Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
outsid3r
5
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by outsid3r » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:06 am

According to SKY it was an issue with the intercooler. No idea how an intercooler could create that plume of smoke (unless the smoke was not caused by oil but by a water leak from the the air to water system). SKY also said that Ferrari investigated all new-spec engines and found a similar issue (waiting to happen) on RAI's car. They were allowed to change the intercooler before the race even under parc-ferme rules on the grounds that it was dangerous to leave it as is. It was a manufacturing problem not a design flaw.

Hope Ferrari keeps an eye on quality assurance as it would have looked very bad if one of the works cars retired with a similar issue during the race...

wuzak
344
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by wuzak » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:30 am

Picked up by some posters on the Autosport forums, the FIA may have been monitoring Ferrari's ERS during the race.

https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 0681532422

Vettel mentioned having to do a lot of settings changes mid race, and it appears this may have been at the direction of the FIA, monitoring the ERS. Raikkonen was doing the same stuff at the same time.

Big Mangalhit
53
User avatar
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Big Mangalhit » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:39 am

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:30 am
Picked up by some posters on the Autosport forums, the FIA may have been monitoring Ferrari's ERS during the race.

https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 0681532422

Vettel mentioned having to do a lot of settings changes mid race, and it appears this may have been at the direction of the FIA, monitoring the ERS. Raikkonen was doing the same stuff at the same time.
If true this is ridiculous, FIA should never be asking such complex tasks on drivers during the race it can completely change the result if the driver does a mistake (like when maldonado crashed cause he was changing settings, except it was on a FP).
If the driver makes a mistake when he is changing to his likings it is okay but if it is for scrutiny of FIA that seems wrong. They should be able to control this remotely or something.

MtthsMlw
353
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by MtthsMlw » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 am

Big Mangalhit wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:39 am
wuzak wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:30 am
Picked up by some posters on the Autosport forums, the FIA may have been monitoring Ferrari's ERS during the race.

https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 0681532422

Vettel mentioned having to do a lot of settings changes mid race, and it appears this may have been at the direction of the FIA, monitoring the ERS. Raikkonen was doing the same stuff at the same time.
If true this is ridiculous, FIA should never be asking such complex tasks on drivers during the race it can completely change the result if the driver does a mistake (like when maldonado crashed cause he was changing settings, except it was on a FP).
If the driver makes a mistake when he is changing to his likings it is okay but if it is for scrutiny of FIA that seems wrong. They should be able to control this remotely or something.
It's true that he had to do a lot of changes mid race. I listened to the team radio and he often got instructions to switch 'driver default zero on off on off' and stuff like that. No idea what this means obviously. He also had trouble understanding what he had to do; having to ask if he pressed the right buttons and switches.

zac510
37
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by zac510 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:43 am

MtthsMlw wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 am
Big Mangalhit wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:39 am
wuzak wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:30 am
Picked up by some posters on the Autosport forums, the FIA may have been monitoring Ferrari's ERS during the race.

https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 0681532422

Vettel mentioned having to do a lot of settings changes mid race, and it appears this may have been at the direction of the FIA, monitoring the ERS. Raikkonen was doing the same stuff at the same time.
If true this is ridiculous, FIA should never be asking such complex tasks on drivers during the race it can completely change the result if the driver does a mistake (like when maldonado crashed cause he was changing settings, except it was on a FP).
If the driver makes a mistake when he is changing to his likings it is okay but if it is for scrutiny of FIA that seems wrong. They should be able to control this remotely or something.
It's true that he had to do a lot of changes mid race. I listened to the team radio and he often got instructions to switch 'driver default zero on off on off' and stuff like that. No idea what this means obviously. He also had trouble understanding what he had to do; having to ask if he pressed the right buttons and switches.
That it was an instruction from the FIA seems like pure speculation on the twitter user's part. Is there any evidence at all that it was a request from the FIA?

zac510
37
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by zac510 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:46 am

outsid3r wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:06 am
According to SKY it was an issue with the intercooler. No idea how an intercooler could create that plume of smoke (unless the smoke was not caused by oil but by a water leak from the the air to water system). SKY also said that Ferrari investigated all new-spec engines and found a similar issue (waiting to happen) on RAI's car. They were allowed to change the intercooler before the race even under parc-ferme rules on the grounds that it was dangerous to leave it as is. It was a manufacturing problem not a design flaw.

