Ferrari F10

[Afterburner]

Wake up, mercedes kept improving their engine throw seasons, ferrari did it now and renault will do it in the future, no doubt about that, please stop with the "ferrari are cheating" thing, it's just envy talk.

This is a technical site, perhaps you would like to explain how a reliability repair has resulted in an increase in power and top speed when it should have resulted in a reduction?
Forget all the rubbish about envy and be technical.

It's called evolution and scarbs mentioned how they've done it, don't need to do it. Hasn't mercedes done the same with their engine? Will not renault do the same? The big problem it's because ferrari doing it, face it! I can imagine what you would say if ferrari were the first team to bring the DDD or the F-duct.

[autogyro]

Nope, it is called cheating.
There is a freeze on engine development.

Where did 'evolution' come from?
Is F1 now part of some weird Darwinian theory that suits Ferrari?

[donskar]

Nope, it is called cheating.
There is a freeze on engine development.

Where did 'evolution' come from?
Is F1 now part of some weird Darwinian theory that suits Ferrari?

Guys, this is a waste of time. autogyro has a truly blind hatred of Ferrari and anything related to Ferrari. I'm not sure he can even intellectually grasp the simple fact that reliability changes are allowed under the rules. Certainly he cannot overcome his emotional liability to see reality.

It's a shame that posters can become a "champion" of this site simply by repeating again and again, "I hate Ferrari" (or Hamilton, or Schu, or cigarettes, ad nauseum). With 5 years of academic and practical experience in auto technology, I could list a few reliability changes that could increase HP, but I know they would fall on ears deafened by hatred. Not worth the effort.

[autogyro]

So technical discusion is not worth the effort.
Says it all.

[Sean H]

Nope, it is called cheating.
There is a freeze on engine development.

Where did 'evolution' come from?
Is F1 now part of some weird Darwinian theory that suits Ferrari?

I still can't grasp the "cheating" part if the FIA and every single team agreed to let them do what is allowed under the rules? Or is it only cheating since Ferrari did it?

I always love a good conspiracy theory, so lets hear it.

[Afterburner]

The rules are changing every season,this year for example ferrari said they needed the longer pit stop times for repressurising some components on their engine, ferrari corrected it now, if they can correct it with performance gains of course they aren't stupid. Tell me one team that kept their original engine since 2006, please...

[Afterburner]

So technical discusion is not worth the effort.
Says it all.

Where are you being technical on this discussion? You haven't mentioned anything technical that corroborates your opinion, can't anyone post the typical "don't feed the trolls"?

[timbo]

This is a technical site, perhaps you would like to explain how a reliability repair has resulted in an increase in power and top speed when it should have resulted in a reduction?
Forget all the rubbish about envy and be technical.

This update and any other updates were approved by all other manufacturers.
Increase in 12Hp (if initial power is 750) would give about 3kmph increase over 300kmph top speed.

[autogyro]

Wild attempt: the current valves seal the engine better than they used to. Thus, combustion might be more efficient and the compression ratio is increased. This could also allow running a more powerful mix for longer.

Sorry that does not make sense.
There would only be an increase in compression if the lift, duration and closing of the valves was altered. Correct?
But the problem was stated as a pneumatic leak that resulted in an inability to recharge the gas feed bottle.
(gas valve springs only close the valves, nothing else)
This is a system running out of gas, not a change of any sort to the way the valve train operates.
It would aso have nothing whatsoever to do with improved fuel mixture.
Reducing the amount of gas leakage would in fact 'decrease' any excess gas available for valve and general engine cooling, which would result in a less efficient fuel mix because of higher temperature.

Just thought I would re post this as no one has as yet answered it.
Perhaps there is a draft of what was agreed, that explains everything?

[zgred]

Push it to the limit...



...or even more.

Improved gills with gourneys?

Nothing new - just different angle:

[Intego]

There would only be an increase in compression if the lift, duration and closing of the valves was altered. Correct?
But the problem was stated as a pneumatic leak that resulted in an inability to recharge the gas feed bottle.
(gas valve springs only close the valves, nothing else)
This is a system running out of gas, not a change of any sort to the way the valve train operates.
It would aso have nothing whatsoever to do with improved fuel mixture.
Reducing the amount of gas leakage would in fact 'decrease' any excess gas available for valve and general engine cooling, which would result in a less efficient fuel mix because of higher temperature.

