Korean GP 2010 - Yeongam

[ringo]

ok,my mistake.

[Terrible3]

The broken header is from Bahrain, as for Korea's failure I am not sure what gave first in that engine. None the less as Ringo pointed out riding a curb should have little effect on a headers failure. The failure is likely caused by a faulty weld rather than SV driving habits.

Djos by your logic does RK drive in a manner that would lead to his wheel nut coming off? Does MW drive in a way that makes his brakes fail (Singapore 2009)? Clearly you cant place blame on all part failures to that of the driver.

[sebbe]

heres my write up on the race... its opinionated but thats always more fun..

http://khurtizz.tumblr.com/post/1390170 ... ix-yeongam

tell me what you think! its a bit controversial

wow! that was brilliant, mate! A little bit harsh on Webber and Jenson, but you've got a point there; they're not on pair with The Hamster, Teflonso and the so-called Wonder Boy.
I remembered Flavio on last year's championship situation:
"The drivers in our teams have been world champions, while the championship is now fought between a pensioner and a driver who is as slow as a concrete block," said Briatore.

To me there's little difference between Buton and Kovalainen. They've got the skills to go backwards during the race. if you're being paid millions of euros to race for McLaren, you should be able to adapt yoru driving style to avoid rubber getting cold as ice.
Here in Argentina we've got a phrase for the guys that show little commitment with the team: "pecho frío", which means, "cold-chest".

[WhiteBlue]

I'm glad that there seems to be a consensus among fair minded technically astute users that ECU controlled F1 engines do not fail due to driver habits.

I can add a bit more detail from Seb Vettel's German comments about the failure mode. He realized in turn 17 that engine power was suddenly massively down and later he knew that the right engine bank had completely lost power.He said that he had no indication to an engine failure prior to the loss of power. He also said that he nevertheless stayed on the power as he did not know what was causing the problem.

One should remember that he had a problem in Monza which rectified itself and was traced later to brakes.

Regarding the fact that Renault had no engine failures and Red Bull had we have to consider that the Red Bull is the car where all the advances have been developed this season. The Renault team lately also profit from developments such as special Q3 mapping or exhaust driven diffusors. But it was Red Bull that developed these technology together with Renault in Viry-Chatillon and not with the team in Enstone. Red Bull is also developing more downforce most of the time than any other car and utilizes the power harder. So it is no surprise that things break earlier in the Red Bull car than in the Renault. The main point here is that all such developments are authorized by the engine manufacturer and they are no excuses for engines failing considerably before their design life time is up.

The conclusion is simply that Vettel is either disadvantaged by having inferior mechanics or - much more likely - that he is having an appalling run of bad luck with reliability this year which robbed him of deserved race wins and will probably cost him the WDC title.

[Mr Alcatraz]

This race was surprisingly entertaining after such a lame delayed start!

I never understood what was the point of having them go behind a safety car for so long: if it was so bad they should have postponed or cancelled the whole damn thing, if not let them race!

All front drivers tried to manipulate the race director and the viewers depending on whether it suited their WDC chances if the race went on or not!

Mark Webber's mistake was only marginal but he paid a high price; still it was his mistake and no one else's as he admitted, but nowhere near as bad as to justify some comments that he ran out of talent. We've seen so much worse this season from all top drivers...

Vettel was really unlucky, but that's part of racing. I think he put on one of his stronger performances ever today.

Alonso did so as well: he was always very close to Vettel and managed his tires apparently better than everyone else. His pace near the end was staggering, opening up the gap from Lewis from 1.9 sec to 10 sec within a few laps, and then more, having only one lap less than Lewis on these tires.

Lewis salvaged well deserved points but was nowhere near where his fans would have liked to see him. Funny when he puts in a great performance in the rain it's always down to his superior skills and when he doesn't and just cruises to the end it's because his car was only that good! A lot of people have been waiting for a showdown between Alonso and Hamilton, and Alonso was clearly the winner today.Massa scored a much needed for the WCC third but really should have been able to put some pressure on Lewis, which he never did.

