FIA wants to ban qualifying modes in 2021

[dans79]

Anyway, I'll take this opportunity to post a source today that allegedly rubbishes the claim of Mercedes alone putting pressure on the FIA for a postponement until '21 (as the PG Tech rumor insinuates, which I cannot find corroboration for anywhere). It's from GP Today.

"According to the Italian La Gazzetta dello Sport, Mercedes and Honda have pushed for the ban on Party Mode to be postponed to Monza. The ban, which limits cars to the same engine setting for both qualifying and racing, was expected to take effect for this weekend's race at Spa. According to the Italian newspaper, it was not only Mercedes but also Honda that asked to postpone the ban until a better definition was adopted: "The requests from Mercedes and Honda were decisive." According to the report, Mercedes and Honda engineers have successfully argued that they "needed more time on the dyno to comply with the new regulations." The German Mercedes team's power unit is said to deliver 1,027 horsepower in qualifying, while Honda delivers just under 1,000 horsepower to Verstappen and Albon in Party Mode."

No mention whatsoever of Mercedes solely pushing for a delay until '21. No mention whatsoever of only Mercedes pushing for a delay this year.

https://www.gptoday.net/nl/nieuws/f1/25 ... te-stellen

You might find this interesting as well (from a few days ago).
https://www.grandprix.com/news/party-mo ... anabe.html

Honda F1 boss Toyoharu Tanabe says it is possible the 'party mode' ban will be postponed.

Tanabe said the details of the ban are not yet decided.

"It depends on the content of the regulations and the monitoring," he told as-web.jp when asked if the ban will help or hinder Honda.

"If you say that Mercedes will lose something, then Honda may say that's good for us. But at this point, I'm not sure."

"The details are under consideration, and Honda is part of those discussions," Tanabe said.

"We will talk about the regulations, how they are monitored, what the manufacturers think - like 'I can do this but the monitoring is impossible'.

"If the opinions of the teams and manufacturers match, it will be from Belgium," said the Japanese. "If we don't achieve that, it could be postponed."

[Sieper]

The way I read the Honda comments is that they are unsure if the proposed regulations will succesfully remove the qualification mode. Not that they don’t want it to be banned. But it is hard to be sure.

I guess what they don’t want is to end up in a situation where nobody is allowed to copy a car but one team is still riding around with just such a car in a semi legal way. That we end up in nobody having a qualy mode but one team is driving around with one in a semi legal way. So if you speed up the regulation change, make sure it is worded water tight as we know what will happen otherwise.

[dans79]

This is also another interesting article where Toto give numbers to the party mode and what not having it would actually mean.

https://www.grandprix.com/news/party-mo ... wolff.html

But according to Mercedes' Wolff, Red Bull should in fact not be looking forward to the ban.

"It would help us in the race," he warned, according to Italy's Autosprint.

"If you don't have to squeeze your engine too hard in Q3 and for a few laps in the race, the delta of possible damage drops dramatically.

"In fact, five fewer laps of qualifying mode gives us 25 more laps of race performance. This is something we believe will give us more speed," Wolff explained.

"We could lose two tenths in qualifying, but everybody else will drop in performance too. But we always keep a margin on what we can extract from the power unit and if we have to be limited in qualifying modes, then we can be stronger in the race."

[Wouter]

Someone downvoted my earlier post calling out PG Tech for spreading rumors as facts and said "looks like you were wrong." .........

Anyway, I'll take this opportunity to post a source today that allegedly rubbishes the claim of Mercedes alone putting pressure on the FIA for a postponement until '21 (as the PG Tech rumor insinuates, which I cannot find corroboration for anywhere).
It's from GP Today.

"According to the Italian La Gazzetta dello Sport, Mercedes and Honda have pushed for the ban on Party Mode to be postponed to Monza. .........................

https://www.gptoday.net/nl/nieuws/f1/25 ... te-stellen

That you get a downvote for that message is of course childish, just like @Etusch last week.
Then let them say why they disagree with you.

PG Tech is about as reliable as Franco Nugnes.

If I had to count all the times he's spread falsehoods, I'd still be counting.

Not only does he spread rumors as facts, but he steals information from other (actually) reliable sources in the paddock, like Mark Hughes, and then passes the information off on his own without crediting the original source.

The fact that you now want to be right with quoting an article from the GPToday site, clearly indicates that you are not from the Netherlands.
This site mainly copies articles from other sites, without checking if anything is correct, the same thing you have PG Tech (Piergiuseppe Donadoni, an Italian technical engineer with a masters degree) and Franco Nugnes accused of.
This site is one of the most unreliable and clickbaiting F1 sites in the Netherlands.

