferrari have to agree to some things that bring an improvement to the sport and in theory at least make things more competitive rather than vetoing anything they think doesn't suit them or know they can't do.
I reckon it was very circumstantial. In order to go down the cheat route they must have expected they could finally beat Merc. The fact they still did not makes the cheat ten times more embarrassing doesn't it? Hence... they really had to NOT be officially recognised as cheating. Anything else was better than that.If on the other hand they had been officially sanctioned for cheating after having beaten Merc and RB, then the Ferrari fans and road car buyers could convince themselves that Ferrari were tripped up on some sort of technicality and actually earned the win.... (just no). But sadly they were so useless in 2019 in all regards other than outright cheat power, they never even got close to the title. They were beaten by an honest opponent whilst they were cheating - Ferrari could never have that fact remain on record.
So now it's 2021 and there is no official record of any of it
But at least I think Ferrari have perhaps have been shaken in to updating their attitude a little bit. It's 2021, cheating is no longer seen as 'clever'. If you're to be seen as clever these days, you have to beat Mercedes in a fair fight.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff