Have Ferrari found a loophole in engine freeze?

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/spor ... _13987.hbs

Rumours of a performance gain under reliability guise

It is common knowledge that, not only are the Maranello based team's drivers getting the best starts off the grid, the V8 power plant in the back of the F2008 is now perhaps the most powerful in the entire field.

Last year, however, the engine situation between teams seemed closer, leading to suggestions that Ferrari's permitted tweaks for 2008 have added tangible performance to the unit.

The German magazine Auto Motor und Sport estimates Ferrari's horse power gain compared to last year at 'within the two-digit range'.

Most engine manufacturers made permitted tweaks to their V8 designs over the winter, but it is rumoured that some rival teams are unhappy that Ferrari's changes - apparently green-lighted by the FIA - seem to have resulted in a significant performance gain.

Auto Motor und Sport said Ferrari's rivals are concerned that the Italian team's 2008 changes were submitted "under the pretext of reliability problems".

"The (engine freeze) rules do not allow any great leaps. So whether a development has taken place to increase performance, I cannot judge," BMW motor sport director Mario Theissen said at Istanbul Park.

"But I assume the normal procedures have taken place. I have no suspicions," he added.

AMS is traditionally close to the silver star. If there is anything to this rumor a protest would be a good idea. The rules forbid that Hp gains are made and it is the teams obligation to stay inside the rules. If Ferrari have cheated it can be easily found. The FIA can always make a bench test with the two different versions by an independant lab.

There could be other explanations for the quick starts. Ferrari have changed their rear suspension significantly as scarbs has reported in his season opening report. are they just getting more traction out of their suspension and engine map than others? they have significant know how with Bridgestone tyres and perhaps they have found a tweak that other teams havn't.

Luca Marmorini has hinted at other legal ways to gain an advantage. If you improve fuel efficiency you can gain significant weight advantages. so performance can come from legal engine developments and aero efficiency gains and translate into significantly less fuel weight compared with less efficient cars. the report talks about changes to the pistons. that could hint at a different more efficient combustion process in combination with different injection.

[Scotracer]

I was going to make a thread about this earlier but thought it would turn out to be a simple explanation. My query was that if anyone was as anal as me and was watching the Live timing for the free practice today you would see that the Ferraris were significantly faster in a straight line than anything else, at all parts of the track. On the back straight, before Turn 12 Kimi reached 321km/h without a draft where as the others struggled to top 310km/h in the same scenario.

At first, I thought it was down to them running less aero but their wings seemed to have the same angle of attack as the other cars and they were much faster in the tighter sections of the track too.

Hmmm

[JiMbO]

what about changes in their gearbox ratios or a more efficent transmission??

and if they have removed some electronics like tc etc... thats less engine power used up to power them which would have a slight increase in hp reaching the rear tyres

[mikep99]

I just wonder if below quote could possible have something to do with it.
Just a thought ?

In 2004, Ferrari also surpassed Ford as the most successful F1 engine manufacturer, with 182 wins (to Ford's 176 wins). Due to the availability of the Cosworth V8 to private teams, a total of 6,639 Ford-powered cars were entered between 1967 and 2004, compared to 1,979 starts for Ferrari and Petronas-badged engines during the same period.

[Giblet]

Fred Dernie says about the current Ferrarri:

"The McLaren philosophy gets the best out of the tyres, which probably explains their superiority on low-speed circuits where the tyre is more important"..."Ferrari's approach depends on running more rear wing, which could potentially cost top speed. They have therefore mastered the complex area of legal aero elasticity in order to optimise the the aero performance as the car speed changes. When you get it right - and it's incredibly tricky to do consistant and legally - it can produce a substantial advantage."

[freedom_honda]

i would not be surprised if they really did managed to find a loophole because thats what they are good at and it has happened many times.
for example last year Aus GP with their movable floor

[Miguel]

A few weeks ago, a press conference with many senior engineers focused in the engine freeze. Renault, for example, admitted taking the rule literally, and that no performace had been gained since Sep. 2006. Alonso definitely wants to change this. I think it was Domenically who suggested (correction: it was Aldo Costa) that Ferrari didn't take the rule as seriously as Renault. I'm trying to find a link and will post it as soon as possible.

IIt's curious that in 2006 Renault had a pretty good engine and McLaren didn't. 2 years later, with an engine freeze, the Mercedes Benz unit is one of the best while the Renault is no longer a top engine.

