simieski wrote:To answer your question of why, please read what I said following the statement which you quoted.
Funnily enough, I actually did read it the first time. And the second. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Did you read what others including myself wrote?? You seem unable to grasp that another person might have a contrary point of view to your own. Is your opinion the ONLY possible solution or answer?? Perhaps a check on some of the condescending attitude might help....
As such, it is the case here that I have a contrary view and do not agree with some of your assumptions given my experiences in other forms of motorsport, hence my previous comment. However in order to satiate your need for detail, below is an more intricate response.
simieski wrote: If you look at the panel design, it is not quick release. It is retained by a non captive screw into an anchor nut.
Yes, I saw that the first and second time, thank you for pointing it out a third. So these are not quick release fittings, what's your point??
simieski wrote: Keep in mind gas is the only thing that may be replenished during a race.
Yes, nitrogen or possibly another gas is the only replenishable.
However, this leads into a larger point in that most decisions made in designing and running a race vehicle are a compromise or trade off, something I eluded to in my previous post.
IMHO Ferrari have made a judgement call in trading weight saving for robustness and a small efficiency window that may only ever be utilised in an emergency situation that is likely indicative of a larger issue. As such, any perceived small gain in efficiency provides no significant or minimal advantage that is not enough to warrant the extra weight and complexity of a secondary quick release fitting.
From my point of view,
IF there was a need to replenish the nitrogen mid race, there is likely a bigger issue, so having a separate quick release tap for a very small likelihood event of a mid race fill up might not be the highest priority. If the nitrogen pressure was to drop, the best option maybe retire the car rather than risk the engine, unless they could justify/quantify the risk vs reward. As such why provide the added complexity, weight and introduce another point of failure for such an infinitesimally small and likely never utilised comparative advantage??
simieski wrote: One would expect a panel which is designed to be open as quickly as possible in a race would have something a little more efficient.
So is this the royal "one", kind of like the royal "we"??? Or do you usually refer to yourself in such a manner?? This should read "I" as in you, simieski expect...You cannot possibly assume to speak for others in such a manner. So "YOU" expect based on your own observations, experience and suppositions, nothing more.
simieski wrote: The other connections serve no purpose during a race so there is no need for quick access to them, however for nitrogen this remains a possibility.
Yes, but they are still important pre-race where time is absolutely an element, especially when on the grid or in the garage during qualifying. Additionally, post race is an issue where time efficiency is also an element to ensurer engines are properly serviced to maintain appropriate cooling down periods in a timely manner of transport.
So again, what exactly is your point?? You feel they should have buried the access panel under the car perhaps as during the pre and post race time periods, mechanics be damned??
Use during a race for nitrogen replenishment would seem to present a very small possibility and as such not a high priority but a very tertiary consideration behind other more favored aspects of efficiency and longevity.
As such,it is would seem they (Ferrari) have simply undertaken a risk/benefit type analysis as is typical in such situations and perhaps
NOT provided a quick release fitting for nitrogen replenishment under this panel, if at all.
Why? The risk it presented was deemed greater than the reward offered when all aspects of the problem were considered.
I am not sure you have considered all aspects of the issue to hand, which "
one" should always do.
simieski wrote:With reference to flow rates etc, please consider the nitrogen reservoir is relatively small, approximately half a litre, it would not require anything more than a tyre valve and push on fitting to inflate it very quickly.
Yes, again this is well understood however you are not looking at the holistic package!!!
The fitting may serve a primary purpose other than as a quick nitrogen replenishment during a race which is deemed as a secondary use and not its primary purpose. As such, it is designed more concentric to its primary purpose and in so doing it maybe required to be more robust than a simple "tyre valve push on fitting" in order to achieve both functions.
As has been said, teams are typically careful not to introduce unwarranted weight and complexity as well as take great pains avoid increasing potential points of failure. Simply put, why have two fittings when one will do.
A stronger fitting might be 25% heavier than a single fitting, but it is 50% lighter than two as well as reducing hose and other fitting weights required for multiple access ports. This weight saving is coupled with removing another whole potential system of failure points to ruin a race.
A simple risk benefit analysis may have led to a single more robust fitting with an acceptable risk of time penalty should it ever be used, as that usage was deemed an extremely low probability event.
simieski wrote:With the self sealing coupling you normally have a collar to pull back, push the fitting on, release the collar then pressurise the line. With a push on the line is already pressurised, no collars to mess about with.
OK, thanks for the "Quick Release for Dummies" recap. Please read above and try to understand that perhaps the primary driver was not quick release/connection after analysis was done but to fulfill both a primary and secondary objectives and reduce overall risk profile of the system.
One must always be careful in
One's analysis of individual systems so as to not forget the whole.
So to sum up as I see it:
1: The extra weight of tubing, fittings etc vs. an already present screw type fitting which is placed in an already present easy access panel presents less of an increase in weight and complexity over another separate quick release quick connect nitrogen access port which introduces multiple fittings as well as another hole in the body/chassis.
2: This single system / multiple use connection reduces weight system
3: This single system / multiple use connection reduces complexity and potential points of failure
4: During transport, an external nitrogen feed is often secured to the stripped and packaged chassis to ensure pressures remain high enough in the pneumatic valve system to prevent de-pressurisation and valves "dropping" into the engine where they may touch the piston crowns.
5: As you yourself said, the reservoir is typically small at around 0.5Lt, so a screw type fitting which provides a stronger and more positive connection than one which is much more inclined to be "knocked off" or fail such as a quick release fitting such as those previously utilized for air jacks etc is preferred. An easy on/easy off connection is not a robust long term connection acceptable for transport usage
6: A risk benefit analysis may have lead to the decision that a separate quick release coupler was not warranted and as such, they reduce the risk of failure, increasing the reward of reliability against the small benefit of possibly needing to save 4 seconds using a screw type fitting once in 2 or 3 seasons during an event that is likely indicative of a larger problem that could potentially lead to an engine failure and the associated penalties.
You can agree or disagree, but maybe you should try to be a little less condescending your One-ness...
