F14-T- Development & News

[Red is Best]

Could you please say why this is not achievable, if this is true that would be fantastic but you will now educate us on why it is not possible.

My bad, I read the sentence wrong, I thought it was saying that the total output will increase from 30%, but it seems we are only talking about the ERS output.
So yeah, it looks more realistic, but we are talking about a rumor on an Autosport forum so not the most reliable source out there.

[GrndLkNatv]

Thats something around 40-50 HP? I'll believe it when I see it.

What you need to think is that this was planned all along the way.. Ferrari weren't pushing the engine/power unit at full tilt on purpose.. Engine reliability after one race can now be calculated given the metals trapped in the oil/filter and with that they know they can tighten the screws. The heat generated is also known now and upgrading to use the full output of the engine/power unit is no longer risky. Ferrari are being very conservative so far in regard to the new power plant, actually more so than I would be, but they know what they are doing. Had they wanted that software earlier, they could have had it..

[Greig]

What you need to think is that this was planned all along the way.. Ferrari weren't pushing the engine at full tilt on purpose.. Engine reliability after one race can now be calculated given the metals trapped in the oil/filter and with that they know they can tighten the screws. Had they wanted that software earlier, they could have had it..

Course, we planned to run under powered, just like you told us we have no problems with the engine.....engine reliablity was tested on the test bench and in real life testing there was no reason to wait to race day to test the engine.

[GrndLkNatv]

Course, we planned to run under powered, just like you told us we have no problems with the engine.....

Greig,
can you name one problem they have had with the engine/power unit so far? It would seem Ferrari had both cars finish and both ran great. Also, their first goal was clearly stated by Luca and that was to finish the race with the new engine. They have no historical data on this engine, so you don't push it to the limit the first time out. You push it a bit and get some points and then adjust your reference point.

[Stormsearcher]

Am just curious.. wasnt Rory bryne supposed to be designing for us again? What happened of that?

[Greig]

Greig,
can you name one problem they have had with the engine so far?

yes

[Greig]

Am just curious.. wasnt Rory bryne supposed to be designing for us again? What happened of that?

Probably still working on the super floor.

[Ferris]

Thats something around 40-50 HP? I'll believe it when I see it.

OK, so the way I read it is that we didn't use full power in Australia due to reliability issues. 30% cannot simply come from a software remap as these PU's were said to bring about 750bhp. Assuming we are behind Merc by 100bhp (which I find unlikely as this is too high) that would mean a 30% increase will deliver us an additional 180bhp... if this was the case then we would have 780bhp and be more powerful than Merc... I think the 30% is all rubbish.

We have issues around the PU in general in terms of overheating the electric elements of the system and therefore we are not running it at its peak. We have issues with power delivery also as this is where we really lost out to Merc. We also have big issues under braking.

Software updates will deliver a lot during this early phase of development but then the gains from this area will diminish.

Truth is we really don't know where we will end up between now and Spain but clearly we will improve. How much? Time will tell.

As for Kimi's comments, I think he may be talking about the front end amendments that he has requested. I don't know if he was talking about the power unit upgrades.

After days of trying to understand the gap to Merc i have resigned myself to a simple position.
We don't have any of the data, we can't know for sure what the opportunity is to improve but we know the team will not tolerate mediocrity and are working very hard to set things right.

There are just so many rumours of where the problems exist and not enough clarity coming from the team other than they know what area's they need to improve. Truth be told I think the rumours are all partially correct, just not at the magnitude that people are reporting. We are overweight, we are down on power and we do have problems under braking. Aero is OK but not the best (RBR are the best here as expected) but the rest of the car needs a lot of work in all areas.

[GrndLkNatv]

yes

Well come on mate! We've known each other for 10+ years. List out the problems with the new engine...

[Greig]

Well come on mate! We've known each other for 10+ years. List out the problems with the new engine...

Did you not follow testing? And you just said we could not run it full power in Australia as we do not know how reliable it is? LOL

[GrndLkNatv]

When you say 750bhp, you're including the ERS right? The engine just on gas should be in the 600bhp to 625bhp range and then the 160bhp added with the ERS. Heat is certainly a worry and I agree software can be tweaked to a point but soon the gains there are non existent and physical hardware needs to be improved.

OK, so the way I read it is that we didn't use full power in Australia due to reliability issues. 30% cannot simply come from a software remap as these PU's were said to bring about 750bhp. Assuming we are behind Merc by 100bhp (which I find unlikely as this is too high) that would mean a 30% increase will deliver us an additional 180bhp... if this was the case then we would have 780bhp and be more powerful than Merc... I think the 30% is all rubbish.

We have issues around the PU in general in terms of overheating the electric elements of the system and therefore we are not running it at its peak. We have issues with power delivery also as this is where we really lost out to Merc. We also have big issues under braking.