Fernando's comments were on the line of "Even with the engine freeze, you can still change a few parts. A bearing here, something over there. Small things that give a small advantage. However, 2hp here and 5hp there, and you might have 15hp more in a few months". I personally disagree with his opinion, but once one of your rivals starts developing his engine, you're in an arms race.

Great. I've found the link. It is the Friday Press Conference - Spain. It was an unusually insightful conference, that was already linked here. Comments on the engine freeze arise from the following question of Mike Doodson:

Q: (Mike Doodson) I'm interested to know if the changes made over the last three or four years have saved money and if they will save money in the future?

[bizadfar]

A few weeks ago, a press conference with many senior engineers focused in the engine freeze. Renault, for example, admitted taking the rule literally, and that no performace had been gained since Sep. 2006. Alonso definitely wants to change this. I think it was Domenically who suggested (correction: it was Aldo Costa) that Ferrari didn't take the rule as seriously as Renault. I'm trying to find a link and will post it as soon as possible.

IIt's curious that in 2006 Renault had a pretty good engine and McLaren didn't. 2 years later, with an engine freeze, the Mercedes Benz unit is one of the best while the Renault is no longer a top engine.

Fernando's comments were on the line of "Even with the engine freeze, you can still change a few parts. A bearing here, something over there. Small things that give a small advantage. However, 2hp here and 5hp there, and you might have 15hp more in a few months". I personally disagree with his opinion, but once one of your rivals starts developing his engine, you're in an arms race.

Great. I've found the link. It is the Friday Press Conference - Spain. It was an unusually insightful conference, that was already linked here. Comments on the engine freeze arise from the following question of Mike Doodson:

Q: (Mike Doodson) I'm interested to know if the changes made over the last three or four years have saved money and if they will save money in the future?

The developed 2006 unit from Benz/Illmor was actually very good. One of the highest revving units and the most hp/tq. They were up there with Renault/Ferrari/BMW by Brazil, that's for sure. Yes they had a slow start.

[Miguel]

The developed 2006 unit from Benz/Illmor was actually very good. One of the highest revving units and the most hp/tq. They were up there with Renault/Ferrari/BMW by Brazil, that's for sure. Yes they had a slow start.

Ah, thanks for the point. I had heard that the MB engine was indeed one of the highest-revving units, well over 20k rpm (did they get to 22k?), but I thought they were really lacking in the torque department. Anyway, your comment makes a lot of sense, because Kimi couldn't have gotten the pole at Monza with a weak engine. Top speed (at qualy) wasn't that impressive, though.

[donskar]

Does the term "Yellow Journalism" translate? I hope so, because this thread exemplifies the term - take a loose thread of contradictory conjecture and weave an entire coat of conspiracy out of it.

I'm at work, so forgive my hurried typing. Please read CAREFULLY the initial post and work out some points for yourself, for example:

Auto Motor und Sport is identified as

traditionally close to the silver star.

Hmmmmm. Good starting point for analysis.

BMW motor sport director Mario Theissen is quoted as saying

I assume the normal procedures have taken place. I have no suspicions

Seems pretty clear. Do we need to dissect "I have no suspicions"?

We are also told that

It is common knowledge that, not only are the Maranello based team's drivers getting the best starts off the grid

Funny isn't it, when Renault had the advantage, no one accused them of breaking any rules . . .

A possible HP advantage is attributed to

Ferrari's permitted tweaks for 2008

"Permitted." Let's see now: how can we twist "permitted" into "illegal"? I trust someone will in a future post.

I like this bit (emphasis added):

Most engine manufacturers made permitted tweaks to their V8 designs over the winter, but it is rumoured that some rival teams are unhappy that Ferrari's changes - apparently green-lighted by the FIA - seem to have resulted in a significant performance gain.

Could it be that Ferrari simply did a better job at their "permitted" and "green-lighted" changes than some of the other teams? Could it be that the rumor mongers can not accept that Ferrari can build a better engine than Mercedes and BMW? I have heard a rumor that Ferrari has some background in the design and development of F1 engines.

Is it at all possible that Ferrari MIGHT be legal? Well some Italian guy is quoted. He has some credibility, having been co-number one engine designer at Ferrari, and is now in charge of Toyota's F1 engines (emphasis added):

Luca Marmorini has hinted at other legal ways to gain an advantage. If you improve fuel efficiency you can gain significant weight advantages. so performance can come from legal engine developments and aero efficiency gains and translate into significantly less fuel weight compared with less efficient cars. the report talks about changes to the pistons. that could hint at a different more efficient combustion process in combination with different injection.