Hope Ferrari keeps an eye on quality assurance as it would have looked very bad if one of the works cars retired with a similar issue during the race...
The only thing I can think of is if oil were to leak from the compressor seal of the turbo and pool in the bottom of the intercooler or piping (as it's probably the low point of the system) while the car is resting in the pits, and then be pushed into the engine when it is fired up. However this does not seem likely to be caused by a manufacturing problem.

rscsr
61
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:02 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by rscsr » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:24 pm

zac510 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:46 am
outsid3r wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:06 am
According to SKY it was an issue with the intercooler. No idea how an intercooler could create that plume of smoke (unless the smoke was not caused by oil but by a water leak from the the air to water system). SKY also said that Ferrari investigated all new-spec engines and found a similar issue (waiting to happen) on RAI's car. They were allowed to change the intercooler before the race even under parc-ferme rules on the grounds that it was dangerous to leave it as is. It was a manufacturing problem not a design flaw.

Hope Ferrari keeps an eye on quality assurance as it would have looked very bad if one of the works cars retired with a similar issue during the race...
The only thing I can think of is if oil were to leak from the compressor seal of the turbo and pool in the bottom of the intercooler or piping (as it's probably the low point of the system) while the car is resting in the pits, and then be pushed into the engine when it is fired up. However this does not seem likely to be caused by a manufacturing problem.
To me it doesn't look like oil. That pure white smoke is water in my book. And there was absolutely no fire or black smoke mixed in. So water/air intercooler damage sounds about right to me.

wuzak
344
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by wuzak » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:29 pm

zac510 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:43 am
MtthsMlw wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 am
Big Mangalhit wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:39 am


If true this is ridiculous, FIA should never be asking such complex tasks on drivers during the race it can completely change the result if the driver does a mistake (like when maldonado crashed cause he was changing settings, except it was on a FP).
If the driver makes a mistake when he is changing to his likings it is okay but if it is for scrutiny of FIA that seems wrong. They should be able to control this remotely or something.
It's true that he had to do a lot of changes mid race. I listened to the team radio and he often got instructions to switch 'driver default zero on off on off' and stuff like that. No idea what this means obviously. He also had trouble understanding what he had to do; having to ask if he pressed the right buttons and switches.
That it was an instruction from the FIA seems like pure speculation on the twitter user's part. Is there any evidence at all that it was a request from the FIA?
Vettel meanwhile was maintaining his lead over Bottas at around 4.5-5sec, neither having stopped yet but still lapping quicker than anyone else. As the tyres wore down, Vettel locked up into the chicane, but without really flat-spotting them. He was being asked to complete all sorts of systems switches at around this time. “At some stages I was saying, ‘Ok, when I am allowed to drive again?’ They were just managing something in the background. Otherwise car was beautiful today.”

So what was it that needed to be managed? “It wasn’t a problem with the car,” related a Ferrari spokesman, “just something we need to do to satisfy the FIA.” This is believed to be related to proving that no advantage is being taken of the twin battery layout being used to circumnavigate the FIA energy deployment sensors.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

SQA333
0
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by SQA333 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:54 am

MtthsMlw wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 am

So what was it that needed to be managed? “It wasn’t a problem with the car,” related a Ferrari spokesman, “just something we need to do to satisfy the FIA.” This is believed to be related to proving that no advantage is being taken of the twin battery layout being used to circumnavigate the FIA energy deployment sensors.


