2012 Exhaust Blowing & Coanda

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Brain, if I may.

What idiot makes ANY reference to a development his team might have?

Jean Francois Caubet. Boss of Renault sport since 2009.....I'd say he's outspoken, but how would he qualify as an idiot?

What fool listens to such an idiot?

Quite a statement given that you have responded to it. And a fair few people, including myself responded to it. Care to reconsider your evaluations?

If Mercedes responds to such talk, that would explain a lot about their position in the performance picking order.

Can you explain that position to the rest of us?

Finally, exhaust blowing of body parts, while not completely eliminated, is all but neutered under the rules that were developed by the team engineers for the this purpose. So now you think cold blowing, never a substantial performance enhancer, is going to make the slightest difference?
We have a minor effect, exhaust blowing, being modified by another minor effect, cold blowing. Now, of coarse you can argue even the smallest of improvements matters.

Do you have factual evidence to bring to the table, Brian? I'd love to see this unsubstantial "performance enhancer". Maybe we could corroborate this fictional date with...well...other fictional date.

I say get real

Took the words out of my mouth, Brian.

[PlatinumZealot]

Cold blowing is just less fuel than hot blowing.

During what phase of operation is cold blowing pertinent to a F1 car?

Is cold blowing anytime the driver makes a request for torque?

What does this have to do with the rumored Whiting/FIA actions?

Brian

My assumption is Cold blowing is as you say above. Regular engine maps but for one case...

I beleive there are "extreme" circumstances when the driver wants 80% torque demand for example, and the engine map is set to "Lean Cold blow" the driver give 100% throttle, but the mixture is leaned out.
So the engine is getting:
Air/throttle to deliver 100% torque
Fuel to deliver 80% torque

So you have a low torque lean mixture with a lot of air..

Just an extreme case based on my assumptions..

[hardingfv32]

Brain, if I may.

What idiot makes ANY reference to a development his team might have?

Jean Francois Caubet. Boss of Renault sport since 2009.....I'd say he's outspoken, but how would he qualify as an idiot?

What fool listens to such an fool?

Quite a statement given that you have responded to it. And a fair few people, including myself responded to it. Care to reconsider your evaluations?

If Mercedes responds to such talk, that would explain a lot about their position in the performance picking order.

Can you explain that position to the rest of us?

Finally, exhaust blowing of body parts, while not completely eliminated, is all but neutered under the rules that were developed by the team engineers for the this purpose. So now you think cold blowing, never a substantial performance enhancer, is going to make the slightest difference?
We have a minor effect, exhaust blowing, being modified by another minor effect, cold blowing. Now, of coarse you can argue even the smallest of improvements matters.

Do you have factual evidence to bring to the table, Brian? I'd love to see this unsubstantial "performance enhancer". Maybe we could corroborate this fictional date with...well...other fictional date.

1) Completely logical: If he is giving up a advantage he is a fool.

2) Completely logical: If Mercedes responds to such talk from the above mentionedfool, they exhibiting poor managerial judgement. Could poor managerial judgement be while they ran so poorly last year?

3) There is no data available nor will there ever be for this forum to use, so you are required to use logic to substantiate a position on this subject.

a) After months of CDF and wind tunnel work by well budgeted and experienced personnel, there is no consensus on the location of the exhaust outlets. Completely logical conclusion: It makes no deference because the flow has a minor effect.

b) Cold blowing under the current rule set has a very minor effect. Completely logical conclusion: You are talking about the air that the engine can pump at 5K rpm.

Trouble with any of my 'Completely logical conclusions'?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

I believe there are "extreme" circumstances when the driver wants 80% torque demand for example, and the engine map is set to "Lean Cold blow" the driver give 100% throttle, but the mixture is leaned out.

I do my own engine development and have my own dyno. I am not comfortable with tying to control engine speed with a big bias towards fuel and ignition management. I just think there are some obstacles that are not presenting to me at this time. I would think you would need a highly adjustable engine, say valve lift & timing and maybe compression ratio. If you want to discuss it we probably can figure out the major details.

I am under the impression that the teams are stuck with those aspects that would control "Lean Cold blow" unless they change them during the race. You will note I avoid the use of the words 'engine maps'. As such I wonder if such a "Lean Cold blow" setting is drivable on all sections of the track including starts and pit stops. Again we would have to work though the details to know for sure.