Software updates will deliver a lot during this early phase of development but then the gains from this area will diminish.

Truth is we really don't know where we will end up between now and Spain but clearly we will improve. How much? Time will tell.

As for Kimi's comments, I think he may be talking about the front end amendments that he has requested. I don't know if he was talking about the power unit upgrades.

After days of trying to understand the gap to Merc i have resigned myself to a simple position.
We don't have any of the data, we can't know for sure what the opportunity is to improve but we know the team will not tolerate mediocrity and are working very hard to set things right.

There are just so many rumours of where the problems exist and not enough clarity coming from the team other than they know what area's they need to improve. Truth be told I think the rumours are all partially correct, just not at the magnitude that people are reporting. We are overweight, we are down on power and we do have problems under braking. Aero is OK but not the best (RBR are the best here as expected) but the rest of the car needs a lot of work in all areas.

[GrndLkNatv]

Did you not follow testing? And you just said we could not run it full power in Australia as we do not know how reliable it is? LOL

Greig,
I didn't say they couldn't run it full power, I said I doubt they let it run all out at the first race. If you don't know how the engine/power unit will run in your first actually race and you only get 5 of them, you don't run it flat out the first race.. You run it at a reasonable rate, get your data and then figure out how far you can push it. That isn't a problem, that's normal..

[Greig]

Greig,
I didn't say they couldn't run it full power, I said I doubt they let it run all out at the first race. If you don't know how the engine/power unit will run in your first actually race and you only get 5 of them, you don't run it flat out the first race.. You run it at a reasonable rate, get your data and then figure out how far you can push it. That isn't a problem, that's normal..

So on one hand you say we have no engine problems, yet the team you say still don't know how it will last?

Sorry but that is a lot of rubbish, the engine has been on test bench and tested on track, they know full well the reliability of the engine and will have blown up many of them already.

[GrndLkNatv]

So on one hand you say we have no engine problems, yet the team you say still don't know how it will last?

Sorry but that is a lot of rubbish, the engine has been on test bench and tested on track, they know full well the reliability of the engine and will have blown up many of them already.

Greig,
that is not rubbish, they are still testing the engine on the bench and in the car. If they already knew how everything was going to last why would they keep testing?

[Greig]

Greig,
that is not rubbish, they are still testing the engine on the bench and in the car. If they already knew how everything was going to last why would they keep testing? I know about all 8 test benches they have to test with. I was there when they switched from 4 and 4 to 6 and 2 in Sept.

LOL but we have no problems with the engine you said?

Oh wait running it down on power on race day is normal and planned, course.

[shamim179]

What you need to think is that this was planned all along the way.. Ferrari weren't pushing the engine/power unit at full tilt on purpose.. Engine reliability after one race can now be calculated given the metals trapped in the oil/filter and with that they know they can tighten the screws. The heat generated is also known now and upgrading to use the full output of the engine/power unit is no longer risky. Ferrari are being very conservative so far in regard to the new power plant, actually more so than I would be, but they know what they are doing. Had they wanted that software earlier, they could have had it..

I see what you're saying. It makes sense as Ferrari have reiterated the element of reliability over and over. I also think Ferrari were hoping for more DNF's and underestimated the level of reliability that all the other teams would have come race day. This is why Fry thinks that reliability wasn't enough after the race even though we managed to meet our primary objectives which was to finish the race. However, what is not known is whether the other teams used this cautious approach or not. You would think Mercedes didn't based on their supreme performance.

[GrndLkNatv]

LOL but we have no problems with the engine you said?

Oh wait running it down on power on race day is normal and planned, course.

Greig,
it's not uncommon for all the cars to not be running on peak power all the time during the race. That's why they have
the different timing and fuel settings as well as the different ERS settings.. The power plant won't survive running it all the way out all the time.. You might remember Webber turning his engine down last year and having Seb ignore team rules and risk his engine so he could win.

[Greig]

Greig,
it's not uncommon for all the cars to not be running on peak power all the time during the race. That's why they have
the different timing and fuel settings as well as the different ERS settings.. The power plant won't survive running it all the way out all the time.. You might remember Webber turning his engine down last year and having Seb ignore team rules and risk his engine so he could win.

Erm yes when you are 30 seconds ahead you might back off the engine, not when you are 30 seconds behind.

[GrndLkNatv]

I see what you're saying. It makes sense as Ferrari have reiterated the element of reliability over and over. I also think Ferrari were hoping for more DNF's and underestimated the level of reliability that all the other teams would have come race day. This is why Fry thinks that reliability wasn't enough after the race even though we managed to meet our primary objectives which was to finish the race. However, what is not known is whether the other teams used this cautious approach or not. You would think Mercedes didn't based on their supreme performance.

Mercedes has a lot more experience with the V6 platform and also had 1000 engineers working on their project whereas Ferrari only had 320. Ferrari have done very well given their limited resources. Greig, check my numbers again..

