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).wuzak wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 02:30Picked 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.
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.Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 09:39If 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).wuzak wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 02:30Picked 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 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.
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?MtthsMlw wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 11:13It'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.Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 09:39If 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).wuzak wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 02:30Picked 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 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.
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.outsid3r wrote: ↑11 Jun 2018, 09:06According 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...
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.zac510 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 11:46The 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.outsid3r wrote: ↑11 Jun 2018, 09:06According 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...
zac510 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 11:43That 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?MtthsMlw wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 11:13It'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.Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 09:39
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.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-reportVettel 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.
MtthsMlw wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 11:13
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.
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.
Wow totally ridiculous.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Jun 2018, 15:29
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-reportVettel 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.
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.bosyber wrote: ↑13 Jun 2018, 09:25Yeah, 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.
What a terribly rude reply to a post that made quite a deal of sense.JPBD1990 wrote: ↑13 Jun 2018, 14:24Presumptive 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.bosyber wrote: ↑13 Jun 2018, 09:25Yeah, 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.
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.