Korean GP 2010 - Yeongam

[mx_tifoso]

Fabrice Lom, Renault, Principal Engineer Track Support:
“Renault must apologise to the whole team for the engine failure on Seb’s car. We need to investigate more before giving more details about the failure – it was an engine that was at its third grand prix but it obviously wasn’t expected. What a bad result for us, we scored no points after starting on the front row – it’s a big disappointment. We are still in the battle for both Championships and we will continue to push very hard – we took a hit today, but we will bounce back stronger in Brazil.”

Imagine how awkward it must have been for Fabrice Lom after the engine failure! He was the only Renault man around when "his" engine was going up in smoke and blowing out metal and oil.

And after reading Vettel's reaction after the race it reminded me of when Schumacher went through the same thing in Japan 2006. Both were leading the race and suffered an engine failure near the end, only to gift the victory (and points lead?) to.... none other than Fernando Alonso.

[komninosm]

Several drivers it seems wanted the race stopped. In fact there was only one driver I can recall during the post-race interviews who laughed about the possibility of the race stopping early but his mentality over this issue proved to me once again that he is an immature idiot who still feels the need to act up to the camereas..

Laugh is maybe too strong a word but they certainly found the idea of stopping early laughable but I'm not mentioning names. Suffice to say that the majority of the drivers so far seemed to think stopping early was not a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Why not mention names? I don't get it.

[mr moda]

So it,s vettels mechanics fault now! Honestly I have never read so much tripe! Make no doubt he will be a wdc. Most definitely but can we just back off the overzealous and irrational dissecting of what was a simple engine failure. I certainly don't read the same sort of drivel when another drivers plant fails. Maybe a section of members here would like to rename the site to F1 Vettel

[kiwibob]

I bet vettle is regretting his stupid move when he crashed into webber and took himself out of the that race and a certain 20 points lol

[Dragonfly]

I suppose exactly the opposite applies to Webber then

[Dragonfly]

That statement is rubbish,.............
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.

They use different engines and gearboxes for practice on Friday. And do relatively small number of laps during the last FP.
While you are right in general about how revs influence engine wear, your arguments about Webber and him preserving the engine better are weak.

[zenithbeach]

Document No.52

No / Driver 14, Adrian Sutil
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.

sweet, thought he was being a bit kamikaze out there.

[Mr Alcatraz]

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?

I think you missed my point I said that it was a mistake by The Boss (which it was regardless of his cars handling characteristics), and implied it wasn't due to pressure from Fred! But it would have been construed that way on this board if the situation was reversed. JMHO bro!
The Boss is in a very strong position engine wise mainly due to retirements. Fred ain't looking so freakin' good
It should be an interesting final two races!

[Paul]

WhiteBlue, if I understand you correctly, Renault engine is less reliable in Red Bulls because it is used harder despite the same ECU controlling it, while Renault engine can't be less reliable in Vettel's Red Bull because the same ECU controls it?

[WhiteBlue]

Paul, you are taking wrong conclusions.

The same engine can have different use in a different chassis with different boundary conditions and different software parameters. It is unlikely for instance that the ECU will compensate for conditions such as insufficient cooling.

If that same engine is in the same chassis with identical conditions and software parameters driver influence should have no significant influence on reliability unless we talk deliberate abuse. The ECU will prevent the driver from over revving.

[ringo]

Another thing to add to the debate is that the engine failed at 1600km, when it should of went at 2200km.
That's less than 3/4 the life span. Vettel is not revving the engine so much that is loses 1/4 of it's life span. Neither is webber shifting so much lower than Vettel that his can live so much longer. There is little difference between 16,000 and 18000rpm in terms of fatigue life.
So shifting should be out of the question, worse that the clutch decides what shocks go to the engine. Only rotational forces can go to the crank from the clutch, and clutch is designed with consideration of the whole engine package.

The driver is the least to be blamed. In fact he is the last one on the team to be blamed. The blame falls on the manufacturers or the mechanics.

[andrew]

Can a driver still not over-rev an engine on the down change?

I remember seeing one of the Top Gear halfwits trying to drive various Renault single seaters a while back.

After driving the Formula Renault (I think it was) the engineer told them they kept over revving on the down change and if this happened in the F1 car the they would eventually wreck an engine.

[zgred]

Andrew - I remember Team Radio to Petrov during one of the GP with instructions to change the way of his down-shifting. Team ordered him to reduce revs during down-shifting and threaten him that if he will not adjust to this they will lower his max revs remotely.
So I guess it is problem while driver do it badly.

[747heavy]

when we compare engine life and performance in between the RB6 and the R30, it is maybe worth to keep in mind, that the R30 uses some carbon struts at the side of the engine, to take a part of the torsional and bending loads away from the engie.
While I don´t think, that the RB6 installation is entirely to blame for the failure and the perceived power deficit, it could be a contributing factor, to explain why, so far, we have not seen a engine failure in a R30.
OTOH, I would agree with the poster, that pointed out, that the sample size is far too small for any meaningful statistical analysis.
Other then that, the R30, for the most part of the season, is probably not in a position (as far as car performance goes), to make the drivers push the engine as hard as the RBR guys do.
Nevertheless, I´m resonable sure that Renault has specified the max. load parameters of there engine to RBR, and o.k.ed the installation of the engine, they seems to find it benefical to subject the engine to less strucatural stress in their own cars.
Why it may don´t break the engine automaticly, if you stress it more (mechanical, load path wise), it´s fair to assume, that it will not hurt it, or it´s power output either, if you subject it to less mechanical bending and twisting.
As with most things, it´s and engiinering compromise, where different people choose different parameters to concentrate on, and then live with the concequences of this choice.

[747heavy]

it will depend on the gear shift algorithm used, and what the rules permitt.
technicaly it´s no problem to prevent an engine over rev while downshifting.
I can´t talk about F1, as I don´t have expirience there, but in GT/sports car shift systems, the gearbox controller would/could just ignore the downshift command, if it leads to an engine over rev.

best example would be, if a driver presses the wrong paddle on the steering wheel, downshift instead of upshift, while accelerating.
In this case, the gearbox (at least in the cars I have worked on - GT/sports cars) would ignore the command.

I would be very surprised if similar strategies are not employed in F1, but I don´t know for sure.

While still permitted (it´s banned now), the driver would just preselect the gears in either up or downshift, and the gearbox controller would execute the shift at the "perfect" time with the best rpm match automaticly.