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.
In wet conditions Ferrari has different kind of problems. It has nothing to do with PU or gearbox or something they deliver to customers. It's tires related. They are bad in wet for several years now. Mercedes perfected tires and that' their biggest advantage.Mr.G wrote: ↑12 Jul 2020, 02:32I just wondering:ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑11 Jul 2020, 13:55Fuel limited formula, the engine burns the same amount of fuel at 10.5k rpm, 12k rpm or 15 k rpm(so obviously it makes sense to keep it running closer to 10.5k rpm)hape wrote: ↑11 Jul 2020, 12:09
While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.
Most of their advantage was in acceleration, not top speed so much.
Yes, it was perplexing why the FIA didn't notice that they were burning so much more fuel than the Mercs. I'm surprised Mercedes didn't point it out.
IF their "trick" needed to deliberately put more fuel than reported and now IF it is turned off and all teams with Ferrari engines are 1s slower, does it mean that they have been doing so too? Do we really believe that? Ferrari just came to customer team and tell him to "cheat" and they have been OK with that?
And one more think, during the wet qualifying, where the times are several seconds slower and it's not engine dependent, how it comes that Ferrari isn't higher or Ferrari powdered teams? There must be a different issue with the car, probably with some part that is delivered to the customers too. What if all the issues came from the gearbox?
Oil can in fact be used to in increase the resistance to detonation, depending on the type of oil of course. The fuel used is very similar to pump gas, but the oils used a quite exotic with some being zero viscosity. Also, there were the rumors that Ferrari were using 2 different types of "oil" as well as the "intercooler coolant fluid".ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑13 Jul 2020, 20:11Oil does NOT increase the octane number, in fact it does the exact opposite in theory (as it is made from heavier fractions of petroleum).
It might have been used to aid lubrication and thus increase reliability rather than primarily improve horsepower.
since 1958 F1 has always used 'pump gas' or equivalent as defined by limiting the octane number eg 102 RON
The weren't running "pump gas" in the turbo 80s, they were running toluene and other crazy stuff, I can't remember if they still had the octane limit then though.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑14 Jul 2020, 11:17since 1958 F1 has always used 'pump gas' or equivalent as defined by limiting the octane number eg 102 RON
till now ....
from 2014 the (maximum) ON is unlimited .....
how (despite the earnest adoption of the FIA's 'pump gas' mantra) is this 'pump gas' ?
no racers other than F1 have ever seen this magic pump
Absolutely.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑15 Jul 2020, 00:04The fuels they use now are the same species as pump gas.. Except if the pump fuel is Susan Boyle the F1 designer fuel is Adrianna Lima.
Only the best molecules are hand picked basically. So combustion is way more efficient and quicker.
Check the technical details here: https://www.sunocoracefuels.com/fuel/frSunoco® FR™ is an unleaded oxygenated race fuel that performs well in turbocharged engines as well as air-restricted naturally aspirated engines that can benefit from an oxygenated racing fuel. It complies with certain race fuel regulations limiting oxygen to 4 volume percent.
the FIA assumed fuel rules amounted to pump gas performance - so then limited power by reducing permitted fuel VOLUMEENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑14 Jul 2020, 14:49The weren't running "pump gas" in the turbo 80s, they were running toluene and other crazy stuff, I can't remember if they still had the octane limit then though.
I didn't know they removed the ON limit for 2014, or maybe I just don't remember, getting old.
Very interesting, thanks.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑15 Jul 2020, 13:06the FIA assumed fuel rules amounted to pump gas performance - so then limited power by reducing permitted fuel VOLUMEENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑14 Jul 2020, 14:49The weren't running "pump gas" in the turbo 80s, they were running toluene and other crazy stuff, I can't remember if they still had the octane limit then though.
I didn't know they removed the ON limit for 2014, or maybe I just don't remember, getting old.
but rules didn't amount to pump gas performance - as dense fuels eg toluene have far more energy per litre (not per kg)
eg 84% toluene with 16% n-heptane (which is zero octane) gave fuel with pump gas octane (102 RON or whatever)
but far more than pump gas energy per litre
so then a second reduction in fuel volume had to be made (and NA cars were exempted from these volume reductions)
significantly the 2014 etc fuel had a MINIMUM octane number (of 75) - presumably to exclude compression-ignition engines
Then they should use straight up pump fuel, will make the car sing!PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑15 Jul 2020, 00:04The fuels they use now are the same species as pump gas.. Except if the pump fuel is Susan Boyle the F1 designer fuel is Adrianna Lima.
Only the best molecules are hand picked basically. So combustion is way more efficient and quicker.
“Since last year, a lot of TDs have been released, eventually clarifying some of the areas of the regulations,” he said in Friday’s team principal’s press conference. “I think that through those TDs, we had to adapt ourselves. I don’t think it’s only the case of Ferrari, because looking at the power output of this season I think most of the manufacturers somehow have had to adapt themselves.