[zibby43]

Someone downvoted my earlier post calling out PG Tech for spreading rumors as facts and said "looks like you were wrong." .........

Anyway, I'll take this opportunity to post a source today that allegedly rubbishes the claim of Mercedes alone putting pressure on the FIA for a postponement until '21 (as the PG Tech rumor insinuates, which I cannot find corroboration for anywhere).
It's from GP Today.

"According to the Italian La Gazzetta dello Sport, Mercedes and Honda have pushed for the ban on Party Mode to be postponed to Monza. .........................

https://www.gptoday.net/nl/nieuws/f1/25 ... te-stellen

That you get a downvote for that message is of course childish, just like @Etusch last week.
Then let them say why they disagree with you.

PG Tech is about as reliable as Franco Nugnes.

If I had to count all the times he's spread falsehoods, I'd still be counting.

Not only does he spread rumors as facts, but he steals information from other (actually) reliable sources in the paddock, like Mark Hughes, and then passes the information off on his own without crediting the original source.

The fact that you now want to be right with quoting an article from the GPToday site, clearly indicates that you are not from the Netherlands.
This site mainly copies articles from other sites, without checking if anything is correct, the same thing you have PG Tech (Piergiuseppe Donadoni, an Italian technical engineer with a masters degree) and Franco Nugnes accused of.
This site is one of the most unreliable and clickbaiting F1 sites in the Netherlands.

I’m not from the Netherlands.

But that’s why I said “allegedly.”

Furthermore, GP Today isn’t the primary source. They’re merely reporting on what the Italian La Gazzetta dello Sport published.

And at least they credited the primary source. They get points over PG Tech for that.

Regardless of your opinion of either of those sources, Honda boss Tanabe’s comments seem to strongly corroborate what La Gazzetta originally reported.

[zibby43]

This is also another interesting article where Toto give numbers to the party mode and what not having it would actually mean.

https://www.grandprix.com/news/party-mo ... wolff.html

But according to Mercedes' Wolff, Red Bull should in fact not be looking forward to the ban.

"It would help us in the race," he warned, according to Italy's Autosprint.

"If you don't have to squeeze your engine too hard in Q3 and for a few laps in the race, the delta of possible damage drops dramatically.

"In fact, five fewer laps of qualifying mode gives us 25 more laps of race performance. This is something we believe will give us more speed," Wolff explained.

"We could lose two tenths in qualifying, but everybody else will drop in performance too. But we always keep a margin on what we can extract from the power unit and if we have to be limited in qualifying modes, then we can be stronger in the race."

It’s striking to me that so many want to attribute these claims by Wolff as bluster, or inconsistent with Merc requesting extra optimization time for the TD.

Of course Merc and Honda want more time. They have the best PUs this year and need to get things right for themselves and their customer teams.

Furthermore, if you look at the data from Barcelona, Mercedes gained almost all of their 7+ tenths advantage in qualifying (where they ran a lower-deployment mode, while their competitors still cranked it up) in the corners (all types: slow, medium, and fast). Which backs up what Toto says. Normal Q3 mode for Merc is probably worth 2 tenths. Normally, that’s a whole lot of time. But when you have a 1s gap in qualifying, that becomes manageable.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Looking at the modes allowed I’m not clear about what this means for SOC management.

The laps on the starting grid
Laps behind the Safety Car or under VSC-Speed (virtual SafetyCar)
The lap of honour after the finish flag
Laps before and after a flying qualifying round
Any other round that is 20 percent above the fastest lap of each qualifying session

Crudely I view the current SOC situation as:

Q lap, begin at 4MJ end 0
Start and restart, Begin at 4MJ end 2
Race laps, Begin 2 end 2

I can’t see how these can be managed without Strategy mode intervention.

Maybe they have excluded Strategy modes from this and it only applies to ICE parameters. If so it’s to be hoped that the manufacturers have architected their systems to Separate the two Sets of behaviours.


I’m also puzzled by this item In the ICE control list.

Wastegate valve timing and MGU-H working time

I wonder if this only applies to MGU-H assist in e-supercharge? Whatever it is these represent, along with quite a lot of other parameters in the new lists, things that are not currently regulated or monitored by the FIA. Rather brings into question the avowed intention of reducing complexity. Instead of monitoring 5 things in the regs they now additionally have to monitor half a dozen, or more, that aren’t.

I wonder how many of these parameters are in adaptive loops?

I just can't see how some of the parameters can be verified.
Take ignition advance for example - it is a multi dimensional map which in its simples form takes into account charge air temperature, boost pressure, engine load, engine speed and lambda. On top of that there are probably complex software overrides to deal with knock and so on.