Basically he's had to do all this to satisfy a very resentful Allison and Sassi.

PhillipM
183
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by PhillipM » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:48 am

rscsr wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:24 pm
To me it doesn't look like oil. That pure white smoke is water in my book. And there was absolutely no fire or black smoke mixed in. So water/air intercooler damage sounds about right to me.
Off-white smoke is exactly what aerosoled unburnt oil looks like when it's going through in large quantities. Try cranking a diesel pump right up and you'll see the same thing.

Sevach
721
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Sevach » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:00 am

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:29 pm

Vettel meanwhile was maintaining his lead over Bottas at around 4.5-5sec, neither having stopped yet but still lapping quicker than anyone else. As the tyres wore down, Vettel locked up into the chicane, but without really flat-spotting them. He was being asked to complete all sorts of systems switches at around this time. “At some stages I was saying, ‘Ok, when I am allowed to drive again?’ They were just managing something in the background. Otherwise car was beautiful today.”

So what was it that needed to be managed? “It wasn’t a problem with the car,” related a Ferrari spokesman, “just something we need to do to satisfy the FIA.” This is believed to be related to proving that no advantage is being taken of the twin battery layout being used to circumnavigate the FIA energy deployment sensors.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report
Wow totally ridiculous.

bosyber
19
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by bosyber » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:25 am

Yeah, pretty ridiculous that Ferrari have to bother their drivers to change settings so they stay within legal limits everyone else also has to stay within too, and the FIA get the blame for asking them to stick to the rules.

Sure, it might be that the FIA now monitoring them closely makes it imperative that they do this, but make no mistake, it was Ferrari that designed the system such that staying legal during the race requires this extra work from the drivers.

I can accept the "if it isn't tested and caught, it was effectively legal" for now - Red Bull ran more or less all their championship years that way, in my opinion - but, then being caught it is not the fault of the FIA for checking; it is on the team who decide to not change the system to comply when needed but rather take the risk, and in this case rather ask the drivers to do it for them while driving. It might not be possible to change the system w/o redesign, but that's part of the risk Ferrari took to get an apparent advantage before, and again, tough luck.

Remember, at the start of 2014, Red Bull tried something like this with a different interpretation of the fuel-flow calibration - they had Ricciardo disqualified for it, because they effectively kept running ran an out-of-spec. car; being not-within-spec. is a disqualifying error. FIA warning a team (like they did Red Bull during the Australia 2014 GP, and possibly Ferrari during the Canadian 2018 GP weekend) that they are at risk of being disqualified is a kindness FIA does, so the team can make amends and they can keep racing. Ferrari had to ask the drivers to change settings to get there. I'd hope that for the next race they fix the system to make that unnecessary, because it is indeed not great.

Still, they got a solid win, so I think they might also think they made the right choice of not upsetting a working set-up here ...

All in my opinion, of course.
Last edited by bosyber on Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

J.A.W.
80
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by J.A.W. » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:01 am

A Vettel Ferrari win in Canada stands as a result - no?

Tha's mos' def' - a "win", fo' sho'!..
Dr Zachary Smith sez..
"Yes.. spare us your ridiculous remarks, you insensitive idiot!"

JPBD1990
12
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by JPBD1990 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:24 pm

bosyber wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:25 am
Yeah, pretty ridiculous that Ferrari have to bother their drivers to change settings so they stay within legal limits everyone else also has to stay within too, and the FIA get the blame for asking them to stick to the rules.

Sure, it might be that the FIA now monitoring them closely makes it imperative that they do this, but make no mistake, it was Ferrari that designed the system such that staying legal during the race requires this extra work from the drivers.

I can accept the "if it isn't tested and caught, it was effectively legal" for now - Red Bull ran more or less all their championship years that way, in my opinion - but, then being caught it is not the fault of the FIA for checking; it is on the team who decide to not change the system to comply when needed but rather take the risk, and in this case rather ask the drivers to do it for them while driving. It might not be possible to change the system w/o redesign, but that's part of the risk Ferrari took to get an apparent advantage before, and again, tough luck.

