Formula One's governing body has announced that it has come to a settlement with Scuderia Ferrari after investigations into its 2019 power unit, considered the most powered in F1.
That seems a bit illogical at first, care to educate on why? My logic would expect a closer fitting piston in an ultra-tolerance manufacturing environment would yield the closest-to-theoretical-perfect results compared to an inherently changing diameter and the slosh of classic piston rings.
Change my mind.
It is not illogical at all. To achieve a good seal there are a a couple basic requirements:
The sealing element must be sufficiently conformable to account for any distortion of the sealing faces and it must be subjected to a normal load high enough to produce contact pressures on a similar order of magnitude as the pressures being sealed.
A piston is relatively stiff and can not conform to the bore distortion caused by thermal and mechanical loads. The only normal loads would be caused by the thrust loads which act on a small portion of the circumference. It doesn't really meet the criteria for a good sealing element.
Piston rings are both conformable (low thickness) and subjected to normal loads due to tension and gas pressure. In addition they can be individually shaped to perform different functions - seal, scrape and oil control.
Even if you somehow manage to produce a perfectly round piston in a perfectly round bore with exactly 0 clearance it will all go pear shaped (quite literally) at operating loads and temperatures.
Where does the Ferrari power come from? Ferrari beat Mercedes in Spa and Monza with his speed on the straight. But where does the power come from? Why can Ferrari call up up up to 55 hp extra in certain situations? We go in search of clues. It's the biggest mystery Formula 1 is currently facing. Mercedes, Renault and Honda are worried about one question: Where does Ferrari get so much power from in the short term? We're talking about up to 40 kilowatts, just under 55 hp.
Ferrari owed the two victories in Spa and Monza to two factors: Charles Leclerc in the cockpit and a powerful engine in the rear. On the straights there was no way past the Ferrari. In Monza even less than in Spa. GPS measurements suggest that Ferrari has added a scoop with the new Spec3 engine.
Monza was for the Ferrari competition a disillusionment. Ferrari made up nine tenths on the Mercedes in training on the straights. Lewis Hamilton hung Charles Leclerc for 42 laps in the gearbox. He would have gone two tenths faster per lap without the red car in front of him.
Hamilton had DRS, he had slipstream. And he still couldn't get past. "Despite these advantages, we only made up two metres on Leclerc on the home straight," the engineers calculated. Too little to tear down the red wall.
Only Ferrari stands out in terms of power Ferrari team boss Mattia Binotto mentioned in his race analysis the strong engine and the favourable air resistance. The opponents agree: it is mainly the engine. In air resistance, the cars differ only marginally, especially in Monza, where all are equipped with the smallest possible wings.
But where does all the power come from? "Renault, Honda and we are about on the same level at the moment. Only Ferrari stands out, and this is sometimes dramatic," not only Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff is surprised.
Mercedes has been working intensively since the start of the season to decipher the Ferrari secret. Toto Wolff revealed in Monza that one thinks one knows what Ferrari does. Of course, this remains as secret as the trick itself. Red Bull team boss Christian Horner told. "We sent a few suspicious facts to the FIA but didn't get an answer."
With Ferrari's engine performance, you have to differentiate. There's the mysterious power boost that the drivers were only able to call up in very specific phases. So far it has only been observed in the qualifying laps, the starting lap and directly after re-starts.
From this it can be concluded that Ferrari needs a slow lap beforehand in order to achieve this extra performance. However, the mode cannot be activated arbitrarily for attack or defence. Otherwise Sebastian Vettel would have loosely countered Hamilton's attack on the Kemmel straight at Spa.
Three theories to improve performance In Monza they saw a new quality. Ferrari now obviously has an attack mode that Leclerc used to defend his position. However, it is not of the same quality as the Q3 power injection. But effective enough to stay in the lead.
Mercedes' plan was to rush Leclerc until the Monegasque ran out of battery power. But that didn't happen, even though the Monza winner on the home straight and before the second chicane permanently called for full power. Nevertheless, he was able to recharge the battery sufficiently on the rest of the lap.
All this can still be explained somehow. For Ferrari's Super Mode, however, there are only speculations circulating in the paddock. Theory one says that under certain conditions Ferrari is able to feed 160 instead of 120 kilowatts from the battery into the system. The slow lap is needed to fully charge the battery beforehand.
