Ferrari F1-75

[Mchamilton]

Thats not a new specification, ICE is frozen. Article states they will turn the ICE up fully with the second unit, not that they will have a new spec eith second ICE.

ICE can be modified for reliability reason. The source specifically says "evolution" for the second unit, which means a new spec. The "turning up" refers to the first unit in the following races.

Whether this will happen or not I cannot tell, but it can be done. I think we will see a lot of modification to ICE for reliability reasons that will be used to "unlock" power, from all engine manufacturers.

Edit: I checked again the article and I am confident that my translation is correct.

And modification the homolaged power unit has been agreed to by all the other engine manufacturers and the fia. So any attempt at 'reliability' fixes for extra power could very well be shot down.
Unless theyre going to introduce new hyrbid parts, the energy store, control electronics and mgu-k can be updated once before september 1st.

[PlatinumZealot]

Teams know that reliability fixes can increase horsepower, and they know which ones are clearly providing an edge in performance.

For example, piston rings, if a team said, FIA I need to change to more reliable piston rings. The old steel ones are breaking all the time. Mahle said I need to change to osmium-carbide rings 20% thinner to get my engine to last 10,000km.

It's clear they want performance!

[matteosc]

Yes, the translation is correct, but it's the interpretation that I'm at odds with. JUST my opinion, but I think the article is meant to imply that establish the reliability of the 2022 power unit... which is an "evolution" of the 2021 power unit. They haven't established the reliability of this specific evolution yet, so they might introduce the next PU after 3-4 races, maybe more. Thats what I get from the article.

Yes, that is another possible interpretation and may very well be the truth. I still believe they will have some minor changes for the second engine of the season, but again, that is just my opinion.

[Big Tea]

Teams know that reliability fixes can increase horsepower, and they know which ones are clearly providing an edge in performance.

For example, piston rings, if a team said, FIA I need to change to more reliable piston rings. The old steel ones are breaking all the time. Mahle said I need to change to osmium-carbide rings 20% thinner to get my engine to last 10,000km.

It's clear they want performance!

And every one agrees 'cos they need to do it too

[AR3-GP]

Thats not a new specification, ICE is frozen. Article states they will turn the ICE up fully with the second unit, not that they will have a new spec eith second ICE.

When they’ve committed to regulations that mean the engines should last for 7.3 races, running them as ‘easy’ as possible seems the most sensible course of action.

This.

These regulations mean we’ll never see them all in except for very rare occasions, and thus looking at trap speeds will always be misleading of true potential because it only has to be turned up ‘just enough’.

Any engine can be run aggressively, but would likely not last 7 race weekends.

So in a way, we are seeing the maximum estimates of an engine that can last 7 races, not one that could do 1 race. If these engines only had to do 1 race, the mappings would be much more aggressive.

[Andi76]

ICE can be modified for reliability reason. The source specifically says "evolution" for the second unit, which means a new spec. The "turning up" refers to the first unit in the following races.

Whether this will happen or not I cannot tell, but it can be done. I think we will see a lot of modification to ICE for reliability reasons that will be used to "unlock" power, from all engine manufacturers.

Edit: I checked again the article and I am confident that my translation is correct.

Ah, ok, missed the evolution mentioned... Somehow, for me its hard to expect the FIA will accept "reliability" improvements so easy. But who knows in the end, FOM and FIA seem to have made/forced the communication with teams be much more open, so these gray areas might have already been agreed. Still, I doubt it was as simple as "our engine can go up to 1100-1200HP, but we will have a reliability upgrade so we cold reach that"

Yes, I agree with your point, but if I remember correctly, in the "frozen" V8 era there was a significant power increase and general improvement thanks to these "reliability" modifications. I personally expect all engine to unlock some potential with this method.

In the V8 era they ahuge amount of work in modifying the airbox. And were able to increase power significantly because of that. So i think this will probably be an area teams will put a lot of effort in now.

[Vanja #66]

When they’ve committed to regulations that mean the engines should last for 7.3 races, running them as ‘easy’ as possible seems the most sensible course of action.

This. These regulations mean we’ll never see them all in except for very rare occasions, and thus looking at trap speeds will always be misleading of true potential because it only has to be turned up ‘just enough’.

Bit off topic, but I would push these engines as far as I have to within expected reliability. If you earn 2 full PU penalties and have the best PU, like Ferrari might have, you can realistically do the Ham-Brasil-21. Even a podium would be a great result. With these cars and race-friendly aero, my feeling for the best season-long strategy is to push like hell. Every race.

[AR3-GP]

When they’ve committed to regulations that mean the engines should last for 7.3 races, running them as ‘easy’ as possible seems the most sensible course of action.

This. These regulations mean we’ll never see them all in except for very rare occasions, and thus looking at trap speeds will always be misleading of true potential because it only has to be turned up ‘just enough’.

Bit off topic, but I would push these engines as far as I have to within expected reliability. If you earn 2 full PU penalties and have the best PU, like Ferrari might have, you can realistically do the Ham-Brasil-21. Even a podium would be a great result. With these cars and race-friendly aero, my feeling for the best season-long strategy is to push like hell. Every race.

I don't think that the engine life is predictable to that degree. I'm not sure the power vs reliability has a linear relationship. I suspect it might even be unpredictable beyond a certain power level. Could blow in the 1st weekend, or could make it to the third weekend.

[zioture]

Formula 1 Garage 75

[Vanja #66]

I don't think that the engine life is predictable to that degree. I'm not sure the power vs reliability has a linear relationship. I suspect it might even be unpredictable beyond a certain power level. Could blow in the 1st weekend, or could make it to the third weekend.

I'm afraid I didn't express myself in the best way, but I agree with your point to an extent. My idea was that teams should strategically aim at using engines for 4-5 races tops, then do the switch and take the penalty. They have them on the test benches, so engine alone should be well known in terms of "predictable" reliability for a certain power output. Of course, the whole car on track is a different thing, so its hard to tell without their knowledge what's what. Just my two cents...

[GrrG]

Ferrari's 2022 power unit.

[SiLo]

Ferrari's 2022 power unit.

Are the two large tubes feeding the compressor?

[GrrG]

Rear wings

[gluon]

Looks like Ferrari and Alpine are using less wing than McLaren and crucially RBR.

[wowgr8]

So 3 different tracks, Spain high downforce, Bahrain somewhere in the middle and Jeddah low downforce but Ferrari don't seem to have changed the rear wing spec at all since the first day of testing, really interesting