engine testing and integration

[Reca]

Are you serious ,Sauber is able to copy the whole car but not able to caopy the engine mounts?
As far as Iknow they were a little miffed about the fact they had no choice but use the ferrari mounts for the first time ,as they have the same engine as ferrari now wheras before the interface wa s strictly sauber....

AFAIK the 053 for the F2004 and the 053 for C23 have different mounts for the chassis. (I believe Paolo Martinelli said something like that, don’t remember if it was at the F2004 launch or in another situation).
Furthermore on the C23 all the rear suspension mounts are on the gearbox while on the Ferrari, since last year, the fore attachment point of the lower wishbone is on the engine head. So also if Sauber has theoretically the same engine as this year Ferrari and theoretically the same gearbox as last year Ferrari, still there are some differences. Anytime I have the suspect that C23 is a clone of the Ferrari I think about the Massa words at the start of the season, he said : “Trust me, I drove the F2003-GA for almost an year, the C23 is a totally different car”. The tone suggested also the temptation to say “unfortunately”. Probably only the aero appearance is similar, and that’s logical since Sauber wind tunnel wasn’t ready yet, but the entire design of the car (chassis, suspension geometries etc) is made in Suisse. Probably journalists increased the importance of the relationship with Ferrari just because it was an interesting theme to elaborate and to fill columns during the winter, results on the track tells the truth IMO. If the C23 was indeed just a GA with Sauber stickers then Ferrari actually made the quantum leap other teams just declared they made.

About coupling of 7 post rig and dyno. The week before the Bahrain gp I read an article on simulations at Ferrari, according to that article they don’t use 7 post rig anymore, they stopped few years ago and chassis simulation is currently entirely software made. Actually when I visited Dallara few years ago (it was 2000 or 2001 can’t remember exactly) the operator said to us that the previous year Ferrari used the Dallara 7 post rig a few times. He said it was because the results from the Ferrari post rig weren’t reliable enough, but, if the article is close to reality, maybe it was just a way to validate the results of the software simulations with different rigs.

[marcush.]

that is quite funny, as I read a comment from Saubers Willy Rampf that he was quite unhappy with the prospect of having to use the Ferrari engine mounts....
If Ferrari knows its beast so well after only driving it for less then4000kms
preseason testing,their simulations must be outstanding...For sure this is very useful to extract the most of your car over the weekend in days when running the car in reality is restricted so much.It is a case of doing some laps check against generated data ,correct for errors made and then have the possibility to set the car up perfectly without even driving the car again.
If you look at williams struggle every weekend to be on the pace from the moment go one wonders of their simulations give good correlation and how long they will try their approach again and again instead of changing their minds.

[Reca]

Was that comment from Rampf recent ? I ask because you say he was talking about the prospect. I’ve found the articles on the F2004 launch and two different sources are reporting that the chassis mounts are different, one of the sources also indicates that internally the 053 for the F2004 is called 053/A and 053/D the one for the C23, I don’t have other confirmations of the different designation, officially the latter is obviously the Petronas 04A.
Unfortunately I’ve yet to see a good image of the 053 (only the CAD drawing released at the launch), the F2004 is quite protective, also when the engine cover is removed you basically can’t see it. On the contrary I’ve found a good pic of the 04A :
http://www.f1total.com/bilder/2004/gp/03bah/do/z068.jpg
Anyway the only thing you can say comparing what is visible of the 053 with the 04A is that exhausts are different, but that was also evident just looking at the position of the chimneys, closer to the centre in the F2004.

[marcush.]

you never know what journalists will make of what you actually said ,but he was actually quoted saying he was a bit unhappy he had basically no influence in the design of the engine interface to the chassis,wheras before this was completely sauber responsibility.He didn´t say it was the same as on the F2004 though.

[Irvingthien]

The MP4-19 shows that how important that chasis-engine intergation is today. Testin the engine on the dyno isn't enough, if Merc enigne always blows up, just wondering what is the condition of their dyno right now. Just wondering what the hell McLaren is doing in there, Merc's move from Suttgart to Brixworth should improve their intregation, not deteriorate it.

