F1technical.net

The gain arguably wasn't just a "few %". It was substantial. To the point one could say Ferrari had hands down the fastest car on the more power sensitive circuits. Arguably, they should be leading the championship, but crucial errors (Hockenheim, Monza) and a bit of bad weather (Hungary) have cost them a lot of points in the process.

If it is simply a matter of "turning the engine up", I wouldn't know how it would make sense not to, even at the risk of engine failure, when the choice is between almost dominance [prior to Singapore] to "not fast enough" [post Monza].

Analyzing this "power advantage" Ferrari had, I think it has always been clear that it was especially apparent in qualifying, not during the race. Considering we are talking about one or two straights during 1-2 laps in qualifying vs. 60 laps of 1.5 hour managed and driving to a delta racing that follows on Sunday, I'm not sure how well the argument holds up that they are simply nursing engines to make it to the end of the season and are opting not to use whatever huge advantage they had up to Monza, especially if the gains are made in the ERS deployment area. And as I said; You're best equipped to nurse engines if you can lead the race as that allows you to dictate pace. And considering the performance advantage they did have, sticking the car on pole sounds rather straightforward.

I'd also point out that Ferrari have been using these "power gains" on older Spec-2 engines. I find it doubtful that they are now turning the engines down on fresher Spec-3 engines over reliability and longevity concerns. And they have two cars - if there were reliability concerns, they could still afford to push on one car (Kimi's) to make a difference in the championship.

IMO, it's clear to me that whatever Ferrari was doing and now isn't, has little to do with engine wear, but is either on the electric side that allowed them to deploy more or it is something fuel related (or both).

dren wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:38

aral wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 13:37

"Abiteboul suggests though that if Ferrari do have less power, then it might be forcing them to run less wing"

Well in Russia, Ferrari were running far more wing than Mercedes , so had more drag.

They had balance issues with the low DF rear wing so reverted to the other so I wouldn't base power on wing choice at Sochi.

So because FERRARI had ballance issues with their low DF rear wing and had to revert to the higher DF rear wing you wouldn't base loss of power and the resultant lower top speed on it. As i said the variety of possibilities AMus pushed out, it being twin battery, extended electric power beyond what is permitted, special fuel with extremely rear molecules, so rear that shell can hardly supply FERRARI let alone its customer teams.

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 18:09

dren wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:38

aral wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 13:37

"Abiteboul suggests though that if Ferrari do have less power, then it might be forcing them to run less wing"

Well in Russia, Ferrari were running far more wing than Mercedes , so had more drag.

They had balance issues with the low DF rear wing so reverted to the other so I wouldn't base power on wing choice at Sochi.

So because FERRARI had ballance issues with their low DF rear wing and had to revert to the higher DF rear wing you wouldn't base loss of power and the resultant lower top speed on it.

I'll bite, how does downforce affect engine power?

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 18:09

So because FERRARI had ballance issues with their low DF rear wing and had to revert to the higher DF rear wing you wouldn't base loss of power and the resultant lower top speed on it. As i said the variety of possibilities AMus pushed out, it being twin battery, extended electric power beyond what is permitted, special fuel with extremely rear molecules, so rear that shell can hardly supply FERRARI let alone its customer teams sounds more like what some would like to hear.

Stop with your ridiculous accusations!

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 21:50

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 18:09

dren wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:38

They had balance issues with the low DF rear wing so reverted to the other so I wouldn't base power on wing choice at Sochi.

So because FERRARI had ballance issues with their low DF rear wing and had to revert to the higher DF rear wing you wouldn't base loss of power and the resultant lower top speed on it.

I'll bite, how does downforce affect engine power?

It doesn't. But more downforce means generally more drag which further means less top speed with the same power output. Wings/Flaps are especially dragy compared to a diffusor generating the same amount of downforce.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 21:50

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 18:09

dren wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:38

They had balance issues with the low DF rear wing so reverted to the other so I wouldn't base power on wing choice at Sochi.

So because FERRARI had ballance issues with their low DF rear wing and had to revert to the higher DF rear wing you wouldn't base loss of power and the resultant lower top speed on it.

I'll bite, how does downforce affect engine power?

Let’s for a moment forget about the impressive diverse speculations as regards the FERRARI power advantage pushed out by the same source namely: the twin battery set-up, the possibility of the over and above of what is permitted electrical power deployment that the FIA sensor cannot read, the possibility that the second FIA sensor has now prevented the use of the extra power deployment, the very rear, very difficult to produce super molecules added to the FIA strictly controlled fuel formulation, How was/is the FERRARI claimed power gains and now lose calculated by GPS?.

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:20

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 13:40

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 13:32

FERRARI customers Haas and Sauber gets the same power train including software, fuel, oil and FERRARI factory Engine technicians and most probably the same make ES.

No, Ferrari uses different fuel I don't know about the oil though.

-FERRARI customers Sauber and Haas are supplied with the same hardware, software, fuel and oil.

-Fuel supplier for Ferrari: Shell
-Fuel supplier for HAAS: Shell https://www.haasf1team.com/machine
-Fuel supplier for Sauber: Shell https://maxf1.net/en/teams-and-drivers/ ... r-f1-team/ (I could not find any info on it on Sauber's own page, but a search around the net gives multiple sources it is shell)

Seems legit as far as the supplier goes. If anybody has an alternative source telling it is a different fuel supplier, do please post them. if there is anything about Shell delivering a different fuel, also post it here.