Please note the use of "loaded" language like "hinted at." As if it is a deep dark secret that Shell, Mobil, et al can reduce the weight and eficiency of their fuel, providing more HP with no engine changes at all. Or that F1 engines are so complex that miniscule legal changes can produce more power and or torque.

Anyone interested in the race this weekend? If Ferrari does not win, I suggest that the winner is using an oversize engine, is underweight, is using illegal fuel, and is constructed out of a beryllium-unobtainium alloy. After all, how can you beat a cheater with a legal car?

[flynfrog]

and is constructed out of a beryllium-unobtainium alloy. After all, how can you beat a cheater with a legal car?

unobtainium Ive been trying to source that for years

[Miguel]

Does the term "Yellow Journalism" translate? I hope so, because this thread exemplifies the term - take a loose thread of contradictory conjecture and weave an entire coat of conspiracy out of it.

Mmm... I do think the question is a legitimate one. After all, at first sight "engine freeze" and "performance enhancement" are contradictory concepts. My answer to the question is no, they haven't found a loophole. The FIA knowingly left that hole there. It is preferable to have a team spending a hundred million euros to gain 15HP than it is to leave two teams without any chance for the next X years because their 2006 engine was unreliable. With the current regulations, performance enhancement is really expensive unless you radically improve your understanding of your engine.

We are also told that It is common knowledge that, not only are the Maranello based team's drivers getting the best starts off the grid Funny isn't it, when Renault had the advantage, no one accused them of breaking any rules...

To be fair, Renault had the best starts in 2004, when Launch Control, Traction Control and probably automatic gerboxes were still allowed. Furthermore, the engines weren't frozen back then and it is widely known that one of the reasons why the R24 was so quick off the line was a rearwards weight bias, which caused problems in other parts of the track. And yes, people were complaining about the legality of their electronics.

Is it at all possible that Ferrari MIGHT be legal?

I believe that the Ferrari is borderline legal. But I also believe all other cars are borderline legal. If not, they aren't trying enough. For example, I consider the flexi-floor a legal device because you have a physically stupid regulation: The car is rigid and must not flex. Because this is stupid, you have to define a test of what is rigid enough. Ferrari interpreted the rules and bypassed the test in style, a proof of brilliant engineering.

Let's have a look at a couple of current rear wings: the McLaren MP4-23 (or -22, I'm not sure) and the Renault R28
It's commonly said that the rear wing generates around 1/3 of the total downforce. As I have nearly no idea of aerodynamics, I'll use this value. Taking tire mu as 1.7, and as the cars go through Turn 8 at over 4g's, we'd have a rear wing providing over 270 kG at that corner. I don't believe these wings don't flex under those loads... especially when the top plane appears to be supported with "hinges". I'd go as far as saying that the rear wing mount favours a reduction of Cx at high speed. In a sense, these wings are also using a loophole.

After all, how can you beat a cheater with a legal car?

With the current rules.. fuel your first car short, and cause a safety car period with your second car right after the first car pitted. You might cause your rivals to have stop and go penalties or even running out of fuel if they risk too much.

[Project Four]

Does the term "Yellow Journalism" translate? I hope so, because this thread exemplifies the term - take a loose thread of contradictory conjecture and weave an entire coat of conspiracy out of it

The F1 author and journalist Maurice Hamilton referred to the article today on BBC Radio 5, and stated that the German journalist who wrote the article is widely respected in the F1 paddock and his opinion’s do carry some weight and as such it is commonly believed in the F1 community that there is some degree of truth in these rumours.

He went on to say that Ferrari had made changes to their engine over the winter on the basis that the parts were changed to improve reliability. This on the most reliable engine on the grid !!!.

FIA can clear this up by listing what was changed and why, so other engineers can comment on whether there is any substances in the rumours and on the basis of total openness also list what any other teams have changed.

[bhall]

FIA can clear this up by listing what was changed and why, so other engineers can comment on whether there is any substances in the rumours and on the basis of total openness also list what any other teams have changed.

Why? This so-called loophole in the rules is free to be exploited by any team. It's up to each team to decide how best to utilize their talents and resources in interpreting the rules of the sport. If this year's results to date are any indication of the teams' abilities in doing that, Ferrari have simply done it better than anyone else.

Don't like it? Catch up.

[WhiteBlue]

It is bad taste to launch complaints in the media instead of demanding an answer by the FIA. The team that thinks Ferrari cheated should pay 2000 € and post a complaint. The FIA can quickly establish if power has improved or not.