The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:17 pm
There are very few sites being English based or not that I don’t visit, I never recon reading a single hint about the possibility of anything to do with the PU106 being illegal.
Oil burning was spoken about at length for at least a year prior to your joining this forum. I recall saying that the Merc was mainly a hybrid in the sense of its two hydrocarbon fuel sources. I guess Merc fans are less sensitive about these sorts of jabs.

djones
djones
23
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:01 pm

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
7
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
As far as I know all formula 1 cars and that from far before the advent of the present hybrid power unit all and without exception had an auxiliary oil tank with a facility (button) on the steering wheel by which the driver could transfer and top-up oil in the main engine oil tank as need be.

LM10
LM10
133
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
It's pretty clear that you're not an expert (just like me), but you could use common sense at least. Since you're still being of the opinion that Ferrari was the only engine which burnt oil then please tell me why you think Mercedes were the only ones introducing it's next spec engine in Spa, reportedly and also logically to keep the advantage of oil burning. As you might remember, the amount of burning oil was decreased for all engines after Monza. And that was a known thing.

Ferrari's engine was in scrutiny, but you know what? It was found to be legal. Did you miss that? And you tell me which team pushed all this investigation thing all the way.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
7
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
As far as I know all cars on the grid, and that from well before the present hybrid power unit all has a Auxiliary oil tank with a facility (button) on the steering wheel so as the driver can top-up the main engine oil tank.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
529
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

who cares. lock this crap of a thread.
. . . . . .. .... ..

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
Euhm no. Just no. Ferrari is innocent until an official conviction from the FIA's tribunal. Until then there will be no talk about cheating. Mind this topic was created to adress a specific discussion which has little to do with cheating.
#AeroFrodo

dans79
dans79
399
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:01 am
djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
Euhm no. Just no. Ferrari is innocent until an official conviction from the FIA's tribunal. Until then there will be no talk about cheating. Mind this topic was created to adress a specific discussion which has little to do with cheating.
Then something should be done about the response post which is the exact same thing only hinting at Mercedes instead. Not to mention the upvoting of it.
176 101 100 7

LM10
LM10
133
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

dans79 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:10 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:01 am
djones wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:05 am
The only car found with a second oil tank was the Ferrari.

The only car that took a noticeable performance hit after the regulation change on oil usage was Ferrari.

The only engine now under scrutiny for illegal engine configuration.... is Ferrari.

I’m no expert, but if something smells of sht, tastes of sht, then it’s ususlly sht.
Euhm no. Just no. Ferrari is innocent until an official conviction from the FIA's tribunal. Until then there will be no talk about cheating. Mind this topic was created to adress a specific discussion which has little to do with cheating.
Then something should be done about the response post which is the exact same thing only hinting at Mercedes instead. Not to mention the upvoting of it.
Huh?! Oil burning was a known “trick” for everyone and everyone was using it last year. Where did I accuse Mercedes of cheating otherwise?
Can’t help you if you’re too sensible about it. One must be kind of ignorant to think that Mercedes was not burning oil even though it was more or less allowed.

dans79
dans79
399
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

LM10 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:29 pm
Huh?! Oil burning was a known “trick” for everyone and everyone was using it last year. Where did I accuse Mercedes of cheating otherwise?
Can’t help you if you’re too sensible about it. One must be kind of ignorant to think that Mercedes was not burning oil even though it was more or less allowed.
I'm not talking about that and you know it. I'm talking about your Spa/Monza jab.
176 101 100 7

LM10
LM10
133
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

dans79 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:10 pm
LM10 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:29 pm
Huh?! Oil burning was a known “trick” for everyone and everyone was using it last year. Where did I accuse Mercedes of cheating otherwise?
Can’t help you if you’re too sensible about it. One must be kind of ignorant to think that Mercedes was not burning oil even though it was more or less allowed.
I'm not talking about that and you know it. I'm talking about your Spa/Monza jab.
Man, don't get me wrong, but I don't see any other explanation for Mercedes being the only ones introducing the new engine at Spa. If you have any, please tell me.

There are things which don't really need a proof. I don't need to prove you that blood is flowing through my veins right now. No need to get too philosophical.

User avatar
subcritical71
99
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

I remember quite clearly that the reason for the Monza upgrade was to maintain the oil burn limit prior to the clamp down. Allegations of breaking a gentlemen's agreement by, I believe, Ferrari (how often has the gentlemen's agreement worked in F1). The FIA cleared them of any wrong doing and confirmed that they could keep the pre-Monza oil burn limit.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... 8/3043175/

dans79
dans79
399
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

LM10 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:21 pm
Man, don't get me wrong, but I don't see any other explanation for Mercedes being the only ones introducing the new engine at Spa. If you have any, please tell me.
The answer is pretty simple they wanted to ensure they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of car as possible to beat Ferrari. The best way to do that is to fit a fresh engine.

It is not the first time Mercedes has done something to put pressure on Ferrari at Spa. I'm not sure whats special about Spa other than the next race is Monza.

For example:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... 6/3042277/
176 101 100 7

LM10
LM10
133
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

dans79 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:56 pm
LM10 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:21 pm
Man, don't get me wrong, but I don't see any other explanation for Mercedes being the only ones introducing the new engine at Spa. If you have any, please tell me.
The answer is pretty simple they wanted to ensure they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of car as possible to beat Ferrari. The best way to do that is to fit a fresh engine.

It is not the first time Mercedes has done something to put pressure on Ferrari at Spa. I'm not sure whats special about Spa other than the next race is Monza.

For example:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... 6/3042277/
The noticeable thing was that all engines introduced at Spa were still allowed to burn 1.2 l oil and from Monza on just 0.9 l. And it seems more likely that Mercedes wanted to benefit from that.
What’s more, their engine was benchmark already. I don’t think they desperately needed to put some pressure on Ferrari.

I know that we probably won’t come to a conclusion. :)

The link you sent doesn’t work, btw.

dans79
dans79
399
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: The "Reply to s.s. without spamming up the Ferrari Power Unit thread" thread

Post

LM10 wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:12 pm
The link you sent doesn’t work, btw.
try this one.
https://www.racefans.net/2017/11/09/how ... -puncture/
176 101 100 7