F1technical.net

Jozsusz wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2019, 23:04

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2019, 12:32

Stealing a photo from the article that zibby43 referenced, I would disagree with what was officially said by Ferrari. A bad cylinder does not allow the car to accelerate to above 200km/h at the same rate as a normally performing Cylinder. Therefore reinforcing the pit to car communication during the race as far more credible (no H recovery).

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZSgnkXjpI-E/ ... 2Brace.png

Exaclty.

As I said before: this cylinder excuse is bs.

the source of the telemetry is not reliable. just clickbait.

we will know next gp if ferrari have to replace some spare of the pu. wait & see

Polite wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2019, 23:16

the source of the telemetry is not reliable. just clickbait.

Could you explain why you think this is unreliable clickbait?

The cylinder issue is not an excuse.
The knock on effects must be understood before we say Ferrari are lying.
The harvest from the H increase back pressure on the manifold; there may have been a risk to crack the manifold on the bank with the misfiring cylinder that may have been putting more unburnt fuel into the manifold; which may also be damaging to the turbo. So lets consider knock on effects before we jump to conclusions. We simply do not know what is happening in the Ferrari engine, and how sensitive the parts are to operating in an abnormal condition in race conditions.

Mr.G wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2019, 20:30

Watching the LEC onboard from redit with on lap adjustments and battery telemetry I've tried to calculate the MGU-K deploement time. And if I'm right it only takes 16,6 sec to fully discharge the ES resp. reach the 4MJ per limit from ES to MGU-K

I think you’ll find 16.6 seconds at 120kW is 2MJ, which would match the maximum available per lap energy if MGU-K to ES were the only charge route available.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 02:22

Polite wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2019, 23:16

the source of the telemetry is not reliable. just clickbait.

Could you explain why you think this is unreliable clickbait?

cause that site is only for clickbait and there are a lot of fake news there. Example: in early 2017 they said that the sf70h was bad in barcellona testing so Ferrari draw a type B sf70h similar to the AMG for the wheelbase ofc that was a joke: sf70h was an amazing car!

also in that specifical article the writer says "A riguardo risulta essere molto interessante l'analisi della telemetria (dati F1 App), gentilmente concessaci da un ragazzo inglese, di un giro con Power Unit normalmente funzionante e di un altro con l'unità motrice che manifestava problemi." that means litterally: " about that is really interesting the telemetry analisys (f1app files), courtesy of an english guy, of a lap with the pu... etc"
so the telemetry comes from "an english guy".. just like i would say: "my uncle told me that Toto farts too much"!

As for the "clickbait": if the writer tells that a "guy" gives him something, well is this the right journalistic deotology? bah.. i dont think so.

FERRARI topmost authority on the matter/subject:- “It is an engine problem (solely related to the internal combustion engine) we had miscombustion on one cylinder but the reason is yet to be understood. But the engine was running at end of race so it is still able to run. We will use it certainly on Friday in China and we have an entire Friday to assess its behavior, its functionality and its performance. There was nothing wrong with the MGU-H”. Binotto might be talking honestly or he might be lying. But the problem with some is “conjecture/s”:- “an opinion or conclusion/s or supposition/s formed on the basis of incomplete information”. Turbof1 (moderator) page 213 25 Mar 2019 10:39 excellent “runaway train without brakes” analogy was quickly forgotten. We/all on here will have our answers if we can wait for another week.

Polite wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 09:51

why reporting me negatively?

"calling other peoples work clickbait".. oooook but if the writer is a lier? bah.. strange forum is this.

It wasn’t I who rated you negatively, but you are posting to this very technical portion of the forum with non-technical analysis might have something to do with it.

Polite wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 09:18

also in that specifical article the writer says "A riguardo risulta essere molto interessante l'analisi della telemetria (dati F1 App), gentilmente concessaci da un ragazzo inglese, di un giro con Power Unit normalmente funzionante e di un altro con l'unità motrice che manifestava problemi." that means litterally: " about that is really interesting the telemetry analisys (f1app files), courtesy of an english guy, of a lap with the pu... etc"
so the telemetry comes from "an english guy".. just like i would say: "my uncle told me that Toto farts too much"!

to address this translation a little more precisely:

The data comes from the F1 app (access supplied by a kind Englishman). The telemetry was compared between a lap performed with a fully operational PU (43) and a lap when the PU was showing problems (51).

Haven't had direct experience with the latest F1 app, but I'd imagine the data - if accessible - would be valid. Does anyone know if it provides that kind of data?

ringo wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 05:52

The cylinder issue is not an excuse.
The knock on effects must be understood before we say Ferrari are lying.
The harvest from the H increase back pressure on the manifold; there may have been a risk to crack the manifold on the bank with the misfiring cylinder that may have been putting more unburnt fuel into the manifold; which may also be damaging to the turbo. So lets consider knock on effects before we jump to conclusions. We simply do not know what is happening in the Ferrari engine, and how sensitive the parts are to operating in an abnormal condition in race conditions.

You are right. I suppose what makes this whole thing rather interesting to discuss is that if Ferrari were lying about it, why would they be doing that? There are indications that Ferrari have found again something in their PU that gives them a significant advantage which could be centered around their MGU-H. Either way, I'm sure the data of both Ferraris, one with the fault and one without are of high interest up and down the paddock.

