Ferrari F10

[MattyT]

RedBull Cheating Again

Coulthard Tests RedBull F1

After being denied the use of Mercedes engines in 2010, RBR have resorted to tests during the out of season F1 testing ban. The latest test involved ex RBR racer David Coulthard testing a new paint-ball-in-the-exhaust technique for improving engine power without degrading fuel consumption.

This will be particularily important given the new rules in 2010 banning in-race refulling.

The test also involved the use of type of paint only visable under special lighting. Although the television series "Top Gear" described it as "Car Art" it is clearly an attempt to secretely test new aerodynamic solutions.

[ISLAMATRON]

And about those tires... if you've taken any physics class in your life, which I highly doubt considering how dumb your arguments are, you'd know that lower grip tires create less grip and less friction, which means less force needed to accelerate the car, and less fuel consumption by the engine. Not to mention the totally different aerodynamics configuration the F2008 has compared to the 2009 and 2010 cars.
Now the only reason Ferrari would test their engines is to improve fuel consumption, which can't be measured using those tires nor that aerodynamic package.

I will answer points that you have made that add to the discussion rather the other stupidity that you typed.
If you read my post regarding the engine dyno's you would see that they can certainly check for increases in fuel economy on the dyno whereas they must test the engine on track to ensure proper reliability while installed.

The aero configuration is not important, all they need to know is that the changes made to the engine give better fuel consumption now in the F2008, versus the type 056 in 2008. They have fuel numbers based on all condition and aero setups for the 2008... in this case it is even more beneficial to run the new engine in a car which they already have plenty of fuel consumption info for. It gives a better baseline to compare to. They can also check for minimum necessary cooling requirements, and compare that to previous test data for the F2008. Running leaner in order to increase fuel efficiency will increase the cooling needs, thus requiring larger sidepod air inlets and exhausts.

Rolling road resistance is negligible compare to the aero loads on these cars, and thus play nearly no role in fuel consumption.

[Fil]

i'm not exactly a fan of Ferrari.. but how is this cheating when it is within FIA F1 rules?

its not like all the other teams aren't allowed to run a 2yr old chassis which happen to run the same designation motor as their current cars.. and of course the motors would be at least current spec, if not with newer test developments.. these motors aren't designed to run more than a few race distances before rebuilds are required.

this is more just a case of Ferrari choosing to do so, whilst the others thusfar haven't.

you do have a point tho Islam, Ferrari (or any other team choosing to run a legal 2yr old chassis) would be stupid to not use the sessions to test out new things on the engine that could be beneficial (for "reliability") for 2010-13.

[flynfrog]

And about those tires... if you've taken any physics class in your life, which I highly doubt considering how dumb your arguments are, you'd know that lower grip tires create less grip and less friction, which means less force needed to accelerate the car, and less fuel consumption by the engine. Not to mention the totally different aerodynamics configuration the F2008 has compared to the 2009 and 2010 cars.
Now the only reason Ferrari would test their engines is to improve fuel consumption, which can't be measured using those tires nor that aerodynamic package.

I will answer points that you have made that add to the discussion rather the other stupidity that you typed.
If you read my post regarding the engine dyno's you would see that they can certainly check for increases in fuel economy on the dyno whereas they must test the engine on track to ensure proper reliability while installed.

The aero configuration is not important, all they need to know is that the changes made to the engine give better fuel consumption now in the F2008, versus the type 056 in 2008. They have fuel numbers based on all condition and aero setups for the 2008... in this case it is even more beneficial to run the new engine in a car which they already have plenty of fuel consumption info for. It gives a better baseline to compare to. They can also check for minimum necessary cooling requirements, and compare that to previous test data for the F2008. Running leaner in order to increase fuel efficiency will increase the cooling needs, thus requiring larger sidepod air inlets and exhausts.

Rolling road resistance is negligible compare to the aero loads on these cars, and thus play nearly no role in fuel consumption.

Its called a dyno

[The FOZ]

Some good points, but you really cant compare a demostration on ice to a test at Barcelona, now that would be naive.

They were dialing in the engine's cold weather running characteristics...y'know in case Montreal gets a freak snowstorm.

