Yeah same logic applies to the static load tests: even if your bodywork bends 10cm on camera, it will still be deemed legal if you pass the standard test.PhillipM wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 16:48I think it's more likely they're actively switching rapidly between cells for H and K depending on state of charge and instantaneous demand, so the virtual battery size for each is constantly in flux and you may have a cell that is charging one millisecond from the H and the next discharging to the K, the next to the H.
You could have an engineered in phase lag in there then, so perhaps it's enough to add up to a brief power surge at the K on a corner exit that the sensor can't differentiate between.
Hence the need for extra software monitoring and more sensors later in the year.
Without the exact knowledge of the sensors used it's hard to work out what you could actually get though.
Technically you'd be within the rules if they're worded that the reading at the sensor must not exceed 'x kw at any time', I'd have to re-read them to check.
turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:00Yeah same logic applies to the static load tests: even if your bodywork bends 10cm on camera, it will still be deemed legal if you pass the standard test.PhillipM wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 16:48I think it's more likely they're actively switching rapidly between cells for H and K depending on state of charge and instantaneous demand, so the virtual battery size for each is constantly in flux and you may have a cell that is charging one millisecond from the H and the next discharging to the K, the next to the H.
You could have an engineered in phase lag in there then, so perhaps it's enough to add up to a brief power surge at the K on a corner exit that the sensor can't differentiate between.
Hence the need for extra software monitoring and more sensors later in the year.
Without the exact knowledge of the sensors used it's hard to work out what you could actually get though.
Technically you'd be within the rules if they're worded that the reading at the sensor must not exceed 'x kw at any time', I'd have to re-read them to check.
I'm not sure if Ferrari is doing that, but if they are, they aren't cheating. Just going very extreme to follow the letter of the rule and nothing more.
What you seek might actually be written down in Technical Directives. Infact, there are other sensors in there for sure which are only mentioned by the FIA in 8.2.2 and in an appendix. This is stuff to which to public has no access to unfortunaly.
That's a moral question which isn't suited to be asked here. Formula 1's modus operandi generally is "if it follows the letter of the rule, it is legal". Anyway, we haven't even established what Ferrari is doing anyway. Any notion of "cheating" is still a long way off. Let's leave it at that before we get off topic philosophical chatter around here.djones wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:40turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:00Yeah same logic applies to the static load tests: even if your bodywork bends 10cm on camera, it will still be deemed legal if you pass the standard test.PhillipM wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 16:48I think it's more likely they're actively switching rapidly between cells for H and K depending on state of charge and instantaneous demand, so the virtual battery size for each is constantly in flux and you may have a cell that is charging one millisecond from the H and the next discharging to the K, the next to the H.
You could have an engineered in phase lag in there then, so perhaps it's enough to add up to a brief power surge at the K on a corner exit that the sensor can't differentiate between.
Hence the need for extra software monitoring and more sensors later in the year.
Without the exact knowledge of the sensors used it's hard to work out what you could actually get though.
Technically you'd be within the rules if they're worded that the reading at the sensor must not exceed 'x kw at any time', I'd have to re-read them to check.
I'm not sure if Ferrari is doing that, but if they are, they aren't cheating. Just going very extreme to follow the letter of the rule and nothing more.
What you seek might actually be written down in Technical Directives. Infact, there are other sensors in there for sure which are only mentioned by the FIA in 8.2.2 and in an appendix. This is stuff to which to public has no access to unfortunaly.
But would you also say the bodywork bending 10cm is not cheating?
If an athlete uses a performance enhancing drug that is new and cannot be tested for - is that cheating?
In my mind both examples are 'cheating' despite a play on words in the rules.
That actually is not Formula 1's modus operandi, rather it's following the spirit of the rules.turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:45That's a moral question which isn't suited to be asked here. Formula 1's modus operandi generally is "if it follows the letter of the rule, it is legal". Anyway, we haven't even established what Ferrari is doing anyway. Any notion of "cheating" is still a long way off. Let's leave it at that before we get off topic philosophical chatter around here.djones wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:40turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:00
Yeah same logic applies to the static load tests: even if your bodywork bends 10cm on camera, it will still be deemed legal if you pass the standard test.