Brian

[Richard]

What idiot makes ANY reference to a development his team might have?

What fool listens to such an idiot?

1) Completely logical: If he is giving up a advantage he is an idiot.

.... or ... the "idiot" might know exactly what he is saying. After all he has a very successful track record in the business, and that's not something that any of us can claim, so who are we to judge?

By your logic, you have just said everyone on this forum is a fool, because we all listen to what the teams say at some point.

Less talk of fools and idiots please, and more consideration that some intelligent people on this forum have valid views that might not be the same as yours but are just as valid ... or just as wrong.

Any more posts about fools or idiots by anyone will be deleted in their entirety.

[Pup]

1) Completely logical: If he is giving up a advantage he is an idiot.

2) Completely logical: If Mercedes responds to such talk from the above mentioned idiot, they exhibiting poor managerial judgement. Could poor managerial judgement be while they ran so poorly last year?

3) There is no data available nor will there ever be for this forum to use, so you are required to use logic to substantiate a position on this subject.

a) After months of CDF and wind tunnel work by well budgeted and experienced personnel, there is no consensus on the location of the exhaust outlets. Completely logical conclusion: It makes no deference because the flow has a minor effect.

b) Cold blowing under the current rule set has a very minor effect. Completely logical conclusion: You are talking about the air that the engine can pump at 5K rpm.

Trouble with any of my 'Completely logical conclusions'?

Brian

Personally, I'm fascinated by this logic, as I have become by Brian. How bizarre!

[hardingfv32]

the "idiot" might know exactly what he is saying. After all he has a very successful track record in the business, and that's not something that any of us can claim, so who are we to judge?

By your logic, you have just said everyone on this forum is a fool, because we all listen to what the teams say at some point.

Less talk of fools and idiots please, and more consideration that some intelligent people on this forum have valid views that might not be the same as yours but are just as valid ... or just as wrong.

1) Please state the benefit to the team and/or car of stating you have a 'development'? Is he trying to appease the sponsors? IF as stated in the tread, Mercedes acted on it, is that not validation of a foolish act?

2) Yes, it is foolish to listen to team officials making such statements. What information does it bring to the table? What is a 'development'? Can the spokesman be trusted? All babble.

3) The value in statements like this are if they are be related to a developing theory or system the the forum is trying to create. The represent a clue or part of the puzzle. The statement needs to further the logic of the conversation. So, there are going to be rare instances where team statements are of value.

Brian

[cossie]

the "idiot" might know exactly what he is saying. After all he has a very successful track record in the business, and that's not something that any of us can claim, so who are we to judge?

By your logic, you have just said everyone on this forum is a fool, because we all listen to what the teams say at some point.

Less talk of fools and idiots please, and more consideration that some intelligent people on this forum have valid views that might not be the same as yours but are just as valid ... or just as wrong.

1) Please state the benefit to the team and/or car of stating you have a 'development'? Is he trying to appease the sponsors? IF as stated in the tread, Mercedes acted on it, is that not validation of a foolish act?

2) Yes, it is foolish to listen to team officials making such statements. What information does it bring to the table? What is a 'development'? Can the spokesman be trusted? All babble.

3) The value in statements like this are if they are be related to a developing theory or system the the forum is trying to create. The represent a clue or part of the puzzle. The statement needs to further the logic of the conversation. So, there are going to be rare instances where team statements are of value.

Brian

Respect is earned not given,foolish, idiots ect: really is not language that is conductive to a discussion it's more in line with arguments, just saying

[Pup]

1) Please state the benefit to the team and/or car of stating you have a 'development'? Is he trying to appease the sponsors? IF as stated in the tread, Mercedes acted on it, is that not validation of a foolish act?

2) Yes, it is foolish to listen to team officials making such statements. What information does it bring to the table? What is a 'development'? Can the spokesman be trusted? All babble.

OK, so I'll wade in - as a fan of 'logic', can't you at least see that your points 1&2 are mutually exclusive? That is, if revealing this secret is to be called dumb, there must be some chance that someone will act on the secret.

