F1technical.net

You mean the 5.1.6?

My position is that it is overrun on the split turbo by the clutch in 5.2.4, but this has been discussed forever.

Dragonfly wrote:

xpensive wrote:Sigh, I'm afraid you still don't follow my thinking wuz. The idea with the roller clutch between the MGU-H and turbine, on a split turbo, is the ability to leave the turbine's inertia behind for a quick spool-up of the compressor, using the MGU-H only.

As soon as the turbine is up to speed, the roller clutch will connect again and the turbine will take over running the compressor.

This way you can employ log-xhausts for a compact installation, as you are not dependent on the turbine for throttle-response.

Torque, are you kidding, at 50 kW and 100 000 rpm we are talking less than 5 Nm.

What about the requirement for both wheels to rotate with the same angular velocity at all times? If I understand correctly what you describe it's clear breach of the regulations.

exactly, a clutch that only disconnects the turbine is clearly illegal there is no loophole or room for interpretation

langwadt wrote: ...
exactly, a clutch that only disconnects the turbine is clearly illegal there is no loophole or room for interpretation

Believe me, there always is, in particular in this instance.

xpensive wrote:

langwadt wrote: ...
exactly, a clutch that only disconnects the turbine is clearly illegal there is no loophole or room for interpretation

Believe me, there always is, in particular in this instance.

if "The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about
a common axis and at the same angular velocity" can be interpreted to mean it is ok to clutch the turbine, then you might as well throw out the rule book because then there are no rules

langwadt wrote:

xpensive wrote:

langwadt wrote: ...
exactly, a clutch that only disconnects the turbine is clearly illegal there is no loophole or room for interpretation

Believe me, there always is, in particular in this instance.

if "The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about
a common axis and at the same angular velocity" can be interpreted to mean it is ok to clutch the turbine, then you might as well throw out the rule book because then there are no rules

You do remember that, at the time of the DDD, holes in the floor were expressly forbidden.So... think twice before you claim something in the f1 rules is clear.

Pierce is correct, I'm absolutely certain that MHPE has been given a go-ahead for a roller clutch between MGU-H and turbine, just like Brawn GP ahead of the 2009 season was given a go-ahead for the DDD, personally by MrM at that.

At the 1999 Malaysian GP the Ferrari cars' bargeboards were found to be mounted wider than the maximum allowed width and the cars were conclusively disqualified. MrM solved this problem by xplaining that there was also a tolerance to said max width.

This new "tolerance" was taken from the flatness-tolerance of the floor.

As the turbo's speed is maintained by the MGU-h at all times what is the point of including a complicated series of maybe legal clutches? You talk about a benefit on spool up, but when does the turbo ever need spooling up? It will always be running at the correct speed.

xpensive wrote:Pierce is correct, I'm absolutely certain that MHPE has been given a go-ahead for a roller clutch between MGU-H and turbine.

At the 1999 Malaysian GP the Ferrari cars' bargeboards were found to be mounted wider than the maximum allowed width and the cars were conclusively disqualified. MrM solved this problem by xplaining that there was also a tolerance to said max width.

This new "tolerance" was taken from the flatness-tolerance of the floor.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6EuG7C0iiTI/T ... ri1999.jpg

Funny, I was watching Mosley's press conference last night about Malaysia '99, and the excuse used was that there was a 5mm tolerance for the barge boards...coincidentally just enough of a tolerance to allow for the disqualification to be overturned.

Sure upholding the DQ would have rendered Suzuka a meaningless race, but it went against all aspects of fair play.

We got this bit from Ecclestone, “What happened in Malaysia is bad for the sport. I would like what the public want – to see a great finish in Japan.”

Point being, I agree with xpensive's assertion has quite a bit of merit since the FIA and FOM have essentially engaged in what I would term race fixing numerous times. This would just be more of the same.

Omnicorse.it already ran to ground the Mercedes' rumoured de-clutching device.

la stradale wrote:Omnicorse.it already ran to ground the Mercedes' rumoured de-clutching device.

This was most interesting and I take it as evidence that if i'm totally off with the clutch-idea, I'm obviously not alone.

xpensive wrote:You mean the 5.1.6?