I'm not sure if Ferrari is doing that, but if they are, they aren't cheating. Just going very extreme to follow the letter of the rule and nothing more.
What you seek might actually be written down in Technical Directives. Infact, there are other sensors in there for sure which are only mentioned by the FIA in 8.2.2 and in an appendix. This is stuff to which to public has no access to unfortunaly.
But would you also say the bodywork bending 10cm is not cheating?
If an athlete uses a performance enhancing drug that is new and cannot be tested for - is that cheating?
In my mind both examples are 'cheating' despite a play on words in the rules.
But in most cases it is black and white where it will be enforced. Statements like 'must withstand a force of xxx' mean just that. 'At no time shall exceed' also means just that.hurril wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 18:49That actually is not Formula 1's modus operandi, rather it's following the spirit of the rules.turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 17:45That's a moral question which isn't suited to be asked here. Formula 1's modus operandi generally is "if it follows the letter of the rule, it is legal". Anyway, we haven't even established what Ferrari is doing anyway. Any notion of "cheating" is still a long way off. Let's leave it at that before we get off topic philosophical chatter around here.
rscsr wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 08:54I haven't found anything in the technical regulations that would require them to have only one battery (or only one set of connections). It just says there is one ES. The only limit would be that the chart says that there is one sensor, that monitors all energy flowing from and to the ES. But that is easily solvable by using a common ground, where the sensor is connected to and have 2 terminals for the MGU-K and MGU-H.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 08:05Nope. One set of connections where the voltage is taken from. Unlikely two voltage outputs doing there own thing are considered one battery.
I take it he will have 12 more horses but they wony be " unlocked" for reliability fears.pantherxxx wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 15:09"According to rumors filtering from Maranello the new unit of Seb will have a dozen more horsepower, but will not have the head with the merger more thrust that was expected in Canada for reasons of reliability. Better not to take risks.
The Ferrari 2 engine that will be fitted on Sebastian Vettel's SF71H in the Canadian GP will have a high engine part that has been lightened and will have some modifications in the combustion chamber, but it will not be the head in the more powerful fusion that had been planned in the 2018 season development plan.
The German driver will have, however, a dozen more horses, but can not rely on the most performance version that was expected in Montreal. The reason is simple: the technical director Mattia Binotto does not want surprises in terms of reliability"
This is from it.motorsport.com
So if I understand it well, the new Ferrari PU from Canada will bring 12 extra horsepowers, but later it will be even more? Maybe 20?
Just read the original article and this is what it is saying:PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 03:29I take it he will have 12 more horses but they wony be " unlocked" for reliability fears.pantherxxx wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 15:09"According to rumors filtering from Maranello the new unit of Seb will have a dozen more horsepower, but will not have the head with the merger more thrust that was expected in Canada for reasons of reliability. Better not to take risks.
The Ferrari 2 engine that will be fitted on Sebastian Vettel's SF71H in the Canadian GP will have a high engine part that has been lightened and will have some modifications in the combustion chamber, but it will not be the head in the more powerful fusion that had been planned in the 2018 season development plan.
The German driver will have, however, a dozen more horses, but can not rely on the most performance version that was expected in Montreal. The reason is simple: the technical director Mattia Binotto does not want surprises in terms of reliability"
This is from it.motorsport.com
So if I understand it well, the new Ferrari PU from Canada will bring 12 extra horsepowers, but later it will be even more? Maybe 20?
Yes, it was smoking as usual.djones wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 10:24Did anybody notice if the Ferrari was doing its usual smoking in Monaco?
I did not see it, but then I did not see the FP sessions or qualifying.
For me that is one of the interesting things because if it still smokes, I think the whole oil burning thing via the turbo is false and nothing more than a rumor.
I'm pretty sure that's not what he was referring to.LM10 wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 12:21Yes, it was smoking as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-AytoaxCQ0#t=0m17s