[hasalard]

I don't have much to say about whether recent tests of Ferrari should be considered as a cheating or not.I opened a topic before, just asked questions and bamm...marked as an anti-Ferrari guy.I feel sorry enough for that...anyway if we see some reports on Rossi's test like engine related problems, ongoing arguments on this topic may increase and i hope not.

Back on topic; i am struggling to understand the reports simply claiming and demonstrating F2010 almost as a highly developed Redbull RB5.Reports show Redbull style nose, Redbull style DDD etc but 2009 seasons cars were very close in terms of performance and Redbull didn't have a definite performance advantage over rivals.RB5 was not a F2002 or F2004 and neither Redbull nor Brawn didn't set certain standards in terms of performance.I will be really surprised if 2010 cars can be classifed like Brawn type or Redbull type.Also, i saw Gary Anderson's comments on 2010 cars possible aerodynamic and mechanical behaviours, and if he is right, these cars will be completly differents animals and will may require different design approaches in order to be successful.Contrary to the reports and by considering the amount of time spent on development i still believe Ferrari will come up with new and probably radical aerodynamic solutions instead of simply copying Redbull's designs.

Most likely, in the worst scenario, Ferrari will probably live a copy of 2006 season i think.A respectable start, then gaining momentum during the mid season and finishing at the top in terms of performance.

Finally, Anderson's comments; http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80890

[flynfrog]

Its called a dyno

I think your tinfoil hat might be on a little tight.

Again, another worthless post, add something to the discussion or STFU

coming from you

or are you just mad that I debunked your entire theory with 4 words

I think I speak for all of F1T when I say "go bad to trolling fan boy threads and leave the technical discussions to the rest of us"

[ISLAMATRON]

Your post displays a lower then necessary level of reading comprehension so therefore it is obvious that discussing this with you any further would be a waste of my time.

[megz]

Or... you know, they could ah... put ... put the ol' 056 on the ah... on the ol' dyno ya know... on one of them fancy testing rig thingys. Ya know for like 24 hours a day if it really tickled their collective pickles. That would get MORE mileage, MORE tweakability and would be MORE legal. Seriously, find something better to do with your time and health than blowing blood vessels whenever you see red. Also see your own quote in my sig, you're not adding anything of substance to the topic at hand etc etc.

Yes because any smart team would only run an engine on the dyno before heading into the the abreviated testing season of only 15 days... Dyno's are so great on testing cooling requirements... Have you even seen an engine dyno? Do you know what they are capable of? Do they test for vibrations while in the car? Do they tell you what is going on with the engine during longitudinal g-forces? or any G-forces? How about how the airbox works in yaw? Or how the engine reacts to heatsoak?

Engine Dyno's are very limited in what information they can give you... and especially limited in information regarding how the engine reacts while it is in the car, in a confined space with limited cooling, under all types of g loading.

In your estimation can anyone jump into an F1 simulator and with enough time become a top level F1 driver regardless of previous experience or physical condition? An engine dyno is nothing more than a simulator, no more closer to the real thing than a driving simulator.

I know how a dyno works and know full well it has limitations, but as EVERYONE has pointed out, what Ferrari are doing is legal, a terrible way to "test", and wont help.

Impoving fuel economy could be done on a dyno quite simply by taking the engine from an F60 from seasons end, running it, setting that as a baseline. Grab the new unit with the fuel economising upgrades, run it, compare.

Differences in the actual body of the engine are pretty much outlawed completely and the engines are very well understood by Ferrari (they've been largely unchanged since late 2006) and are probably optimised to the max. This means there will be no unpleaseant suprises in the structural strength of the "upgraded" engine and it's ability to handle the G-forces it'd be subjected to in the car, seeing as the "upgrades" are likely to come from ancilleries, changes to fuel maps etc. (We're assuming here of course that the 056 engines aren't being drawn and quartered at present by the chassis... and they're not.)

You're arguments ISLAMATRON are retarded at best. It's far better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're stupid than it is to open your mouth and confirm it.

[ISLAMATRON]

I know how a dyno works and know full well it has limitations, but as EVERYONE has pointed out, what Ferrari are doing is legal, a terrible way to "test", and wont help.

