Mercedes W11

[Blackout]

2018 is similar although the 2018 Merc exhaust manifold was different.
On the left is 2017: the 6 engine mounting points are cleared. The clutch is completely visible.
On the right: 2018 and 2019: the middle engine mounting points are obstructed by the exhaust pipes. You cant see half the clutch.
https://i.imgur.com/zmshqnl.jpg

I'm not sure being hidden on its own means it cannot still have the mounting location. I get your point though, it would be near impossible to install the studs with the exhaust pipes installed.

I put this sketch together based on the specified mounting locations;
https://i.imgur.com/1aTVgxq.jpg
*the lines are probably not perfect. 1) The line between the lower most and upper most mount is not a straight line through the middle mount. 2) The lower distance (mount to mount) is ~36% of the total distance between the upper most and lower most mount.
The orange circles are where the mounting locations are specified.
I've added the RED lines to ask a question to SS. Are you meaning that the two middle mounting points would exist on the PU at the shown locations but the studs would extend further into the gearbox before their attachment to the gearbox? My thinking here is you don't think this would be a PU flange to Gearbox flange connection.

No he means there are two imaginary middle holes on the gearbox casing and that the middle engine studs somehow penetrate and pass through the exhaust pipes to connect to the gearbox...
IMO the drugs he's taking make him see those invisible holes that we, mere mortals, cant see, but somehow those drugs prevent him from visualizing the exhaust pipes that must be placed between the engine and the gbox.
Found other pics of the W09 gbox. Maybe he will show us where the invisible mounting points are.
https://sf.viepratique.fr/wp-content/up ... ission.jpg

[PlatinumZealot]

But I think this is not new: the 2016 Ferrari exhaust pipes too merged inside the bell-housing and the Ferrari 2016 gearbox dont seem to have the middle studs.
A very similar solution
https://i.imgur.com/jiswWJv.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... hX6oK7vzZg
https://sf.viepratique.fr/wp-content/up ... n-3_FR.jpg
https://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp- ... pfer14.jpg

Older power unit..

See the six studs..




Newer power unit..
The additional exhaust peice seems to block the middle studs.. Seems to block is the key word...

[saviour stivala]

Since the first year of the hybrid formula in 2014 technical regulations mandated that engine to survival cell and gearbox to engine mounting must comprise six M12 studs each mounting plus the studding pattern/centre to centre distance. The 2014 regulations did not say all six studs must be used. From 2015 to 2021 the regulations added that all six studs must be used. For 2022 the regulations says that gearbox to engine mounting four studs may be used. Since 2014 the studs pattern/centre to centre distance did not change, that includes the 2022 regulations. So up to 2021 unless this year and next year regulations change anybody not using all six studs (gearbox to engine mounting) would previously and presently including 2021 have been/will be in breach of the regulations. Now am talking regulation wise unless somebody finds/discovers and comes up with changes to regulations contrary to the above.

[Just_a_fan]

Since the first year of the hybrid formula in 2014 technical regulations mandated that engine to survival cell and gearbox to engine mounting must comprise six M12 studs each mounting plus the studding pattern/centre to centre distance. The 2014 regulations did not say all six studs must be used. From 2015 to 2021 the regulations added that all six studs must be used. For 2022 the regulations says that gearbox to engine mounting four studs may be used. Since 2014 the studs pattern/centre to centre distance did not change, that includes the 2022 regulations. So up to 2021 unless this year and next year regulations change anybody not using all six studs (gearbox to engine mounting) would previously and presently including 2021 have been/will be in breach of the regulations. Now am talking regulation wise unless somebody finds/discovers and comes up with changes to regulations contrary to the above.

As has already been pointed out, it doesn't say they have to use all six studs. It says that have to use all of the studs provided. It also doesn't say they have to use six studs, it says they may use six studs.

These are subtleties in the English language that even some native English speakers don't understand/pick up. But they're there and they are important when it comes to the legality or otherwise of a car.

[hollus]

The official wording of the technical regulations are as follows.
Formula one 2020 FIA technical regulations (5.3. “Power unit mounting may only comprise six M12 studs for connection to survival cell and six M12 studs for connection to the transmission. All studs ‘MUST’ be used and may be fitted on the survival cell, power unit or transmission”.