IMO - If it were down to a mere cylinder failure / misfiring / fuel injector issue, I somehow think there would be more than enough data and sensors for the team to know pretty fast what they are dealing with. I'd also expect that to be quite audible as surely the rhythm of the engine would be off with one cylinder having an issue? I've driven a car once with one cylinder failing (a faulty spark plug) and the engine was extremely rough. Different engine of course, different car etc, so no comparison I'm sure.

I do get the point though that perhaps the faulty cylinder could lead to an underperforming MGU-H and that this data then might at first glance look like the MGU-H quit which explains the resulting team-radio to Leclerc.

Friday 5 April at 08:35 Leclerc engine gets all clear for China. (damaged cylinder injector).

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 10:53

Polite wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 09:18

also in that specifical article the writer says "A riguardo risulta essere molto interessante l'analisi della telemetria (dati F1 App), gentilmente concessaci da un ragazzo inglese, di un giro con Power Unit normalmente funzionante e di un altro con l'unità motrice che manifestava problemi." that means litterally: " about that is really interesting the telemetry analisys (f1app files), courtesy of an english guy, of a lap with the pu... etc"
so the telemetry comes from "an english guy".. just like i would say: "my uncle told me that Toto farts too much"!

to address this translation a little more precisely:

The data comes from the F1 app (access supplied by a kind Englishman). The telemetry was compared between a lap performed with a fully operational PU (43) and a lap when the PU was showing problems (51).

Haven't had direct experience with the latest F1 app, but I'd imagine the data - if accessible - would be valid. Does anyone know if it provides that kind of data?

No really.. your translation is not right. Mine is near the litterality. "data provided by an english guy" or "data courtesy of an english guy".. not "access supplied by.." sorry.

@subcritical, i dont think is for the off topic because is not off: if everyone here is tecnical involved with a wrong or not reliable data, i think is in topic someone who can translate from the real italian of the news and can tell it could be not truth cause of the reputation of the site and also for such things like "the english guy giving data" which is not journalism.

i think the neg rate comes from someone involved in that site

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 10:53

Polite wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 09:18

also in that specifical article the writer says "A riguardo risulta essere molto interessante l'analisi della telemetria (dati F1 App), gentilmente concessaci da un ragazzo inglese, di un giro con Power Unit normalmente funzionante e di un altro con l'unità motrice che manifestava problemi." that means litterally: " about that is really interesting the telemetry analisys (f1app files), courtesy of an english guy, of a lap with the pu... etc"
so the telemetry comes from "an english guy".. just like i would say: "my uncle told me that Toto farts too much"!

to address this translation a little more precisely:

The data comes from the F1 app (access supplied by a kind Englishman). The telemetry was compared between a lap performed with a fully operational PU (43) and a lap when the PU was showing problems (51).

Haven't had direct experience with the latest F1 app, but I'd imagine the data - if accessible - would be valid. Does anyone know if it provides that kind of data?

this is the kind of data it provides:
https://streamable.com/k1g6i
https://streamable.com/88ne1
https://streamable.com/zv4z0

On some cars which have displayed speedometer (renault is one of those) on their steering wheels you can see the data from the car itself and the f1 app is almost 100% accurate, thus any kind of analysis done using the f1 app telemetries is to be trusted without second thought.

Juzh wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 11:35

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 10:53

Polite wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 09:18

also in that specifical article the writer says "A riguardo risulta essere molto interessante l'analisi della telemetria (dati F1 App), gentilmente concessaci da un ragazzo inglese, di un giro con Power Unit normalmente funzionante e di un altro con l'unità motrice che manifestava problemi." that means litterally: " about that is really interesting the telemetry analisys (f1app files), courtesy of an english guy, of a lap with the pu... etc"
so the telemetry comes from "an english guy".. just like i would say: "my uncle told me that Toto farts too much"!

to address this translation a little more precisely:

The data comes from the F1 app (access supplied by a kind Englishman). The telemetry was compared between a lap performed with a fully operational PU (43) and a lap when the PU was showing problems (51).

Haven't had direct experience with the latest F1 app, but I'd imagine the data - if accessible - would be valid. Does anyone know if it provides that kind of data?

this is the kind of data it provides:
https://streamable.com/k1g6i
https://streamable.com/88ne1
https://streamable.com/zv4z0

On some cars which have displayed speedometer (renault is one of those) on their steering wheels you can see the data from the car itself and the f1 app is almost 100% accurate, thus any kind of analysis done using the f1 app telemetries is to be trusted without second thought.

claimed as f1app.. we dont even know if it is provided for sure from f1 app. Thats my point. Also is not journalism, no ethics, in writing a news yelling "someone say something or gives us something".

Phil wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 11:04

You are right. I suppose what makes this whole thing rather interesting to discuss is that if Ferrari were lying about it, why would they be doing that? There are indications that Ferrari have found again something in their PU that gives them a significant advantage which could be centered around their MGU-H. Either way, I'm sure the data of both Ferraris, one with the fault and one without are of high interest up and down the paddock.

Why lie? It can't be for the other teams, as they'll see straight through it, so it's for journalists I guess. They probably don't want to be constantly quizzed about why they've made an unreliable MGU-H, so by saying the problem wasn't the H, they deflect the questions before they're asked.