[Greig]

Mercedes has a lot more experience with the V6 platform and also had 1000 engineers working on their project whereas Ferrari only had 320. Ferrari have done very well given their limited resources. Greig, check my numbers again..

1+1=3

[GrndLkNatv]

Erm yes when you are 30 seconds ahead you might back off the engine, not when you are 30 seconds behind.

Greig,
wrong.. If you are on the engine at full tilt all the time, you will burn it up.. Remember back in 2006 at Brazil when Ferrari put a fresh engine in Michael's car, it was turning 21k rpm that day and he was smoking fast. They couldn't run that engine like that for more than that race, it wouldn't make it. That's why the RPM limits have come down this year, for reliability. If not they would run these baby's at 18k rpm and only need one engine a season right?

[Ferris]

When you say 750bhp, you're including the ERS right? The engine just on gas should be in the 600bhp to 625bhp range and then the 160bhp added with the ERS. Heat is certainly a worry and I agree software can be tweaked to a point but soon the gains there are non existent and physical hardware needs to be improved.

Yeah I am looking at the whole PU. If the 30% is in relation only to the non ICE unit then perhaps this is more reasonable as this would deliver around 40 bhp. That power gap seems consistent with what I saw in Melbourne when Alonso had DRS open and could not overtake the FI. A 40 bhp advantage would be enough to defend against DRS in Melbourne I think.

[GrndLkNatv]

1+1=3

Okay, you're here to try and humiliate me, that's fine.. Check with your friends in Maranello and find out if my numbers here are wrong.. Then I will be happy to have you slam me all day long. But if I am right, you have to admit it. BTW, my numbers on that statement came to me from Luca M.

[Greig]

Greig,
wrong.. If you are on the engine at full tilt all the time, you will burn it up.. Remember back in 2006 at Brazil when Ferrari put a fresh engine in Michael's car, it was turning 21k rpm that day and he was smoking fast. They couldn't run that engine like that for more than that race, it wouldn't make it. That's why the RPM limits have come down this year, for reliability. If not they would run these baby's at 18k rpm and only need one engine a season right?

Not quite sure you are following, you said Webber turned his engine down and Seb never, Seb's engine never blew up did it? Webber was only told to turn it down as they assumed he had no threat.

[GrndLkNatv]

Not quite sure you are following, you said Webber turned his engine down and Seb never, Seb's engine never blew up did it? Webber was only told to turn it down as they assumed he had no threat.

And since there is no threat you turn the engine down to save on engine wear. Don't believe me.. Go ask.. BTW, engines receive the most wear on startup, before oil pressure is stable. In fact on a normal engine 90% of the normal wear comes during that time and that's why large diesel engines never stop in Tug Boats and other super large equipment, they change the oil while the engine is running.

[Greig]

And since there is no threat you turn the engine down to save on engine wear. Don't believe me.. Go ask..

Off course you do, as I said when you are 30 seconds ahead you can turn it down, not when you are 30 seconds behind. As your Webber and Seb situation showed.

You are trying to say we planned to run 30% less power, which is not the same.

[GrndLkNatv]

Off course you do, as I said when you are 30 seconds ahead you can turn it down, not when you are 30 seconds behind. As your Webber and Seb situation showed.

If I were 30 seconds behind, keeping up with the rest of the pack and on a brand new engine design that I am still collecting data on and one that has to last more than 4 races, I am not going to run it all out all the time, again because I need it to run hard another day. BTW, I didn't say 30% either, that was a number already posted here. I just said they may not have had it running peak all the time on purpose in order to save the engine and because they are trying to be safe with a brand new design they are still collecting wear data on.

[Greig]

If I were 30 seconds behind, keeping up with the rest of the pack and on a brand new engine design that I am still collecting data on and one that has to last more than 4 races, I am not going to run it all out all the time, again because I need it to run hard another day.

That is not the same as planning to run 30% less power the whole race.

[GrndLkNatv]

That is not the same as planning to run 30% less power the whole race.

Show me where I said they planned on running 30% less power the whole race. I said they may have planned to run it less than peak performance all race. 30% came from someone else, not me. BTW, there's a few numbers we need to delete from this conversation in regard to dynos. Others are fine.

[Greig]

Show me where I said they planned on running 30% less power the whole race. I said they may have planned to run it less than peak performance all race. 30% came from someone else, not me.

What you need to think is that this was planned all along the way.. Ferrari weren't pushing the engine/power unit at full tilt on purpose.. Engine reliability after one race can now be calculated given the metals trapped in the oil/filter and with that they know they can tighten the screws. The heat generated is also known now and upgrading to use the full output of the engine/power unit is no longer risky. Ferrari are being very conservative so far in regard to the new power plant, actually more so than I would be, but they know what they are doing. Had they wanted that software earlier, they could have had it..