Regarding the whole RW shenanigans: Look, it's simple. Renault's comments are misplaced if they claim Ferrari used less rear wing because they have less power, when the truth is Ferrari used more rear wing. Whether there's more truth to their claims or not, has kinda been undermined by the fallacy in their reasoning. I think that avenue can be closed until Renault comes with something to substantiate it. We are still in an engine thread and not an aerodynamic one. I emplore everyone to move on from this and pretend, again just for now, that comment does not exist.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 22:52

-Fuel supplier for Ferrari: Shell
-Fuel supplier for HAAS: Shell https://www.haasf1team.com/machine
-Fuel supplier for Sauber: Shell https://maxf1.net/en/teams-and-drivers/ ... r-f1-team/ (I could not find any info on it on Sauber's own page, but a search around the net nets multiple sources its shell)

Seems legit as far as the supplier goes. If anybody has an alternative source telling it is a different fuel supplier, do please post them. if there is anything about Shell delivering a different fuel, also post it here.

There is only an AMuS article stating that Ferrari is using a different fuel spec than Sauber/Haas. So it's the same supplier (Shell) for all 3 but only Ferrari gets the 'best' newest spec fuel since Spa.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ri-benzin/

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 18:09

How was/is the FERRARI claimed power gains and now lose calculated by GPS?.

GPS gives position with respect to time. The first derivative of position is velocity, and the second derivative of position is acceleration.

When you know these, you can compare similar sections from track to track, and easily notice increases or decreases in performance.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 22:52

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 14:20

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 13:40

No, Ferrari uses different fuel I don't know about the oil though.

-FERRARI customers Sauber and Haas are supplied with the same hardware, software, fuel and oil.

-Fuel supplier for Ferrari: Shell
-Fuel supplier for HAAS: Shell https://www.haasf1team.com/machine
-Fuel supplier for Sauber: Shell https://maxf1.net/en/teams-and-drivers/ ... r-f1-team/ (I could not find any info on it on Sauber's own page, but a search around the net nets multiple sources its shell)

Seems legit as far as the supplier goes. If anybody has an alternative source telling it is a different fuel supplier, do please post them. if there is anything about Shell delivering a different fuel, also post it here.

I was sure when i said that FERRARI customers are supplies with the same fuel and oil the FERRARI team uses. but now it is being suggested that because of the very rear, very difficult to produce special molecules added to the strictly controlled by the FIA fuel, Shell cannot produce the quantity needed, so not only Sauber and Haas wasn't supplied with the very special fuel (regardless they dont show a drop in power) but FERRARI themselves seems to not be able to gat it any more so they have drop in power now.

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 23:01

turbof1 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 22:52

-Fuel supplier for Ferrari: Shell
-Fuel supplier for HAAS: Shell https://www.haasf1team.com/machine
-Fuel supplier for Sauber: Shell https://maxf1.net/en/teams-and-drivers/ ... r-f1-team/ (I could not find any info on it on Sauber's own page, but a search around the net nets multiple sources its shell)

Seems legit as far as the supplier goes. If anybody has an alternative source telling it is a different fuel supplier, do please post them. if there is anything about Shell delivering a different fuel, also post it here.

There is only an AMuS article stating that Ferrari is using a different fuel spec than Sauber/Haas. So it's the same supplier (Shell) for all 3 but only Ferrari gets the 'best' newest spec fuel since Spa.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ri-benzin/

I think we can assume that by now Shell was able to synthesize enough fuel to include both HAAS and Sauber. I get Ferrari gets a preference role, but I don't see a reason to believe Sauber and HAAS would not get the same fuel a couple of races down the line.

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 23:04

I was sure when i said that FERRARI customers are supplies with the same fuel and oil the FERRARI team uses. but now it is being suggested that because of the very rear, very difficult to produce special molecules added to the strictly controlled by the FIA fuel, Shell cannot produce the quantity needed, so not only Sauber and Haas wasn't supplied with the very special fuel (regardless they dont show a drop in power) but FERRARI themselves seems to not be able to gat it any more so they have drop in power now.

I hope I am not rude by this: I honestly cannot tell if that post is meant sarcastic or not (although I sense it's sarcasm, but let's assume it's not for a moment:). Sure, it's fuel synthesized in a lab rather than mass refined at a refinery. It's not a mass production fuel, and it takes development time pushing the limits of delivery very hard, but once the formula has been precised and enough time has passed to focus on production, I honestly cannot see they can't produce enough fuel for the 3 teams. I definitely can see issues to provide enough fuel in the initial production stages, just not more than a month further. And Ferrari will definitely have gotten it's supply of that fuel every race weekend.

I am still curious, how the Fia would measure current flow from the ES with two batteries and only one sensor.

A while ago we have discussed at length how GPS data is used to calculate relative power.
Yes it DOES account for drag and yes it is an accurate tool in the hands of teams.

Mercedes used to share the GPS calculated performance for all manufacturers at their post race all employee debriefs in Brixworth but I am told they haven't done it for the last few races.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2018, 23:06

I think we can assume that by now Shell was able to synthesize enough fuel to include both HAAS and Sauber. I get Ferrari gets a preference role, but I don't see a reason to believe Sauber and HAAS would not get the same fuel a couple of races down the line.

I don’t know that we could assume that there is enough of the so called rare molecule. I’ve worked on a project were we were waiting months for a specific isotope of an element, but due to its rarity it took years to get sufficient quantities to supply everything we wanted. It all depends on how rare it is and what the process is for obtaining it.

Any source on that special molecule? I can't shake the feeling that it is an urban legend.