Remember, at the start of 2014, Red Bull tried something like this with a different interpretation of the fuel-flow calibration - they had Ricciardo disqualified for it, because they effectively kept running ran an out-of-spec. car; being not-within-spec. is a disqualifying error. FIA warning a team (like they did Red Bull during the Australia 2014 GP, and possibly Ferrari during the Canadian 2018 GP weekend) that they are at risk of being disqualified is a kindness FIA does, so the team can make amends and they can keep racing. Ferrari had to ask the drivers to change settings to get there. I'd hope that for the next race they fix the system to make that unnecessary, because it is indeed not great.

Still, they got a solid win, so I think they might also think they made the right choice of not upsetting a working set-up here ...

All in my opinion, of course.
Ferrari repeatedly changed settings, and back, to demonstrate the affect those changes had on data being collected by the FIA. It was to determine their systems legality, not to manipulate it into remaining within the legal guidelines.

I’m not even going to broach whether or not it’s legal as I feel that is wasted on you, but this was testing done by the FIA to determine legality. This was not a manipulation by Ferrari to prevent the discovery of the illegality of their PU. The outcome, at that point, was not determined. It was testing.
Last edited by JPBD1990 on Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Webber2011
41
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:01 am
Location: Australia NSW

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Webber2011 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:37 pm

JPBD1990 wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:24 pm
bosyber wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:25 am
Yeah, pretty ridiculous that Ferrari have to bother their drivers to change settings so they stay within legal limits everyone else also has to stay within too, and the FIA get the blame for asking them to stick to the rules.

Sure, it might be that the FIA now monitoring them closely makes it imperative that they do this, but make no mistake, it was Ferrari that designed the system such that staying legal during the race requires this extra work from the drivers.

I can accept the "if it isn't tested and caught, it was effectively legal" for now - Red Bull ran more or less all their championship years that way, in my opinion - but, then being caught it is not the fault of the FIA for checking; it is on the team who decide to not change the system to comply when needed but rather take the risk, and in this case rather ask the drivers to do it for them while driving. It might not be possible to change the system w/o redesign, but that's part of the risk Ferrari took to get an apparent advantage before, and again, tough luck.

Remember, at the start of 2014, Red Bull tried something like this with a different interpretation of the fuel-flow calibration - they had Ricciardo disqualified for it, because they effectively kept running ran an out-of-spec. car; being not-within-spec. is a disqualifying error. FIA warning a team (like they did Red Bull during the Australia 2014 GP, and possibly Ferrari during the Canadian 2018 GP weekend) that they are at risk of being disqualified is a kindness FIA does, so the team can make amends and they can keep racing. Ferrari had to ask the drivers to change settings to get there. I'd hope that for the next race they fix the system to make that unnecessary, because it is indeed not great.

Still, they got a solid win, so I think they might also think they made the right choice of not upsetting a working set-up here ...

All in my opinion, of course.
Presumptive and filled with hyperbole and bias. To imply that Vettel was changing settings to remain within legal guidelines is ridiculous. Ferrari repeatedly changed settings, and back, to demonstrate the affect those changes had on data being collected by the FIA. It was to determine their systems legality, not to manipulate it into remaining within the legal guidelines.

I’m not even going to broach whether or not it’s legal as I feel that is wasted on you, but this was testing done by the FIA to determine legality. This was not a manipulation by Ferrari to prevent the discovery of the illegality of their PU. The outcome, at that point, was not determined. It was testing.
What a terribly rude reply to a post that made quite a deal of sense.
You need to get off the "coffee" and calm down a bit

All I saw suggested was that maybe, (as in the past with Red Bull), those from above gave Ferarri a chance to conform BEFORE breaking a rule

Is it not possible that was exactly what happened ?
Seems to be backed up quite well with a precedent ?