F1technical.net

The technical ignorance in the so called specialized press never ceases to amaze, why would there be a difference in
power between race and qualifying when the fuel-flow and MGU-power has the same limit in both situations?

And how could there possibly be a "fuel consumption problem" for Ferrari, when everyone has the same fuel-flow limit,
is their turbo V6 perhaps so pitifully down on power that their drivers will go flat out around the entire track?

xpensive wrote:The technical ignorance in the so called specialized press never ceases to amaze, why would there be a difference in
power between race and qualifying when the fuel-flow and MGU-power has the same limit in both situations?

And how could there possibly be a "fuel consumption problem" for Ferrari, when everyone has the same fuel-flow limit,
is their turbo V6 perhaps so pitifully down on power that their drivers will go flat out around the entire track?

I wonder if we could see situations that we had in the 80s where drivers were turning off their boost completely during certain races depending on the conditions.

Here's a wild thought - the Tyrrell-Cosworth was at it's strongest on the street circuits against the turbocharged cars. What if teams opted to run zero boost, and just rely on the energy recovery systems and N/A power if possible to cut fuel consumption? Could we see teams underfueling relative to their competitors during the race in order to jump out ahead and run away with the race?

GitanesBlondes wrote:

xpensive wrote:The technical ignorance in the so called specialized press never ceases to amaze, why would there be a difference in
power between race and qualifying when the fuel-flow and MGU-power has the same limit in both situations?

And how could there possibly be a "fuel consumption problem" for Ferrari, when everyone has the same fuel-flow limit,
is their turbo V6 perhaps so pitifully down on power that their drivers will go flat out around the entire track?

I wonder if we could see situations that we had in the 80s where drivers were turning off their boost completely during certain races depending on the conditions.

Here's a wild thought - the Tyrrell-Cosworth was at it's strongest on the street circuits against the turbocharged cars. What if teams opted to run zero boost, and just rely on the energy recovery systems and N/A power if possible to cut fuel consumption? Could we see teams underfueling relative to their competitors during the race in order to jump out ahead and run away with the race?

in the old turbo era the two engine types where completely different, I don't see who "identical" engines run with and with out boost would could possible gain anything.

if today they have 2.4L 750bhp@18000, it my math isn't totally off that would atmost be ~290bhp for 1.6L at 10500rpm
and then add that the valve timing, compression ratio etc. is designed for boost and you get even less

if they want to use less fuel, don't use the trottle so much ...

xpensive wrote:And how could there possibly be a "fuel consumption problem" for Ferrari, when everyone has the same fuel-flow limit, is their turbo V6 perhaps so pitifully down on power that their drivers will go flat out around the entire track?

Perhaps "fuel consumption problem" is an euphemism for not getting the horses other manaufacturers are getting. It would be shameful for Ferrari if they would write that the engine lacks power, but that could be at the heart of the problem.

IMO you can only lack horsepower. The fuel consumption shouldn't be a problem. The problem is how much power you can have while maintaining this fuel consumption. That's why a flow regulated formula is interesting IMO.

WhiteBlue wrote:

xpensive wrote:And how could there possibly be a "fuel consumption problem" for Ferrari, when everyone has the same fuel-flow limit, is their turbo V6 perhaps so pitifully down on power that their drivers will go flat out around the entire track?

Perhaps "fuel consumption problem" is an euphemism for not getting the horses other manaufacturers are getting. It would be shameful for Ferrari if they would write that the engine lacks power, but that could be at the heart of the problem.

Wouldn't you xpect a little more than euphemisms from the german specialized press and why would they cover up for Ferrari?

Holm86 wrote:IMO you can only lack horsepower. The fuel consumption shouldn't be a problem. The problem is how much power you can have while maintaining this fuel consumption. That's why a flow regulated formula is interesting IMO.

You can also lack reliability. Ferrari turbo engines were always far behind the competition in the 80's. At first they were way underpowered, then as they began to find more power they were much less reliable than the competition, that entire time they had to carry far more fuel than the competition and then finally when the turbo cars were limited by fuel volume they again became far underpowered.

