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.
Well, it is ok that they request time to do dyno runs and that the tech directive needs to be good. These are the requests from the two.
For Merc the dyno runs are essential as their whole concept is based on driving the car out of its capability. They run it hotter when needed and, thus, cycle all the time to manage not only the wear but also the temperatures. I think affecting this idea of constant mode switching as a concept to mikro manage race pace is the core target of the directive. So now they need to run a mode and need some time to identify where this mode is.
Honda on the other hand rather needs to be sure loopholes for Merc are closed as this is a prime change for the next years. I think they are following a completely different approach than Merc with their request to postpone.
If they’re not modifying the sump pressure for oil burning perhaps they’re reducing it to increase the pressure differential over the piston on intake and power strokes. A rough calculation suggests a 0.3bar reduction might yield 10+kW @12000 rpm.
, is relevant. I’ve picked out @Mudflap’s post because it includes an insight that suggests my number is probably not totally unrealistic.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Interesting tidbit from the recent Autosport article. This must've been lost in translation during the initial AMuS report:
"While the same mode has to be used throughout qualifying and the race on a given weekend, the mode chosen can vary between events. ICE parameters can also change within a lap, but the same pattern has to be repeated on every lap. All engines from the same supplier must be run in the same mode on a given weekend."
At least we're slowly getting more detailed information on this TD. I figured this would have to be the case.
Interesting tidbit from the recent Autosport article. This must've been lost in translation during the initial AMuS report:
"While the same mode has to be used throughout qualifying and the race on a given weekend, the mode chosen can vary between events. ICE parameters can also change within a lap, but the same pattern has to be repeated on every lap. All engines from the same supplier must be run in the same mode on a given weekend."
At least we're slowly getting more detailed information on this TD. I figured this would have to be the case.
Highlighted part of quote seems like it would be the most problematic. This is a departure of the current rule set where the manufacturer must supply unless the team decides it doesn't need/want it. This seems to lock in the manufacturer of supporting a balanced mode for all teams. I remember in the past that some teams would run different oil / fuel than the manufacturer, this would seem to put a huge handicap on either the manufacturer or a team (I realize the manufacturer will always place priority on its own team, but then they could have a situation where their engine is not performing well and bad publicity from that could be a negative).
Are there any teams currently that are using a different oil/fuel supplier than the manufacturer? Red Bull did it in the past...
Customer teams also run different cooling packages and in some cases different transmissions.
Not to mention most of them don't run engine/chassis dynos so the only time they find out how the engine runs in the car is when they start driving on the track.
Interesting tidbit from the recent Autosport article. This must've been lost in translation during the initial AMuS report:
"While the same mode has to be used throughout qualifying and the race on a given weekend, the mode chosen can vary between events. ICE parameters can also change within a lap, but the same pattern has to be repeated on every lap. All engines from the same supplier must be run in the same mode on a given weekend."
At least we're slowly getting more detailed information on this TD. I figured this would have to be the case.
Highlighted part of quote seems like it would be the most problematic. This is a departure of the current rule set where the manufacturer must supply unless the team decides it doesn't need/want it. This seems to lock in the manufacturer of supporting a balanced mode for all teams. I remember in the past that some teams would run different oil / fuel than the manufacturer, this would seem to put a huge handicap on either the manufacturer or a team (I realize the manufacturer will always place priority on its own team, but then they could have a situation where their engine is not performing well and bad publicity from that could be a negative).
Are there any teams currently that are using a different oil/fuel supplier than the manufacturer? Red Bull did it in the past...
That is what jumped out at me too, and is probably why they want more time to calibrate on the bench as each team will have different requirements. Merc will want the balance to be toward maximum power while Williams would probably sway to engine life, While RP may even want fuel economy, and all from the same engine.
Williams can not put down the same power as Merc out of most corners, or probably handle as much regen into them without destroying the balance.
With each snippit we get I see more problems.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I get the feeling the "same for all teams" bit isn't going to make it into the light of day. Thats way to restricting on the manufacture and the actual customer teams.
I have said it before the party mode is breath of Parc Ferme rules. To me the car should start the race, and only change its party mode once in the pit lane for the first stop of the race.
My solution to this would be two fold, first the engine manufacturers cascade out 12 engine modes for the year, three of four wet weather modes and six dry weather modes, the cars would have two modes set aside for the reconnaissance laps to the grid and end of the race. The cars would have to run in full party mode in all sessions in qualifying, this would cascade through to the first stop of the race. After that pit stop, you are free to change Strat or Scenario modes, however you can only change it once a lap.
Second idea would have the technical regulations tightened, have a standardised gas pedal, have a standardised potentiometer for the clutch and have a standardised software that interfaces with the manufacturers software, both would monitor each other, and mirror one another. Id open up the gas pedal position to FIA to monitor, and also have them perform checks on the manufacturers telemetry to their data, only allowing a 1% variance.
Thirdly, the tertiary items that would need taking care of. As for overtake buttons, id allow them, for two things, they must be in full on attack mode and also limited to just 25 seconds a race and in 5 second bursts at a time. The final thing that would need seeing to is that the Strat/Scenario rotary would only govern the ERS systems, to encompass state of charge modes and all ERS systems. Id allow a separate rotary to adjust fuel modes on the ICE as well, this would be more free for the manufacturers as well, allow the manufacturers to do almost what they wish here, within the traditional realms of engine electronics like timings and injection amounts and such.
I have listened over the years on this subject, and we need things to be clearer, the T cam should also be used, ban filters on the screens as teams are using filters to stop other teams to be able to read the screen from the T cam, and any change to brake bias, fuel or ERS rotaries would show on that screen like what Mercedes did with brake bias, a thing I haven't seen on the screen in the last 18 months on any car onboard.