Other than that, I was just surprised to see Sutil get away with it when he went off track and used the escape road to maintain his position in front of Button and Alguersuari, which I thought he should have allowed through. Aren't you supposed to try and return to the track where you left off? And if not wasn't that an unfair advantage?

I think this is the closest thing to a showdown we've had, but I don't want to fall into that trap, (Two great drivers in different cars) Hamilton made one mistake and paid for it. Otherwise I think he got everything out of that car he could.

On the other hand if the roles would have been reversed I'm sure I'd be reading a whole lot of "The Boss scares the pants off of Fred and forced him into a critical mistake"

[djos]

Im happy to accept that Vettel's mechanical issues have been nothing more than shocking bad luck - to be honest I've just enjoyed stiring the crap out of WB and a few others in devils advocate mode.

We saw this sort of thing happened to Webber when at Williams - when he had a fast car and looked like winning or getting a good podium, it usually blew up on him (Monaco '06 was a prime example).

I'll stop stirring up the Vettel fans now ....

PS. I was very impressed with the maturity vettel showed after his engine went nuclear, looks like he might just have learned a few things from Webber about how to deal with adversity while maintaining a positive outlook.

[WhiteBlue]

Regarding the role the drivers played with their comments and how they influenced race control there is a nice and balanced contribution on James Allan's blog.

[ringo]

I think this is the closest thing to a showdown we've had, but I don't want to fall into that trap, (Two great drivers in different cars) Hamilton made one mistake and paid for it. Otherwise I think he got everything out of that car he could.

On the other hand if the roles would have been reversed I'm sure I'd be reading a whole lot of "The Boss scares the pants off of Fred and forced him into a critical mistake"

No, that would more than likely happen in the dry. I don't think Alonso had anything to do with Lewis going off. If you remember the pit radio, Lewis had no grip and was actually thinking about pitting again. He was toying with the diff and wing to get the car to turn and it still was understeering.
The wheels simply locked up in the turn, it's hard to say if Alonso was the one to pressure him into that error.
If the roles were reversed it would be clear to see that Alonso simply made a mistake, similar to Spa where he went on the curbs, or even in this very same race where he came in to hard into the pit box. Both could be atributed to pressure from the other racers, but in wet conditions it's more likely random loss of grip on an unpredictable surface.

The BOSS will scare the pants off Alonso when the Mp4 is fast enough, hopefully in brazil. The Ferrari was too good in korea, Lewis never stood a chance.
At times the gap was 0.6 to 1s a lap, and when Lewis pushed to bring it down, he couldn't hold it for any substantial time, the car just lost the edge.

This is not really a showdown. Seeing Lewis fall back to 10s in the end was indicating he just wanted to finish the race, he only does that when it's impossible to do any better.

What's Alonso engine situation like now?

[Terrible3]

To gage LH performance please look at where JB ended up Vs the difference between FA and FM.

The only thing the MCL had going for it was speed. The lack of DF killed it in the rain.

[xpensive]

That statement is rubbish, I am an engine builder myself, just for the record I use a lot of exotic materials in these builds as they are not average builds, inconel exhausts Ti valves rotor type dry sumps etc, revs do kill the engines! Wear goes up exponentially. I know that the revs are limited to 18,000 rpm, der! but if you are closer to that redline more often your wear rate will be higher have no doubt. Vettel's engine failed at the end of the straight.

Webber may be short shifting his engine, at least more than Vettel, as we know Vettel likes to be quickest at all times. Just say Webber on the straights in practice just short shifts, Vettel gives it full revs, there will be a difference when the life of the engine is nearing its end. I have noticed on tracks that have long straights that Webbers sector time will be slower in practice.

I know about the programming of the engine, that is sometimes referred to as torque control, where the peak characteristics are smoothed away to give a more linear power delivery.

For those still with any doubt the reason the FIA reduced the revs from 19,000 to 18,000 was that they wouldn't last the three races at those revs without a small or maybe large fortune spent on them with still no garrantee the engines would live. So that extra 1000 revs makes a huge difference so if Webber shifts 500 to 1000 rpm lower in practice and at certain points of the race I am satisfied as to why he is not having this trouble in the races.