That is some interesting wording. The PU may have 6 studs for the survival cell and 6 studs for the gearbox.
The wording implies that all studs are in the PU. Weight reasoning springs to mind here.
But they can fit on the survival cell or on the gearbox or ON the PU. This suggests that a PU stud fitting on the PU would satisfy the counting. Would a (two) useless stud(s) fully contained inside the PU satisfy the wording of the rules?

[saviour stivala]

The official wording of the technical regulations are as follows.
Formula one 2020 FIA technical regulations (5.3. “Power unit mounting may only comprise six M12 studs for connection to survival cell and six M12 studs for connection to the transmission. All studs ‘MUST’ be used and may be fitted on the survival cell, power unit or transmission”.

That is some interesting wording. The PU may have 6 studs for the survival cell and 6 studs for the gearbox.
The wording implies that all studs are in the PU. Weight reasoning springs to mind here.
But they can fit on the survival cell or on the gearbox or ON the PU. This suggests that a PU stud fitting on the PU would satisfy the counting. Would a (two) useless stud(s) fully contained inside the PU satisfy the wording of the rules?

No common sense on GOD'S green earth is going to regard a stud installed/threaded into a tapped hole but un-secured/fastened by a nut on the outer end as being used when securing two parts together.

[hollus]

Neither you nor I are native english speakers. I’ll happily defer to those when interpreting the exact meaning of “may”, “must” and “used”.
In any case, the F1 regs are famous for having no spirit (never mind common sense!) and being written in “lawyeresque” english.

[saviour stivala]

Looks and sounds like it is about time now to out this discussion.

[Just_a_fan]

In simple terms, "may" means "allowed" or "possible" and "must" means "required" or "have to". So I would read "you may use 6 studs. All studs must be used" to say "you are allowed to use up to 6 studs. Any stud you provide has to be used".

It would have been better if they had stated in the Regulations "you are allowed to use up to 6 studs" as that would have been clearer for everyone, although the inferred meaning of "you may use 6 studs" is "you are allowed to use no more than 6 studs".

"You may leave the table when you have finished your meal" - you are allowed to leave to the table when you have finished but may stay there if you would like to.
"You must leave the table when you have finished your meal" - you are required to leave the table when you have finished your meal.

Many people use "can" when "may" is correct.
"Can I have an ice cream?" when they actually mean "May I have an ice cream?"
The former asks whether it's physically possible to have an ice cream ("Is there an ice cream available?", in effect).
The latter asks whether the person is allowed to have an ice cream.
It's fun, sometimes, to answer the first question thus: "yes you can but you may not". One should choose the recipient of this carefully, of course!

Vernacular usage, along with the differences between English and US English, has muddied the waters somewhat where the subtleties are concerned.

[aral]

It appears that we are now to get english lessons, rather than actually address the actual car. If memory serves me correctly, isnt it a fact that when there is a dispute over regulations as written by the FIA, that the actual french version is the version that has priority?. I could be wrong in that, but memory is bringing me back to the 60 and 70s If that is so, there could easily be a slight difference in the inference and meaning of the rules.
However, really this is all immaterial, so could we please drop this "dispute" and just agree to disagree.
there is also something that should be considered.......all bolts do not need to be pointing the same way. Some could be built into the bell housing and others could be built into the gearbox casing.

[Just_a_fan]

If memory serves me correctly, isnt it a fact that when there is a dispute over regulations as written by the FIA, that the actual french version is the version that has priority?.

Memory has let you down this time, I'm afraid.

The Sporting Regs start with:
The final text of these Sporting Regulations shall be the English version which will be used should any dispute arise as to their interpretation.

The Tech Regs don't specify so likely the English applies as the Tech Regs are supplemental to the Sporting Regs.

Anyway, moving on...

[aral]

OK, but i was just trying to recall the long distant past.....! However, I am delighted that you are moving on, as the constant dispute, based on a possibility was well past its "sell by " date.

[henry]

Both FE and WEC are in both languages. F1 seems to be special

[Morteza]

[zibby43]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wyEmgpdlc

Thanks for posting this.