More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It certainly is. But that's not to say that aero won't play its part. In fact, it may just be as important as it was last season. A car with good downforce, but with low drag, is a major plus for a 2014 F1 car.

Why is it more important for a 2014 car than any other year, surely that is the aim every year but in reality you can't have both and it is a trade off between drag and down force. I yearn for the day when mechanical grip again becomes dominant in cornering but fear that I will have fallen off the perch before that happens.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Casper

Why is it more important for a 2014 car than any other year,

I didn't actually say that.

Efficiency is now the name of the game, and having a car with a 'barn door' drag coefficient is no longer where it's at.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Efficiency is now the name of the game, and having a car with a 'barn door' drag coefficient is no longer where it's at.

Quite right Marbot.
The 2013 cars were traction limited rather than power or fuel limited. Thus, within reason and with DRS on the straights, the gaining of maximum downforce was the critical function of aero.
In 2014 the critical limit is fuel use and efficiency. Some downforce will have to be sacrificed to finish the race. My guess is there will not be a huge difference in the amount of power available at the rear wheels, but that it will have to be used in a much more strategic way.
Of course the tyre kerfuffle could spoil everyone's strategy.
Interesting comment from Professor Alain Prost. He said that this was the first time for many years that he would like to be back driving because driving an F1 car it has "again become a real technical challenge".

[bjohnsonsmith]

Prost thinks engine change is good for F1.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111976

[321Go]

Ferrari were last month reportedly secretly testing their F1 V6T engine in a camouflaged LaFerrari.

Here are images of said car.







Note the single centre rear exit exhaust, and the little yellow triangular warning sticker indicating some form of high current system is in use. Ferrari trying to gain an advantage?? No way.

[Casper]

If true at least someone sees the issue of next to no testing prior to racing. Link to story on this?

[TheNo1F1Fan]

I'm new on this thread, so...what's the constroversy about? No offense.

[Kempi]

Ferrari trying to gain an advantage?? No way.

What keeps the other engine manufacturers from doing the same? They all have test tracks and they all, well Renault is maybe a little challegened, have super sports cars (current or older ones) where they could insert the engine.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Ferrari were last month reportedly secretly testing their F1 V6T engine in a camouflaged LaFerrari.

Here are images of said car.







Note the single centre rear exit exhaust, and the little yellow triangular warning sticker indicating some form of high current system is in use. Ferrari trying to gain an advantage?? No way.

It would be very easy to drop a fiberglass body right over the top of an F1 car; look at the front wheel arch lip from the rear in the rear view picture; and test away till the cows come home, give you all the mechanical and reliability data!

[wnut]

*Warning Joke!*

New F1 power train technology explained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

It would be very easy to drop a fiberglass body right over the top of an F1 car; look at the front wheel arch lip from the rear in the rear view picture; and test away till the cows come home, give you all the mechanical and reliability data!

The wheels and tyres don't look right.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The wheels and tyres don't look right.

So it needs different spring and damper rates and is useless for evaluating mechanical grip. It's also useless for evaluating aero. That doesn't make it useless for evaluating drivetrain and maybe some other systems.

[321Go]

There's no F1 chassis underneath that fiberglass body. And it's not a LaFerrari chassis either. The wheel base is much longer than a standard LaFerrari. It's a fiberglass body made to look like a LaFerrari, over a custom built chassis.

Test mule.




Standard LaFerrari

Originally Posted by miatanut

So it needs different spring and damper rates and is useless for evaluating mechanical grip. It's also useless for evaluating aero. That doesn't make it useless for evaluating drivetrain and maybe some other systems.

Spot on.


And for those that have not seen it, HERE is the spy video that started all the talk, and the Racecar Engineering ARTICLE reporting on it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Prost thinks engine change is good for F1.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111976

He's obviously biased.

Roll on testing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Horner thinks there could be a 50% attrition rate at Melbourne.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112137

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Horner thinks there could be a 50% attrition rate at Melbourne.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112137

I actually think that would be great, it'd split those who get the changes right from those who messed it up in a very obvious way and it would confirm to the world that F1 is setting a serious technical challenge again.

Now if it turns out to be 100% in Melbourne or it is still fifty percent at the last race of the season, maybe not so good!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I actually think that would be great, it'd split those who get the changes right from those who messed it up in a very obvious way and it would confirm to the world that F1 is setting a serious technical challenge again.