A most impressive analysis 928, I'm sure that it reflects Renault's true sentiments about a certain RBR driver as well.

[Terrible3]

I agree with 928s for the most part, but here is my take on that....

Three types of shifting:
1.Short shift
2.Perfect shift
3.Late/bouncing on the limiter

Speed Wise, Fastest to slowest:
1.Perfect
2.Short
3.Late (since you are not accelerating at a constant rpm)

Wear Wise (least to most wear)
1.Short
2.Perfect
3.Late

Sure fair game if MW is short shifting, thus preserving his engine. With that being said I can't see SV bouncing off the rev limiter. It would be clear to both his race engineer and himself would see/feel that he is waiting way too long to shift. So lets assume that he is shifting at the perfect time, the exact moment engine reaches 18k. Now this engine is designed to rev to this limit (peak rpm and not a sustained 18k) and so excessive damage should not be occurring so long as the driver shifts at the perfect point. So if the engine fails while being used properly how is that the drivers fault? To me if the engine fails to function within its designed parameters its the fault of the designer or engine builder.

[mx_tifoso]

True, Terrible3, but if there is a known and proved method to help the engines wear less/last longer and the driver does not use that method is that not his fault?

The designer/builder can be blamed but the drivers have to do their part once on the track in whatever way possible, especially if there are implications on their championship contention. IMO.

[univex]

For those saying that Vettel killed his engine. That is not possible with a modern day F1 engine. The engine management system will NOT allow a driver to kill the engine. It goes up in smoke on it's own.

That statement is rubbish, I am an engine builder myself, just for the record I use a lot of exotic materials in these builds as they are not average builds, inconel exhausts Ti valves rotor type dry sumps etc, revs do kill the engines! Wear goes up exponentially. I know that the revs are limited to 18,000 rpm, der! but if you are closer to that redline more often your wear rate will be higher have no doubt. Vettel's engine failed at the end of the straight.

Webber may be short shifting his engine, at least more than Vettel, as we know Vettel likes to be quickest at all times. Just say Webber on the straights in practice just short shifts, Vettel gives it full revs, there will be a difference when the life of the engine is nearing its end. I have noticed on tracks that have long straights that Webbers sector time will be slower in practice.

I know about the programming of the engine, that is sometimes referred to as torque control, where the peak characteristics are smoothed away to give a more linear power delivery.

For those still with any doubt the reason the FIA reduced the revs from 19,000 to 18,000 was that they wouldn't last the three races at those revs without a small or maybe large fortune spent on them with still no garrantee the engines would live. So that extra 1000 revs makes a huge difference so if Webber shifts 500 to 1000 rpm lower in practice and at certain points of the race I am satisfied as to why he is not having this trouble in the races.

928s Welcome to F1Tech. It is good to have someone with seemingly more knowlegde than emotion in this forum. Great piece.

[tok-tokkie]

Vettel shortcuts over the curbs more than any other driver. Not in the wet in Korea though. As the rear wheels lose traction the whole drive train & engine revs up; when the wheels land there is shock torque through the transmission & engine. But that would only affect the drive train & crankshaft. Not the rest of the engine.

928's point about maximum revs at all times is valid & the ECU can do nothing to reduce rev induced loads. Rev induced loads reduce engine life.

[zgred]

Document No.52

No / Driver 14, Adrian Sutil
Team Force India
Time 17:43
Session Race
Fact Caused an avoidable collision with Car 23 at turn 4 on lap 47.
Offence Breach of Article 16.1 of the 2010 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations
Penalty A drop of 5 grid positions at the driver’s next event and in view of the driver’s admission that he was aware of brake problems with his car throughout the race, the Stewards impose an additional penalty of $10,000.

Document No.53

No / Driver 16 - Sebastien Buemi
Team Scuderia Toro Rosso
Time 17:11:00
Session Race
Fact Caused an avoidable collision with car 24 at turn 3 on lap 30.
Offence Involved in an incident as defined by Article 16.1 of the 2010 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations
Penalty Drop of 5 grid positions for the driver's next event.