Impoving fuel economy could be done on a dyno quite simply by taking the engine from an F60 from seasons end, running it, setting that as a baseline. Grab the new unit with the fuel economising upgrades, run it, compare.

Differences in the actual body of the engine are pretty much outlawed completely and the engines are very well understood by Ferrari (they've been largely unchanged since late 2006) and are probably optimised to the max. This means there will be no unpleaseant suprises in the structural strength of the "upgraded" engine and it's ability to handle the G-forces it'd be subjected to in the car, seeing as the "upgrades" are likely to come from ancilleries, changes to fuel maps etc. (We're assuming here of course that the 056 engines aren't being drawn and quartered at present by the chassis... and they're not.)

Of course improving fuel economy(while not changing the engine internals) can be accomplished using the dyno, but those changes made to the engine ancilleries, and fuel maps must be track tested before being put into "production". I've personally seen plenty of examples of engines leaning out too much under lateral g-forces causing hot spots and detonation. Also lubrication problems at high G's, not to mention first and second order vibration that never appeared on the dyno, but tore apart engines(and ancillaries) while in the car. There are allways problems that show up in track testing that dont show themselves on the dyno.

Would any team forego track testing and only rely on windtunnels and CFD for aero testing?
Would any team forego track testing and only rely on 7 post shaker rigs to test the suspension components?
Yet you are trying to say that they dont need any track testing to ensure reliability in the most complex part of an F1 car, that a dyno will suffice.

What you are saying is absurd can only be explained as blind rantings of a tifosi.

Yes, what Ferrari is doing is within the "letter" of the rules, but then again there is no rule that states you can not set fire to another teams transporter is there?

[timbo]

but then again there is no rule that states you can not set fire to another teams transporter is there?

151(c)

[Fil]

what Ferrari is doing is within the "letter" of the rules

that's all that we are trying to say as well Islam.

i do agree tho, it'd be naive to think that Ferrari weren't using the Rossi (and upcoming Massa) F2008 test to try out a new spec 056 'reliability'-improved engine, they'd be stupid not to.

DDDiffuser court case of '09 showed that it is the 'letter' of the rules that counts, not the spirit.


but now that we're all agreeing, can we go back to more pressing issues (the USF1 page) and bash a team worth bashing.. Xpensive is getting lonely in there!

[gibells]

I have to say I'm with the Matron on this one. I'm a HUGE Rossi fan, and think he's the best thing since someone developed a bread slicing machine, but he's had enough go's at a Ferrari to get your suspicions going. I'd say it's even worth checking out the sidepods and exhausts of the car he's testing to disprove any arguments.

[bonjon1979]

I don't think it's crazy to suggest that Ferrari are trying out a new spec engine in the F2008. If they've made efficiency changes to the engine then they'll want to test it as much as possible in real world conditions to make sure that it holds up. It probably is a bit sneaky but none of the other teams seem that bothered about it so it really can't be that big a deal. I think it's interesting having seen the fuel consumption stats for last year and it's not good news for Ferrari with numbers suggesting that on the same starting load Renault were going for 3 laps longer. Over the course of an entire race that could mean 6 laps extra worth of fuel which is a considerable amount. I guess that Ferrari are trying their best to rectify that and so testing all they can. Honestly, if it was a bad breach of the regulations then we'd've heard something from the other teams. Since we haven't then I guess it's nothing serious.

Btw if any of you are interested in the numbers, here's the blog I got the info from.

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/2009/12/ ... -fuel-use/

I have to say that it's a really interesting statistical take on F1 which I really enjoyed reading last year. Well worth a look.

[Roger the knife]

I have to say I'm with the Matron on this one. I'm a HUGE Rossi fan, and think he's the best thing since someone developed a bread slicing machine, but he's had enough go's at a Ferrari to get your suspicions going. I'd say it's even worth checking out the sidepods and exhausts of the car he's testing to disprove any arguments.

I think you'll find that Peter Windsor and Ken anderson would agree with your assessment of Rossi, and in the hope of getting a head start on the next BIG technology, they looked very closely at the bread slicing machine, and decided a method of toasting this product was going to give them the big performance leap required by USF1 for 2010......