Powershift wrote:Ferrari turbo engines were always far behind the competition in the 80's.

Eh? Ferrari is the first team to win WCC with turbo (2 years in a row), and they would most likely get WDC as well had Villeneuve and Pironi crashes not happen.

Powershift wrote:

Holm86 wrote:IMO you can only lack horsepower. The fuel consumption shouldn't be a problem. The problem is how much power you can have while maintaining this fuel consumption. That's why a flow regulated formula is interesting IMO.

You can also lack reliability. Ferrari turbo engines were always far behind the competition in the 80's. At first they were way underpowered, then as they began to find more power they were much less reliable than the competition, that entire time they had to carry far more fuel than the competition and then finally when the turbo cars were limited by fuel volume they again became far underpowered.

Not even close to being true.

The 126C was notable for having abysmal handling, but it was an absolute monster on the straights...so much so, that it was the only thing that was actually positive about the car.

The 126C2 was the best car on the grid in 1982 as it combined the superior engine with actual ability to corner.

The way the rules are written, which basically makes all three or four engines clones, I very much doubt is we will see more than a few Hp difference between them. More interesting to see how efficient the MGU-H will be to support the MGU-K with power on a continuous basis, even if that will level out as the season progresses, in the end it will surely be equally boring as it is now.

After spending an aggregated billion € or so on developments, all in the name of being "green"

Who would expect any thing else? The constructors led by Red Bull are leading the rule making and they will make sure there is no real scope for engines to make a difference on the long run. The manufacturers will have a year of basking in the lime light and then it will be back to bloody aero appendices making the difference. F1 is effed anyway.

What is difficult to comprehend is what Honda think they can get out of joining this charade, unless of course they got the basic engine development for a plate of rice from Craig Pollock, after the EU had paid the bulk of it through the french connection?

timbo wrote:

Powershift wrote:Ferrari turbo engines were always far behind the competition in the 80's.

Eh? Ferrari is the first team to win WCC with turbo (2 years in a row), and they would most likely get WDC as well had Villeneuve and Pironi crashes not happen.

Against only Renault & Hart, but when TAG/Porsche, Honda and BMW got into F1 Ferrari lagged behind for years winning only 6 races between '84 and '88(5 years)

GitanesBlondes wrote:

Powershift wrote:

Holm86 wrote:IMO you can only lack horsepower. The fuel consumption shouldn't be a problem. The problem is how much power you can have while maintaining this fuel consumption. That's why a flow regulated formula is interesting IMO.

You can also lack reliability. Ferrari turbo engines were always far behind the competition in the 80's. At first they were way underpowered, then as they began to find more power they were much less reliable than the competition, that entire time they had to carry far more fuel than the competition and then finally when the turbo cars were limited by fuel volume they again became far underpowered.

Not even close to being true.

The 126C was notable for having abysmal handling, but it was an absolute monster on the straights...so much so, that it was the only thing that was actually positive about the car.

The 126C2 was the best car on the grid in 1982 as it combined the superior engine with actual ability to corner.

That was before Tag, Honda & BMW came onto the seen, 6 total wins between '84 and '88 tell the real story, their turbo engines were garbage.

And even in '82 the Turbo Renault(and non-turbo McLaren) had 4 wins each to Ferrari's 3

Comments about Ferrari being behind the Turbo 8 ball in the mid eighties are right, but I don't think it is all that relevant in the context of these current engines. Besides from 82 to 86 ferrari had the 120dg v6 they built in 1980 and the 90dg? unit for 87/88 was a virtual Honda V6 clone and they finished 87 with the best car/engine combo, though true to the currently irrelevantly linked rumour, this engine was atrocious when compared to the 88 honda! It is fair to say that Ferrari were players in the turbo game until fuel economy became the priority. Apart from a couple of months in 85 and 87, they were nowhere.

Truth is, none of us will know until January where the players are. All we can say is that drive trains will have more say in determining the grids for the first time in a decade. We might see someone dominate for like never before.