I have said it before the party mode is breath of Parc Ferme rules. To me the car should start the race, and only change its party mode once in the pit lane for the first stop of the race.
My solution to this would be two fold, first the engine manufacturers cascade out 12 engine modes for the year, three of four wet weather modes and six dry weather modes, the cars would have two modes set aside for the reconnaissance laps to the grid and end of the race. The cars would have to run in full party mode in all sessions in qualifying, this would cascade through to the first stop of the race. After that pit stop, you are free to change Strat or Scenario modes, however you can only change it once a lap.
Second idea would have the technical regulations tightened, have a standardised gas pedal, have a standardised potentiometer for the clutch and have a standardised software that interfaces with the manufacturers software, both would monitor each other, and mirror one another. Id open up the gas pedal position to FIA to monitor, and also have them perform checks on the manufacturers telemetry to their data, only allowing a 1% variance.
Thirdly, the tertiary items that would need taking care of. As for overtake buttons, id allow them, for two things, they must be in full on attack mode and also limited to just 25 seconds a race and in 5 second bursts at a time. The final thing that would need seeing to is that the Strat/Scenario rotary would only govern the ERS systems, to encompass state of charge modes and all ERS systems. Id allow a separate rotary to adjust fuel modes on the ICE as well, this would be more free for the manufacturers as well, allow the manufacturers to do almost what they wish here, within the traditional realms of engine electronics like timings and injection amounts and such.
I have listened over the years on this subject, and we need things to be clearer, the T cam should also be used, ban filters on the screens as teams are using filters to stop other teams to be able to read the screen from the T cam, and any change to brake bias, fuel or ERS rotaries would show on that screen like what Mercedes did with brake bias, a thing I haven't seen on the screen in the last 18 months on any car onboard.
But what is to be gained from this? What is the problem that this solves?
Per Motorsport.com, the primary objective of the TD was to stop manufacturers from introducing “reliability” upgrades that actually were primarily performance-oriented (by allowing the PU to temporarily run beyond safe parameters).
The TD notes: “We believe that in many cases reliability issues are inevitable consequences of running the PU outside of its reliable operational limits in some moments of an event, and such reliability requests are in fact an indirect means of allowing more of the higher performance modes to be used during the life of a PU.”
Per Motorsport.com, the primary objective of the TD was to stop manufacturers from introducing “reliability” upgrades that actually were primarily performance-oriented (by allowing the PU to temporarily run beyond safe parameters).
The TD notes: “We believe that in many cases reliability issues are inevitable consequences of running the PU outside of its reliable operational limits in some moments of an event, and such reliability requests are in fact an indirect means of allowing more of the higher performance modes to be used during the life of a PU.”
So the truth comes out, the TD has nothing to do with anyone potentially cheating or to slow down Merc. The FIA is afraid teams will try and introduce performance upgrades via the reliability update clause.
It seems rather naive to think that just because teams aren't going to use qualifying modes that they still won't try and introduce performance improvements via the reliability clause.
Per Motorsport.com, the primary objective of the TD was to stop manufacturers from introducing “reliability” upgrades that actually were primarily performance-oriented (by allowing the PU to temporarily run beyond safe parameters).
The TD notes: “We believe that in many cases reliability issues are inevitable consequences of running the PU outside of its reliable operational limits in some moments of an event, and such reliability requests are in fact an indirect means of allowing more of the higher performance modes to be used during the life of a PU.”
So the truth comes out, the TD has nothing to do with anyone potentially cheating or to slow down Merc. The FIA is afraid teams will try and introduce performance upgrades via the reliability update clause.
It seems rather naive to think that just because teams aren't going to use qualifying modes that they still won't try and introduce performance improvements via the reliability clause.
Agreed - it does seem naive. And getting that little morsel from the TD makes it even more frustrating that they aren’t published in full.
If they’re not modifying the sump pressure for oil burning perhaps they’re reducing it to increase the pressure differential over the piston on intake and power strokes. A rough calculation suggests a 0.3bar reduction might yield 10+kW @12000 rpm.
, is relevant. I’ve picked out @Mudflap’s post because it includes an insight that suggests my number is probably not totally unrealistic.
Its not about piston work gains. What you gain on the down-strokes, you lose on up-strokes. Reducing crankcase pressure is good for piston ring and valve guide sealing, reduces windage losses, reduces crankshaft oil whirl and speeds up oil separation.
If they’re not modifying the sump pressure for oil burning perhaps they’re reducing it to increase the pressure differential over the piston on intake and power strokes. A rough calculation suggests a 0.3bar reduction might yield 10+kW @12000 rpm.
, is relevant. I’ve picked out @Mudflap’s post because it includes an insight that suggests my number is probably not totally unrealistic.
Its not about piston work gains. What you gain on the down-strokes, you lose on up-strokes. Reducing crankcase pressure is good for piston ring and valve guide sealing, reduces windage losses, reduces crankshaft oil whirl and speeds up oil separation.
Ah yes, silly me.
I guess the advantages you note apply both in quali and race. What are the disadvantages?
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Its not about piston work gains. What you gain on the down-strokes, you lose on up-strokes. Reducing crankcase pressure is good for piston ring and valve guide sealing, reduces windage losses, reduces crankshaft oil whirl and speeds up oil separation.
I don't think so, on the downstroke the piston does work on the crankcase gasses but very little of that energy is returned to the piston on the upstroke since the gasses are moved out by the scavenge pump. If cross-bay communication is allowed the gasses also flow out into adjacent bays with some amount of pressure drop and subsequent energy loss.