[marcush.]

if you read my earlier posts ,I always stated that mclarens main problem is not the car ,it is the stuttgart connection that hurts.Always ,the more influence they get the worse it gets,just ask sauber about the works influence in their last year of group C....I know somebody who worked at the dyno in stuttgart and he always said there was very little respect for the work of Brixworth and an air of :we could do that on or own instead of relying on these brits....Believe me it is not necessary to have someone develop the basics for you when they are not fully supportive of your successs...
I believe some of it is they all want to remove some key figures ,and as we all see the pressure is almost unbearible...
even the german press is asking nowloud if criticism is allowed.
Anyone an idea why Mclaren has to build new chassis with their B-Version?

[Reca]

True, McLaren is simply living now the problems Ferrari had in early 90s. A team of engineers designing a car, a different team of engineers designing a different car just hoping in the failure of the other team, Barnard in England, the team designing the engine in Maranello...
When something was wrong with the car everyone was looking for someone to blame instead of looking for a solution. McLaren-Mercedes is currently the same, maybe worse actually if you consider the galactic motorhome, Paragon, the SLR etc... The comparison between the SLR and the F1 IMO gives a good indication of what is wrong with McLaren today, it looks like they’ve lost the focus on what really matters and are focusing on appearance. The pressure from Mercedes isn’t an help but it’s logical considering that in 10+ years of F1 Mercedes won only 1 WCC, that’s difficult to accept for a big manufacturer so the pressure will constantly grow until they win or until they leave.

[marcush.]

back to the engine testing thing.
Just visit the BAR homepage and look for the feature on MarkEllis ,of the Testteam.
What did he say?Essentially he stated the Proplems normally come from the drivetrain,and this in a double manner as first you have to solve these troubles so you get a reliable package but second,the problems in the drivetrain compromise your running time and so you don´t get the mileage with a properly running car ,amassing data.Instead you loose time changing engines and cleaning and repairing ,wearing out your crew.
They had their drivetrain tested and proved in the old car and hit the ground running with their new sexy lady,no doubt clever straightforward.
Mercedes keeps designing and building new engines as Mclaren does the same on the chassis side not the best idea to iron out reliability issues ,you have to remeber it is the then the second time in a row their design was declared a failure.And we must not forget ,last years 17Evolution was not doing too well when it was introduced the year before either...

[Morse]

No doubt one of the isses arising from the progress made in engine and chassis packageing is that more and more componants become bespoke. If they prove unreliable you can't simply bolt on the previous years. No doubt this is why McLaren have not put last years engine into the MP4-19. The knock on effect ouf changing the engine type would be old gearbox and suspension and new bodywork, wing mounts (possibly) etc. so it would be quite a big deal which I am sure why it is deemed so critical.

I am sure there are other areas where this must be the case with the chassis and even aerodynamics. Last years front wing might work well with last years chassis but upset a current chassis.

[marcush.]

as you go along in the design of a car it is very natural to do things differently if you were not happy with the old installations.People have different styles and like to work to their philosophies so its not unusual to arrive at nonmatching components from year to year.
But to throw it into the bin as mclaren does and start completely afresh?
how on earth can they built a new car that is faster than the current one,as they surely put the best things they had into the one they are runningnow....to state the B-spec had fundamental gains in performance does not speak well of the direction the pursued with 18 and 19.But :
You learn most from your mistakes ,given the chance to prove you have learned your part...

[Guest]

Could chassis flexing cause engine integration problems?

Certainly an engine will not last the distance or could not be operated to its full potential if the chassis is *elastic* causing to much vibration in the car/engine/gearbox system...

[dumrick]

Could chassis flexing cause engine integration problems?

Certainly an engine will not last the distance or could not be operated to its full potential if the chassis is *elastic* causing to much vibration in the car/engine/gearbox system...

A flexing chassis would absorve more torsional forces and cause LESS stress in the engine. Lower rigidity would also allow higher vibration absorption.
The problem is that it would cause never-ending handling problems. You need high stiffness in the whole assembly (and being the engine a part of the "beam" it has to be quite stiff, too).