Theory two assumes that in the slow lap before activating fuel is transferred between the measuring point of the flow rate and the high pressure pump. This would allow more fuel to be injected in the Q3 laps than allowed.
Theory three says that the air collector (plenum) in front of the engine is cooled with oil and the engineers take some of this oil for combustion. What you should need a warm-up lap for, however, is not quite clear.
The theories may be correct in essence, but certainly not in detail. Because the way they are circulated would be illegal. And any technology commissioner would immediately come across it with his nose.
After last year's investigation into Ferrari's two-piece battery, a possible cover-up of the energy flows, and the bunker of fuel in accumulators in front of the injection nozzles, there is now peace again at the front.
In winter there were various technical directives on the subject, which were intended to rule out possible tricks. The power advantage of Ferrari remained. Conclusion of the opponents: "It must be something very clever what they are doing. And if it's legal, you can only take your hat off."
Ferrari customers look into the tubes Ferrari's customers don't get the benefit of the mysterious PS thrust, by the way. Alfa Romeo and Haas shouldn't get the Spec 3 engine either, if chance hadn't intervened. Actually this is not in the sense of the regulations. But Ferrari has found a tricky way to drive the last development stage exclusively.
They delivered a new Spec 2 engine to their customers in Spa. Thus the same drive version, which Ferrari still had in Spa in the car. For the Ferrari satellites, the Spa engine was the third drive unit. Theoretically Alfa and Haas could also order a Spec 3 engine for the rest of the season and Ferrari could not deny them that, but it would mean an engine penalty and an extra fee. The customers would rather reject it voluntarily.
But now it has happened. Kimi Räikkönen needed a new engine after a training crash. And it had to be a Spec 3 version according to the rules, because this specification was already in circulation in the factory cars.
All three theories were actually dismissed by the author already.
I have the nagging feeling that it may not have anything to do with the PU at all, but with an intelligent way to get the diffusor AND the rear wing to stall at the same time, thus reducing drag altogether at the rear.
Perhaps being a combination of both, aerodynamics and PU?
Does anyone know if someone has looked into this at any rate?
In my view this would collaborate with the rough evidence we have,
Ferrari being oberwhelmingly fast at tracks with long and many straights and not so many fast corners.
All three theories were actually dismissed by the author already.
I have the nagging feeling that it may not have anything to do with the PU at all, but with an intelligent way to get the diffusor AND the rear wing to stall at the same time, thus reducing drag altogether at the rear.
Perhaps being a combination of both, aerodynamics and PU?
Does anyone know if someone has looked into this at any rate?
In my view this would collaborate with the rough evidence we have,
Ferrari being oberwhelmingly fast at tracks with long and many straights and not so many fast corners.
In my view the PU has to be a (big part) part of the answer as it is not only top speed where Ferrari shines but also acceleration at the beginning of the straights. At lower speeds the drag difference would not make such a significant difference IMO. After last year Lewis should have corrected his statement on the Monza podium: Ferrari power is better than Mercedes power
All three theories were actually dismissed by the author already.
I have the nagging feeling that it may not have anything to do with the PU at all, but with an intelligent way to get the diffusor AND the rear wing to stall at the same time, thus reducing drag altogether at the rear.
Perhaps being a combination of both, aerodynamics and PU?
Does anyone know if someone has looked into this at any rate?
In my view this would collaborate with the rough evidence we have,
Ferrari being oberwhelmingly fast at tracks with long and many straights and not so many fast corners.
But why would this then need the 'warm up lap'?
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
From what is saw in Monza Leclerc just pulls away after they both exit the 1st chicane. Although Hamilton was obviously faster coming out of the chicane.
And that for lap after lap.
Probably Ferrari cannot keep their qualifing advantage, because they would burn up the tyres.
I also saw Leclerc exiting form Parabolica really fast, he continuosly gained almost a tenth until the DRS activation. It has to be in some way the engine, even if the chassis has its share
All three theories were actually dismissed by the author already.
I have the nagging feeling that it may not have anything to do with the PU at all, but with an intelligent way to get the diffusor AND the rear wing to stall at the same time, thus reducing drag altogether at the rear.