And again, as in the other threads, you're arguing something that has already been revealed by events to be false. We know that exhaust blowing gives a major performance boost; know that off-throttle blowing was a major performance boost; and we know that cold off throttle blowing was a significant boost. We know these things because we've seen two entire seasons of these methods at work and of teams desperately trying to find exhaust solutions and to improve upon them. We even had an A/B comparison in watching McLaren fumble through testing last year and then rocket to the front once they had a proper exhaust system in place.

And we know that this year the teams are still searching for exhaust solutions. We have McLaren, for one, who's interest is as obvious as two warts on your bum. We have Renault saying "We have worked with Red Bull and found a solution to compensate for the loss of performance." We have Newey (another 'idiot', though I prefer to call them 'foolish') saying that "The exhaust is one of the areas in which we still have some ideas up our sleeves." And if that weren't enough, we have today's minor scandal. All proof that the teams think that there is ample reason to search for performance solutions involving the exhaust.

[hardingfv32]

We know that exhaust blowing gives a major performance boost; know that off-throttle blowing was a major performance boost;

We have no indication that exhaust blowing under the current rule set gives anything but a minor performance enhancement. I would claim if it was such a major enhancement that the teams would have zeroed in on the ideal solution by now. The solutions are over the map at this point. The team engineers developed the new rules. Did the major teams leave major performance enhancement in the new rules? The small teams would not have called then out on it? And if major enhancement is still available, why the difficulty find a location solution?

know that off-throttle blowing was a major performance boost; and we know that cold off throttle blowing was a significant boost.

There is no indication that there is performance enhancement from off-throttle blowing under the new throttle rules. The new rules call for a 5k max idle speed. Under all known engine systems, this would all but eliminates off-throttle blowing. Again, the engine engineers developed the rules. Here we can be certain Cosworth was watching the hen house.

We have Renault saying "We have worked with Red Bull and found a solution to compensate for the loss of performance." We have Newey (another 'idiot', though I prefer to call them 'foolish') saying that "The exhaust is one of the areas in which we still have some ideas up our sleeves." And if that weren't enough, we have today's minor scandal. All proof that the teams think that there is ample reason to search for performance solutions involving the exhaust.

All Babble. What do we learn from it: They toke something away from me and I am working soo hard to get it back. A genius talking! Of course the teams are hard at work, but hen they have been on this design for 6-12 month already and this best they have to show on the exhaust placement subject?

Brian

[bhall]

It seems to me that a lot of your logic is predicated on the notion that the teams know best. While it's difficult to argue against that, it should be noted that all but one or two teams "get it wrong" in any given year.

If things were truly as simple as your logic implies, F1 would be a de facto spec series due to every team landing on the formula's best solution, for which there can only ever be one.

[Pup]

All Babble.

Oh, come on, Brian. If you're going to present such bizarre logic, you've at least got to provide a better defense than a simpleton's denial. You've spent a lot of energy trying to goad people into your debates this week, but you've yet to show that you have the slightest capacity to argue your side in any of them. All you do is naysay and 'challenge' others to prove their argument. And when they do, you either don't understand their points, don't address their points, or simply deny them without argument like you're doing here. This is standard troll stuff you're tossing out, so do you want to buck up and make an effort or what? I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

And geez, man, the typos - effort!

[hardingfv32]

Does this rule effect cold or off throttle blowing?

"5.5.5 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position."

Does 'monotonically increasing' mean the variables that form the drive torque demand map must move the same direction, + / -, or does it mean the variables move proportionally in the same direction?

What inputs/variables make up the 'driver torque demand map'? Can we assume that the rule is implying something more complex than the pedal movement or position is at work?

Brian

[strad]

All that means in english is that the map must match or logically follow the pedal position.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

From 2 mins onwards you can hear the difference in overrun....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vj5FMK5_Mc[/youtube]

.....Compared to say that of McLaren from 3mins onwards.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xubxtDWo ... re=related[/youtube]




Also, its not a given that nobody isn't already using this loophole. It was AMuS' guess that nobody had tried it yet.
Looking at these videos and listening to the sounds, there is more than the usual discrepancy when the cars are traveling through a corner off throttle.

Its almost as if the renault unit is lethargic in getting its revs down, with an added splutter which is non existant in the linearity of the Mercedes powered McLaren.

Maybe Red Bull arent doing anything. But as I have said before, and looking at the quite startling differences as demonstrated on the videos, I think something is awry.