It is guaranteed that there will be discrepancies in actual spark timing not only between race and qualy but even lap to lap. I am just as sure FIA do not have the resources to check every line of code to determine whether such discrepancies are deliberate (say a hidden mode) or just a consequence of minute changes in multiple parameters which result in the operating point moving signficantly on the single mode map.

Some other parameters such as crank case pressure make no sense at all! That is purely a function of scavenge pump speed (fixed gear ratio to crank) and blow by. How can a mode alter it ? It will fluctuate with engine load since blowby increases with load but it is far from being a reliable indication of the engine operating differently.

Similarly, the valve pneumatic pressure is controlled by a fixed mechanical regulator. By rules it cannot vary with engine speed.

On the other hand I am surprised that the trumpet position map is not on the list.

[Big Tea]

Looking at the modes allowed I’m not clear about what this means for SOC management.

The laps on the starting grid
Laps behind the Safety Car or under VSC-Speed (virtual SafetyCar)
The lap of honour after the finish flag
Laps before and after a flying qualifying round
Any other round that is 20 percent above the fastest lap of each qualifying session

Crudely I view the current SOC situation as:

Q lap, begin at 4MJ end 0
Start and restart, Begin at 4MJ end 2
Race laps, Begin 2 end 2

I can’t see how these can be managed without Strategy mode intervention.

Maybe they have excluded Strategy modes from this and it only applies to ICE parameters. If so it’s to be hoped that the manufacturers have architected their systems to Separate the two Sets of behaviours.


I’m also puzzled by this item In the ICE control list.

Wastegate valve timing and MGU-H working time

I wonder if this only applies to MGU-H assist in e-supercharge? Whatever it is these represent, along with quite a lot of other parameters in the new lists, things that are not currently regulated or monitored by the FIA. Rather brings into question the avowed intention of reducing complexity. Instead of monitoring 5 things in the regs they now additionally have to monitor half a dozen, or more, that aren’t.

I wonder how many of these parameters are in adaptive loops?

I just can't see how some of the parameters can be verified.
Take ignition advance for example - it is a multi dimensional map which in its simples form takes into account charge air temperature, boost pressure, engine load, engine speed and lambda. On top of that there are probably complex software overrides to deal with knock and so on.

It is guaranteed that there will be discrepancies in actual spark timing not only between race and qualy but even lap to lap. I am just as sure FIA do not have the resources to check every line of code to determine whether such discrepancies are deliberate (say a hidden mode) or just a consequence of minute changes in multiple parameters which result in the operating point moving signficantly on the single mode map.

Some other parameters such as crank case pressure make no sense at all! That is purely a function of scavenge pump speed (fixed gear ratio to crank) and blow by. How can a mode alter it ? It will fluctuate with engine load since blowby increases with load but it is far from being a reliable indication of the engine operating differently.

Similarly, the valve pneumatic pressure is controlled by a fixed mechanical regulator. By rules it cannot vary with engine speed.

On the other hand I am surprised that the trumpet position map is not on the list.

I would assume the crankcase pressure to be a suspect for oil burning No?

[63l8qrrfy6]

I would assume oil level measurement before/after race combined with FIA spot checks where they drain it and measure is the only way to enforce it.

Crank case pressure is only a function of how much blow by is produced and what the scavenge pump flow rate is.

I wonder if some teams run a variable displacement scavenge pump which has its own map depending on engine mode.

[gruntguru]

Wouldn't be hard to modify crankcase pressure by bleeding air in.

[dans79]

Is it me, or does the FIA look like a 90+ year old who was just handed their first computer/tablet/smart phone and has no idea how to use it?

Like @Mudflap said, the already measure oil before and after the race, why do they need to over complicate something that's already very simple to verify.

[henry]

Might they want to reduce crank pressure during qualification to gain some power from intake and power strokes? Or is the thinking they would increase it to encourage oil into the combustion chamber?

[63l8qrrfy6]

I think the only way to effectively burn oil is to mix it really well with the charge air - which they could do before FIA banned the breather return to turbo inlet.

I can't imagine how any of the oil making its way past the rings and into the combustion chamber can produce any useful work. If anything it will just coke all over the place.

[SiLo]

Surely the request from Mercedes and Honda to extend is just sensible at this point? Trying to get a rule passed in a few weeks which impacts all teams (bar maybe Ferrari) probably isn't a smart idea and really feels like a knee jerk reaction.

[dans79]

I can't imagine how any of the oil making its way past the rings and into the combustion chamber can produce any useful work. If anything it will just coke all over the place.

Yep, the oil would have to be hypergolic in nature to amount to anything considering we are talking an infinitesimal volume in the form of a film. hypergolics really aren't something you would want in your oil sump though, they are just as likely to burn there as in the cylinder do to their unstable nature.