My position is that it is overrun on the split turbo by the clutch in 5.2.4, but this has been discussed forever.

I can't accept that two rules within the same rule book are formulated so that the one overrules the other. Especially the provision about constant angular velocity of all the parts.
But I would not argue further. I'm sure in the near future we will know one way or another.

Dragonfly wrote: ...
I can't accept that two rules within the same rule book are formulated so that the one overrules the other. Especially the provision about constant angular velocity of all the parts.
But I would not argue further. I'm sure in the near future we will know one way or another.

That's because the rules were written without the split turbo in mind, the MHPE contraption turned the rules on its head.

Firstly, Malaysia 1999 was overturned on a couple of grounds.

The disqualification took place because the rules required that all parts between the front wheels and the rear wheels (basically) which are visible from below must lie on the reference plane or the step plane. The only exception was the mirrors.

Ferrari's bargeboards at the time were multi-curved and thus required shadow plates at the bottom to conform to the regulations.

In any case, both Ferraris passed the original FIA inspection post race. One of the other teams (whos name may hav started with M and ended in cLaren) suggested that the technical delegate look again, specifically at the bargeboards.

The FIA testing rig at the time had no facility to measure these, and it may have been moot since the bargeboards may have been off the car when they were measured, I can't recall. In any case, a series of rules and set-squares were used to determine that the bargeboards were indeed illegal. The Ferraris were disqualified.

The mistake Ferrari made was to leave a few mm off the shadow plate.

They proved in the wind tunnel that this difference gave no performance benefit - but it was not argued in the appeal because it was irrelevant.

Ferrari argued in court that a) the measurements were invalid because they were insufficiently acurate and maybe because the bargeboards weren't on the car (again, I can't recall) and b) that they were within the 5mm manufacturing tolerance prescribed in the rules.

The 5mm tolerance wasintroduced in the flat bottom era to prevent teams from shaping there floors to get more ground effect. Ferrari argued that 5mm tolerance also applied to the bargeboards (as they sat on the reference plane) and then demonstrated that when "properly" mounted on the car the bargeboards indeed complied.

The judging panel overtuned the disqualification.

Neither Bernie nor the FIA had a voice on the appeals panel. The FIA, McLaren and Williams (as an affected party) had legal teams in the procedings, along with Ferrari.

The postscript to that incident happened in Brazil 2000 when David Coulthard was disqualified. Macca fans argued that the 5mm tolerance should be applied to his front wing, which had been found to be too low. There were two issues with that, though - 1) the rules specifically stated that the wing could be no lower than a certain measurement, defining the limit to which the wing could be mounted and thus acting as a tolerance and 2) the wing was actually 7mm outside the rules.

As far as naughty interpretations of the rules go Malaysia 1999 was little more than a manufacturing/QA error.

Pierce89 wrote:You do remember that, at the time of the DDD, holes in the floor were expressly forbidden.So... think twice before you claim something in the f1 rules is clear.

Since the holes were in the transition between the reference plane and the step plane I think the argument was that they weren't holes in the floor, since the transition is not the floor.

The F-duct is one that got through too. The rules require that the wing sections be closed sections. So how could the wing have a slot in it? By manufacturing the wing in such a way that it could be argued that it was closed while still having the slot.

xpensive wrote:

Dragonfly wrote: ...
I can't accept that two rules within the same rule book are formulated so that the one overrules the other. Especially the provision about constant angular velocity of all the parts.
But I would not argue further. I'm sure in the near future we will know one way or another.

That's because the rules were written without the split turbo in mind, the MHPE contraption turned the rules on its head.

I'd argue that the split turbo was indeed envisioned, since the rules require the turbine and compressor to be connected by a "shaft assembly". If they didn't think of it the rules may have required a single shaft to connect them.

5.2.4 only refers to the connection between the MGUH and "exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system". If the turbo's shaft assembly has two shafts - one connected to the turbine and one connected to the compressor with a bearing in between - that would suggest to me that the MGUH and its drivetrain (if it has one) must be connected to the shaft which is connected to the turbine.

5.2.4 in no way defines or contradicts the connection arrangements required by 5.1.6. Which says: "The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity". It then goes on to say that the MGUH can be directly connected to the shaft assembly.