F1technical.net

I do find it unlikely to be in the engine, if the other teams using the Ferrari engine are not having similar problems.
Not unless the engines are different and that would open a can of worms.

Fernando Alonso wrote:...As for the engines, we have found the problems that we had. I know there have been things written about the valves and the air consumption system of the engine, which are completely untrue, as it usually happens. So we are quiet because we have found the problems and we'll try to do the rest of the season with an engine that's 100 per cent reliable.

Source+More: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83151

Hmm, do you believe him?
He avoided the question about any request to the FIA to break the engine seals.
If the fault is external to the engine what else can it be?
If it is internal in the engine, why are other users not having the problem?

can you believe a driver? He´s not the engineer nor the mechanic doing the work..so he may get some filtered information anyways ..i would not want my driver to worry about sels in the cylinderhead during the race... [-X

Paul Kirk wrote:You're talking about fitting a bigger air tank, but that would only delay the result, they've obviously got an air leak somewhere and it could be at the valve guides or cam followers, this would require breaking the FIA seals to fix. Actually I always thought they used an engine driven pump to keep the pressures up, but obviously not! Can you imagine how difficult it must be to seal the cam followers and valve guides 100% for a whole race, let alone 3 races.
PK.

They have a high pressure nitrogen tank which pressurise the system. There are pressure regulating valves which control the gas flow to the pneumatic cylinderds and the gas and oil flow out of them.

When the engines are removed from the car they are hooked up to a small nitrogen tank.

The pneumatic valvesprings can be seen here on this Cosworth engine

but everyone was telling me that Ferrari didnt need the real world testing they were cheating all winter with... that everything could be figuered out on the dyno.

I hope they get rid of this pneumatic crap when they intro the new engine formula... or at least open up the regs to rotary or spherical valves and such.

Efficient reciprocating seals are not really the problem, just look at a hydraulic damper or any cylinder, problem becomes when you try to seal off a non-lubricant gas at 30 Hz(100 m/s total?) at god how many bars, with a minimum of friction.
You try to optimize that and you can go terribly wrong when it's not xactly buna o-rings we are talking about.

xpensive wrote:Efficient reciprocating seals are not really the problem, just look at a hydraulic damper or any cylinder, problem becomes when you try to seal off a non-lubricant gas at 30 Hz(100 m/s total?) at god how many bars, with a minimum of friction.
You try to optimize that and you can go terribly wrong when it's not xactly buna o-rings we are talking about.

Yep, tough things to deal with these 19th century poppet valves.

autogyro wrote:

xpensive wrote:Efficient reciprocating seals are not really the problem, just look at a hydraulic damper or any cylinder, problem becomes when you try to seal off a non-lubricant gas at 30 Hz(100 m/s total?) at god how many bars, with a minimum of friction.
You try to optimize that and you can go terribly wrong when it's not xactly buna o-rings we are talking about.

Yep, tough things to deal with these 19th century poppet valves.

No, they are very simple to deal with since they require no high pressure moving seals. They only got a self sealic static seal where the real trouble is. And if you think it's difficult to seal a ca 15 bar pneumatic cylinder, that's nothing against sealing a rotary valve against a cylinder pressure of 50-250 bar, and then we talk about some really hot, corrosive gas too.

ISLAMATRON wrote:but everyone was telling me that Ferrari didnt need the real world testing they were cheating all winter with... that everything could be figuered out on the dyno.

I hope they get rid of this pneumatic crap when they intro the new engine formula... or at least open up the regs to rotary or spherical valves and such.

Normally, these pneumatic springs are more reliable than coil springs, and they are far more reliable than anything with rotary valves. So I certainly hope we don't get anything of that rotary-junk.

Edis wrote:

ISLAMATRON wrote:but everyone was telling me that Ferrari didnt need the real world testing they were cheating all winter with... that everything could be figuered out on the dyno.

I hope they get rid of this pneumatic crap when they intro the new engine formula... or at least open up the regs to rotary or spherical valves and such.

Normally, these pneumatic springs are more reliable than coil springs, and they are far more reliable than anything with rotary valves. So I certainly hope we don't get anything of that rotary-junk.

Thats only because you cannot visualise a way to operate sleeve valves other than mechanicaly. Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher powered ic engines than those with mere poppet valves.

autogyro wrote:

Edis wrote:

ISLAMATRON wrote:but everyone was telling me that Ferrari didnt need the real world testing they were cheating all winter with... that everything could be figuered out on the dyno.

I hope they get rid of this pneumatic crap when they intro the new engine formula... or at least open up the regs to rotary or spherical valves and such.

Normally, these pneumatic springs are more reliable than coil springs, and they are far more reliable than anything with rotary valves. So I certainly hope we don't get anything of that rotary-junk.

Thats only because you cannot visualise a way to operate sleeve valves other than mechanicaly. Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher powered ic engines than those with mere poppet valves.

It must be the poppet valve lobby spilling there lies.

autogyro wrote:Thats only because you cannot visualise a way to operate sleeve valves other than mechanicaly. Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher powered ic engines than those with mere poppet valves.

Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher power ic engines with mere poppet valves? No, not really. They were simply a solution to the difficulties with poppet valves of the day, just like desmodromic valve systems was a solution to the problems with valve springs once experienced. However, eventually poppet valves overcame those problems, while the sleeve valves still had problems of their own.

flynfrog wrote: It must be the poppet valve lobby spilling there lies.

You mean the same poppet valve lobby that forces all car manufacturers to use them?

Edis wrote:

autogyro wrote:

xpensive wrote:Efficient reciprocating seals are not really the problem, just look at a hydraulic damper or any cylinder, problem becomes when you try to seal off a non-lubricant gas at 30 Hz(100 m/s total?) at god how many bars, with a minimum of friction.
You try to optimize that and you can go terribly wrong when it's not xactly buna o-rings we are talking about.

Yep, tough things to deal with these 19th century poppet valves.

No, they are very simple to deal with since they require no high pressure moving seals. They only got a self sealic static seal where the real trouble is. And if you think it's difficult to seal a ca 15 bar pneumatic cylinder, that's nothing against sealing a rotary valve against a cylinder pressure of 50-250 bar, and then we talk about some really hot, corrosive gas too.

I would perhaps not be as certain as you seem to be on the simplicity of a 30 Hz reciprocating nitrogen-seal aimed to last an elevated temperature for what, six hours, unless of course you work in the racing valve business?