F1technical.net

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

26 Mar 2018, 08:39

Pressure evac pump AFAIK, but not 'active' PCV - now banned, as such..

are we seriously arguing because we're calling the pump 2 different things?

No argument, I am categorically stating - they've been there, all along..

(& a discrete pump, if forced-induction pressure-differential utilization - is not allowed)

FightingHellPhish wrote: ↑

26 Mar 2018, 08:35

Not unless they are running a vacuum pump (or like the trick drag racers use and use a one way valve on the exhaust) or.. a pcv system connected to the Intake before the compressor (which is now banned in F1). Windage trays and crank scrapers do a lot for oil control but crank case gasses are still an issue especially with boosted applications. Combustion gasses, heat, and inevitable oil slinging and the like all contribute to it.

The scavenge stages on the oil pump will deal with it, nothing that trick about it, even the car in my shed has that.

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2018, 09:04

FightingHellPhish wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2018, 04:06

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

25 Mar 2018, 00:00

"In the past"?

Seems not.
Q in Melbourne - clearly showed a prominent emission of misty vapours - issuing from the rear of the Ferrari,
when exiting the pit, a technical matter, to be sure..

If you were to disconnect the PCV system on any car and vent to atmo, you would see similar. the issue is larger on forced induction cars.

Doubt it..

1stly, it is highly unlikely that forced induction F1 mills do not run at -ve pressure in the crankcase,
so 'blow-by' as such, which will normally be a sign of malfunctioning/worn-out internal sealing, is out..


Unless of course, it is a deliberate oil-mist consumption mechanism 'breathing' - at a low boost state..

('Blow-by' venting to the slipstream, while racing - has to be a 'probable cause' for a 'black flag' deal, no?)

You are correct about crankcase pressure being lower than atmo.
The blowby/oil mix is being pulled by the scavenge pump, then centrifuged and potentially passed through a catch can before being finally vented out.

Maybe at low engine speeds the centrifugal separator does not spin quick enough to properly remove the oil from the blowby ?

Ring flutter sounds likely too at high engine speed, however it did not seem to smoke excessively while going full beans on track.

Whatever they're doing it's working, Ferrari teams had the least loss of speed. This year it's obvious the cars have more downforce, thus more drag, now perhaps Ferrari itself made a modest downforce improvement which is why it only lost 1.2kmh at the speed trap vs last year where others like Mercedes lost almost 7kmh and was 3kmh slower than Ferrari.



It seems the power units of Ferrari and Mercedes are closer than ever.

Would the nasty little person who took away one of my 3 gold stars like to put their hand up and explain why.
It's like trench warfare sometimes and I was very proud of them

One of the reason might be a lower drag approach on this year car, maybe they paid it with less overall downforce (or lower increase in downforce from '17 to '18) but a better downforce/drag ratio

Perhaps, but I doubt HAAS and Sauber are low drag cars compared to customer Merc teams.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

27 Mar 2018, 01:51

Whatever they're doing it's working, Ferrari teams had the least loss of speed. This year it's obvious the cars have more downforce, thus more drag, now perhaps Ferrari itself made a modest downforce improvement which is why it only lost 1.2kmh at the speed trap vs last year where others like Mercedes lost almost 7kmh and was 3kmh slower than Ferrari.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZN4RrLV4AIbPfZ.jpg

It seems the power units of Ferrari and Mercedes are closer than ever.

Very interesting.
Is this from Q or from race?

Sauber should be taken out from equation, because last year they were using 2016 engine so we are confronting 2016 engine with 2018 one.

About HAAS let's say that I wouldn't be surprised if they followed very closely Ferrari's approach

ripper wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2018, 15:45

Sauber should be taken out from equation, because last year they were using 2016 engine so we are confronting 2016 engine with 2018 one.

About HAAS let's say that I wouldn't be surprised if they followed very closely Ferrari's approach

Haas clearly has more downforce than last year, the power of the Ferrari engine hasn't changed much since last year it's just more reliable. So a 5kmh loss of speed is purely down to drag in my opinion, of course I could be wrong.

sosic2121 wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2018, 15:26

godlameroso wrote: ↑

27 Mar 2018, 01:51

Whatever they're doing it's working, Ferrari teams had the least loss of speed. This year it's obvious the cars have more downforce, thus more drag, now perhaps Ferrari itself made a modest downforce improvement which is why it only lost 1.2kmh at the speed trap vs last year where others like Mercedes lost almost 7kmh and was 3kmh slower than Ferrari.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZN4RrLV4AIbPfZ.jpg

It seems the power units of Ferrari and Mercedes are closer than ever.

Very interesting.
Is this from Q or from race?

Qualifying.

AMuS:
In Bahrain, Mercedes spotters have heard that the Ferrari engine in the cars of Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen significantly changes the pitch when accelerating. Also in comparison to the customer teams HaasF1 and Sauber.

It didn't take long to solve the puzzle. In the qualifying rounds, Ferrari doesn't use the MGU-H to generate electricity when accelerating out, in order to blow the rear wing via the wastegate valve. That makes a few points of downforce, but better than nothing. In the qualifying rounds it is not a problem not to charge the battery, because it is full to the brim at the beginning of the round anyway.

That seems like rubbish, everyone is opening the 'gates in qualifying as much as they can anyway and using battery to keep the MGU-H spinning.

Even with wastegates wide open the turbine is still getting energy.