Now if it turns out to be 100% in Melbourne or it is still fifty percent at the last race of the season, maybe not so good!

When I first started following F1 in the '70s, attrition was part of the norm. With reliability these days being so much better and the various gimmicks like DRS, attrition is something that's been missing from F1.

[chillibowl]

i just cant resist but isnt 50% just Hornerspeak for one car (Vettel's) will work perfectly and their other car wont work at all?

but seriously, im all in for higher rates of attrition and then watching the engineers and drivers have to work the problem for the next race.

[Adam43]

We can't take it. Imagine - "McLaren have suffered two retirements in the first two races. It is a disgrace. Whitmarsh should resign NOW!"

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

We can't take it. Imagine - "McLaren have suffered two retirements in the first two races. It is a disgrace. Whitmarsh should resign NOW!"

That Whitmarsh get rid of him, it's all his fault...

[321Go]

The bickering has already begun among the three engine suppliers, and they haven't even hit the track as yet!

Mercedes and Renault are disputing that the turbo charger needs a protective cover for safety reasons in case of a major failure. Both Renault and Mercedes have a cover fitted. Ferrari doesn't, and doesn't want one fitted. The protective covers weigh about 3 to 4 kilograms, and Ferrari is saying it's unnecessary.

A decision will be made later this week after Renault requested a meeting with the other engine suppliers and the FIA. Renault will apparently present evidence, including a video, of what happens when a turbo charger explodes.

[Adam43]

3 to 4kg is one hell of a protective cover!

Whatever, sounds like a good point to clarify.

[321Go]

Yes in F1 terms, it's a pretty heavy duty item. But a potential bomb shield that weighs just 3-4kg is pretty damn good if it can contain a turbo exploding at 100'000rpm!

The weight issue is no doubt the needle for Mercedes and Renault. All PU's have now been sealed/homoglated for the season. So a major change like this which could possibly add up to 4kg to Ferrari powered cars, would be a major blow to those teams.

The problem lies with Article 5.18.5 : "Measures must be taken to ensure that in the event of failure of the turbine wheel any resulting significant debris is contained within the car."

This is where the Technical Regulations are a bit blurry IMO. It doesn't stipulate a cover for the turbo is required. It just says the debris from the turbo must be contained within the car in a event of a failure. Ferrari may have possibly developed a turbo that will contain all it's bits in the event of an explosion. Good work if they have. Or maybe they believe their engine cover complies with the regulations. Or the engine cover will be enough to contain bits from the turbo exploding at 100'000rpm. That I'd like to see.

What I find funny is, the French have called a class meeting to educate the Italians on what would happen when the turbo explodes. Why?? Because the Italians only know-how is naturally aspirated V12's, V10's and V8's? .

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Yes in F1 terms, it's a pretty heavy duty item. But a potential bomb shield that weighs just 3-4kg is pretty damn good if it can contain a turbo exploding at 100'000rpm!

The weight issue is no doubt the needle for Mercedes and Renault. All PU's have now been sealed/homoglated for the season. So a major change like this which could possibly add up to 4kg to Ferrari powered cars, would be a major blow to those teams.

The problem lies with Article 5.18.5 : "Measures must be taken to ensure that in the event of failure of the turbine wheel any resulting significant debris is contained within the car."

This is where the Technical Regulations are a bit blurry IMO. It doesn't stipulate a cover for the turbo is required. It just says the debris from the turbo must be contained within the car in a event of a failure. Ferrari may have possibly developed a turbo that will contain all it's bits in the event of an explosion. Good work if they have. Or maybe they believe their engine cover complies with the regulations. Or the engine cover will be enough to contain bits from the turbo exploding at 100'000rpm. That I'd like to see.

What I find funny is, the French have called a class meeting to educate the Italians on what would happen when the turbo explodes. Why?? Because the Italians only know-how is naturally aspirated V12's, V10's and V8's? .

Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, Ferrari should know more about turbo failure than anyone on the planet following the first generation of turbo F1 cars!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, Ferrari should know more about turbo failure than anyone on the planet following the first generation of turbo F1 cars!

If irc, I don't think Renault were that hot either, despite being the constructor's who brought the turbo into F1.