Just thought I would re post this as no one has as yet answered it.
Perhaps there is a draft of what was agreed, that explains everything?

Sorry, I'm no technician, but what about that: The engine would have had that power before but with the weakest link they weren't able to call up this power this year plus they got the problems that resultet in blow-ups. With new seals the mechanical load capacity increases and now they're able to either call up the whole capability or even increase it.

BTW also Scarbs mentioned that increasing reliability can (!) always end up in more power:
"While the fundamental reason for this dispensation is to aid teams with reliability problems, any ‘reliability’ change could also bring a performance gain. This could be either as a direct result of the ‘reliability’ change i.e. lighter part making more power, or as a secondary result, i.e. new valve seat material allows a different fuel for more power. Clearly any possible advantage will be taken by the manufacturers when making changes to the engine."

[flynfrog]

Wild attempt: the current valves seal the engine better than they used to. Thus, combustion might be more efficient and the compression ratio is increased. This could also allow running a more powerful mix for longer.

Sorry that does not make sense.
There would only be an increase in compression if the lift, duration and closing of the valves was altered. Correct?
But the problem was stated as a pneumatic leak that resulted in an inability to recharge the gas feed bottle.
(gas valve springs only close the valves, nothing else)
This is a system running out of gas, not a change of any sort to the way the valve train operates.
It would aso have nothing whatsoever to do with improved fuel mixture.
Reducing the amount of gas leakage would in fact 'decrease' any excess gas available for valve and general engine cooling, which would result in a less efficient fuel mix because of higher temperature.

Just thought I would re post this as no one has as yet answered it.
Perhaps there is a draft of what was agreed, that explains everything?

maybe they were able to take weight out of the valve train and reduce some losses that way.

[majicmeow]

compression (ratio) should not be affected by the valve timing. The duration of the compression stroke is affected by the valve timing.

THat is of course, NOT true if Ferrari changed the shape/size of the valve portion that lives in the combustion chamber. Increasing the amount of material in the chamber would effectively change the CR (however slightly).

Hope I read into that in the manner you meant it....

[autogyro]

compression (ratio) should not be affected by the valve timing. The duration of the compression stroke is affected by the valve timing.

THat is of course, NOT true if Ferrari changed the shape/size of the valve portion that lives in the combustion chamber. Increasing the amount of material in the chamber would effectively change the CR (however slightly).

Hope I read into that in the manner you meant it....

Why would there be a technical reason to change the valve shape to fit improved sealing to the pneumatic spring seals and why should they be allowed to?
Why should they be allowed to alter the cylinder pressure?
There was no problem in qualifying with the original valve spring seals and the lap times prove this. So why was a power increase allowed, when all that was needed was a reduction of gas leakage?
I am not getting any answers.
I have been told to keep quite about it from three sources however, now that is interesting.

[autogyro]

Wild attempt: the current valves seal the engine better than they used to. Thus, combustion might be more efficient and the compression ratio is increased. This could also allow running a more powerful mix for longer.

Sorry that does not make sense.
There would only be an increase in compression if the lift, duration and closing of the valves was altered. Correct?
But the problem was stated as a pneumatic leak that resulted in an inability to recharge the gas feed bottle.
(gas valve springs only close the valves, nothing else)
This is a system running out of gas, not a change of any sort to the way the valve train operates.
It would aso have nothing whatsoever to do with improved fuel mixture.
Reducing the amount of gas leakage would in fact 'decrease' any excess gas available for valve and general engine cooling, which would result in a less efficient fuel mix because of higher temperature.

Just thought I would re post this as no one has as yet answered it.
Perhaps there is a draft of what was agreed, that explains everything?

maybe they were able to take weight out of the valve train and reduce some losses that way.

Good idea flyn-frog reducing valve mechanism mass would in ordinary circumstances account for an increase in power from increased engine revs. There is a slight problem with this however, the engines are already limited to 18000 rpm and they all reach the limiters anyway.