Ferrari F10

[donskar]

forty-two wrote:

. . . I don't think Ferrari are alone in holding these "Filming" days, but it does smack of circumventing the in-season testing ban rules.

That is the key point. In fact, every team is allowed to do some PR appearances. Only an incompetent sponsor would not demand them. And only an incompetent team would not attempt to get some gain from them -- after all, even a few laps of slow running is expensive in terms of prep, support staff, logistics, rebuilding, etc. It's just that when Ferrari does it . . .

[aral]

...

I don't think Ferrari are alone in holding these "Filming" days, but it does smack of circumventing the in-season testing ban rules.

I agree, but did anyone in or outside F1 complain when Mercedes did it? A huge difference is how Ferrari went about it; making videos and publicizing the whole event as they usually do.

I'm not sure if you are complimenting or criticising Ferrari, for being open about their filming? But i don't think that running around on ultra hard tyres, behind a van and with half a dozen cameras strapped to the car, would give much info, that could not be gained from static running.

[ecapox]

I think the key is this:

Everyone has used filming days and they probably got a little useful info from it. What people are complaining about is that ferrari used their filiming day to film a car with TONS of updates. I wouldnt call that cheating, i'd call it a smart move.

[autogyro]

What ever they had on the car in the way of updates did not help make the engine run very well. It had a huge missfire for 'some' reason unknown to anyone outside Ferrari F1.

[Italiano]

What ever they had on the car in the way of updates did not help make the engine run very well. It had a huge missfire for 'some' reason unknown to anyone outside Ferrari F1.

Wow, such a smart man. What if, MAYBE, it's the cameras fault? You know being mounted in a wierd position, in a rush and being a rubbish camera?
Ever thought of that, or are conspiracy theories just too good to not mention?

[autogyro]

I do not wish to be rude but I do have experience of sound recording.
The miss fire is not the recording equipment.
It is no good throwing a ferrari fan boy fit and lowering yourself to personal insult.
This is not a conspiracy anything, the miss fire exists and no explanation has yet been given.

[Italiano]

The point was: Who cares? Ok? So they maybe use a really knackered engine. Why waste a good one for promotion.

[autogyro]

perhaps

[bonjon1979]

This is interesting. That adds up to at least 16 laps of "Promotional" running.

Of those 16 (or so), let's say 3 laps behind the Scudo were probably very very slow, but would provide useful data on how much heat was being thrown out by the revised exhaust layout, and more importantly which areas would be affected by this heat.

The rest of the laps though (13 based on the above), were presumably reasonably quick, which would be very useful for evaluating the new updates on the car.

I don't think Ferrari are alone in holding these "Filming" days, but it does smack of circumventing the in-season testing ban rules.

[/quote]
All the info on heat would have been capable of being collected, without the car even being on track! So there was little benefit in "faking" a filming day.[/quote]

I've no problem with what Ferrari did, 16 laps isn't very much time so I think fair play to them. But I would say that it's quite different running a car on a track than in wind tunnel with a rolling road. Main one being speed - wind tunnels are limited to 50m's a second - the effect of the exhaust gases will vary at different speeds so on track testing is vital.

[absbeginner]

I do not wish to be rude but I do have experience of sound recording.
The miss fire is not the recording equipment.
It is no good throwing a ferrari fan boy fit and lowering yourself to personal insult.
This is not a conspiracy anything, the miss fire exists and no explanation has yet been given.

To put it simply, engine manufacturers do not own the FIA ECU.
They receive it from FIA but they are not allowed to use it outside the F1 event or official testing sessions, they cannot resell it, they cannot use it for exibhitions.

The one installed on the Ferrari is probably from Magneti Marelli and it has its own routines for engine and gearbox management.

[autogyro]

Or perhaps the interface shows up some other electrical process not obvious when the 'McLaren' EMU is fitted?
It would be unusual for Magneti Marelli to produce an EMU with a miss fire unless it was for a purpose.
Any ideas?

[forty-two]

...

I don't think Ferrari are alone in holding these "Filming" days, but it does smack of circumventing the in-season testing ban rules.

I agree, but did anyone in or outside F1 complain when Mercedes did it? A huge difference is how Ferrari went about it; making videos and publicizing the whole event as they usually do.

I'm not sure if you are complimenting or criticising Ferrari, for being open about their filming? But i don't think that running around on ultra hard tyres, behind a van and with half a dozen cameras strapped to the car, would give much info, that could not be gained from static running.

Actually Gilgen, I'm not sure either. I made a similar comment about Ferrari's use of clever wheel design despite the "gentlemen's agreement" about not using wheel fairings, I have to give them credit for that, and indeed other innovations that the team have come up with. Either way, both this and the "promotional" running might be seen by some as more than a little bit cheeky. No more, no less. Whichever your opinion, it's worth mentioning IMO.

Hate to sit on the fence, I'm normally one who has an opinion on everything, but this one foxes me a little.

[Just_a_fan]

But i don't think that running around on ultra hard tyres, behind a van and with half a dozen cameras strapped to the car, would give much info, that could not be gained from static running.

Except they weren't running behind a van. Alonso was flat chat around the circuit for several laps. That will have given them some representative data.

Whether they were able to use that data is another question.

[timbo]

I do not wish to be rude but I do have experience of sound recording.

With a shitty tiny mic of the helmet cam? In a moving F1 car?

I disagree but ok, explain what the unusual noise is.
I doubt it is a 'shitty tiny mike of the helmet cam' on an F1 car test.
The cameras and mics are top quality and reliable over a wide range of frequencies.

Well, let's see.
There's no top-quality mics that you can easily put on drivers helmet. Even SDCs like AKG 451 would be too big.
But that's not an issue.
The whole contraption sits on driver's helmet. Any vibration would cause modulation of the sound.
The flutter might be caused by engine/chassis/driver's head resonance that happens at a particular engine rpm. If it is somewhere around 17000-18000 rpm, it would also explain why you don't hear it at 1st-2nd gear, as drivers usually short-shift at those gears.
Cameras rigidly attached to a chassis doesn't suffer from this.

[autogyro]

Why would a properly mounted camera on a helmet vibrate?
It is no more likely than any other camera mounting.
The sound is consistant with the cylinders firing and the rpm heard before and after the vibration confirm this as there is a delay in the increase of rpm over the miss fire gap in the sound wave.
I know of no sound caused by any vibration that can reduce the increase in rpm of a mechanical device during the time range that it is audible.