Perhaps being a combination of both, aerodynamics and PU?
Does anyone know if someone has looked into this at any rate?
In my view this would collaborate with the rough evidence we have,
Ferrari being oberwhelmingly fast at tracks with long and many straights and not so many fast corners.
But why would this then need the 'warm up lap'?
Aren't we missing elefant in the room?!
Mercedes was much quicker on both tracks! I wonder where this advantage came if drag(and by default DF) were similar and Ferrari was much much faster on the straights!?
Ferrari made a low DF/drag car just as Mercedes had in 2017. Only difference is that Ferrari is unable to work the tires(is it because low DF?) so Seb and Charles suffer a lot during the race.
IF there is power advantage, it's certainly isn't as big as the story says.
All three theories were actually dismissed by the author already.
I have the nagging feeling that it may not have anything to do with the PU at all, but with an intelligent way to get the diffusor AND the rear wing to stall at the same time, thus reducing drag altogether at the rear.
Perhaps being a combination of both, aerodynamics and PU?
Does anyone know if someone has looked into this at any rate?
In my view this would collaborate with the rough evidence we have,
Ferrari being oberwhelmingly fast at tracks with long and many straights and not so many fast corners.
But why would this then need the 'warm up lap'?
Aren't we missing elefant in the room?!
Mercedes was much quicker on both tracks! I wonder where this advantage came if drag(and by default DF) were similar and Ferrari was much much faster on the straights!?
Ferrari made a low DF/drag car just as Mercedes had in 2017. Only difference is that Ferrari is unable to work the tires(is it because low DF?) so Seb and Charles suffer a lot during the race.
IF there is power advantage, it's certainly isn't as big as the story says.
I'm sorry for going off topic.
I can not help thinking of traction control. Not more power, but getting it down better.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
Mercedes was much quicker on both tracks! I wonder where this advantage came if drag(and by default DF) were similar and Ferrari was much much faster on the straights!?
Ferrari made a low DF/drag car just as Mercedes had in 2017. Only difference is that Ferrari is unable to work the tires(is it because low DF?) so Seb and Charles suffer a lot during the race.
IF there is power advantage, it's certainly isn't as big as the story says.
I'm sorry for going off topic.
I can not help thinking of traction control. Not more power, but getting it down better.
Nice theory, am sure will be speculated on by many.
Mercedes was much quicker on both tracks! I wonder where this advantage came if drag(and by default DF) were similar and Ferrari was much much faster on the straights!?
Ferrari made a low DF/drag car just as Mercedes had in 2017. Only difference is that Ferrari is unable to work the tires(is it because low DF?) so Seb and Charles suffer a lot during the race.
IF there is power advantage, it's certainly isn't as big as the story says.
I'm sorry for going off topic.
I can not help thinking of traction control. Not more power, but getting it down better.
Ferrari is accelerating faster especially from more or less 150 km/h onwords. Every F1 car is easily at full throttle at these speeds and puts all the power on the track.
Mercedes was much quicker on both tracks! I wonder where this advantage came if drag(and by default DF) were similar and Ferrari was much much faster on the straights!?
Ferrari made a low DF/drag car just as Mercedes had in 2017. Only difference is that Ferrari is unable to work the tires(is it because low DF?) so Seb and Charles suffer a lot during the race.
IF there is power advantage, it's certainly isn't as big as the story says.
I'm sorry for going off topic.
I can not help thinking of traction control. Not more power, but getting it down better.
Ferrari is accelerating faster especially from more or less 150 km/h onwords. Every F1 car is easily at full throttle at these speeds and puts all the power on the track.
Also, if that was the case (superior traction) then terminal velocity would be similar, but ferrari was much quicker at the end of the straights.
Like i said, i am not convinced it is only single lap performance. But if there is a 1 lap superpower mode. Maybe it has to do with the bigger turbo usability in electric supercharger mode. They have 2 advantages:
1. Bigger turbo, bigger MGU-H. More boost power available in E-supercharger mode. Although the amount of air is limited by the combustion technology, perhaps Ferrari has found a way, to make use of it.
2. Bigger turbo, more energy van harvested to recharge the ES during half throttle moments, with delayed ignition. “turbo hot-blowing”
