[F87source]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

Nope, no thank you!!! We would accept Max tho

Would ruin ferrari's chance at a constructors championship though, because the way max operates the whole team has to be based around him and pretty much screw the second driver and what they need. It would win drivers championships but probably not constructors because the second driver would be struggling.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

Nope, no thank you!!! We would accept Max tho

I know you are somewhat kidding, I’d leave it as is, they have quite the driving combo there!

[F87source]

Here's some more data from f1 technical about the engine difference between ferrari, merc, and rb:

Trap speeds aside we also have to remember each team is using different gear ratios, merc uses the shortest gear ratio, followed by ferrari, and then redbull. So technically merc should accelerate fastest, then ferrari and redbull the slowest while top speed should have redbull the fastest, ferrari in the middle then merc the slowest.


It's hard to tell from the traces but speeds are very close, merc is not accelerating that fast vs. the other two and in places slower. Redbull keeping up with the ferrari quite well to despite the longer gears. Overall pretty similar traces but merc is behind a bit in some areas, I heard it could be because they had to run more wing to compensate for the increased ride height and the resulting loss in downforce. But so far it is really hard to tell where the w13 stands with how many issues they're facing along with traction issues.


To judge a pu based on how powerful it is we should look at acceleration and intermediate trap speeds out of a corner (where drag hasn't become a factor yet). To determine "jet mode unraceable speed" that is peak trap speed.









But to summarize it is really really hard to make a determination if the merc engine is behind as of right now, still too many factors at play between how many issues the merc faces and the limited data we have as a result. I still don't think the merc engine is too far behind, I think it is a chassis related issue that results in poorer cornering speeds, poor traction which means poor acceleration, and the higher drag setup they have to run to compensate. We will see soon, maybe merc has the worse engine, maybe they don't, myabe they still have the best engine I can't tell yet.

But I can see ferrari and redbull are at the top, and it really does look like the redbull is the faster car in the straights right now.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by F87source

But to summarize it is really really hard to make a determination if the merc engine is behind as of right now, still too many factors at play between how many issues the merc faces and the limited data we have as a result. I still don't think the merc engine is too far behind, I think it is a chassis related issue that results in poorer cornering speeds, poor traction which means poor acceleration, and the higher drag setup they have to run to compensate. We will see soon, maybe merc has the worse engine, maybe they don't, myabe they still have the best engine I can't tell yet.
But I can see ferrari and redbull are at the top, and it really does look like the redbull is the faster car in the straights right now.

Also part of the equation: what drivers have to endure when sitting out a whole 300+ km race in their F1 car. IMHO driving the W13 Merc is physically more demanding (more of a handful, draining more energy for the drivers with all the shaking and stirring - getting 'beaten up' on a bumpy race track) than driving the current Ferrari or Red Bull.

OK, driving any F1 car is very demanding and F1 drivers are athletes spending lots of time on working out. But it looks as if the current Merc W13 package (even when tweaked to reduce the 'porpoising effect') is not as 'comfortable' (or for the sake of better description: is 'more uncomfortable') than it used to be in 2021; for the time being it's a tougher work place, harder to drive. I don't know, but maybe statistics of HAM and RUS progressively losing ground vis-à-vis the Ferrari and Red Bull cars until the safety car stage kicked in (resulting from the GAS car retirement) partially reflect this.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Also part of the equation: what drivers have to endure when sitting out a whole 300+ km race in their F1 car. IMHO driving the W13 Merc is physically more demanding (more of a handful, draining more energy for the drivers with all the shaking and stirring - getting 'beaten up' on a bumpy race track) than driving the current Ferrari or Red Bull.

OK, driving any F1 car is very demanding and F1 drivers are athletes spending lots of time on working out. But it looks as if the current Merc W13 package (even when tweaked to reduce the 'porpoising effect') is not as 'comfortable' (or for the sake of better description: is 'more uncomfortable') than it used to be in 2021; for the time being it's a tougher work place, harder to drive. I don't know, but maybe statistics of HAM and RUS progressively losing ground vis-à-vis the Ferrari and Red Bull cars until the safety car stage kicked in (resulting from the GAS car retirement) partially reflect this.

Could be, alot of things could be causes the merc to lose pace and driver faigue from all that bouncing could be part of it. But I also think the bouncing and sliding due to the w13's poor setup at the moment, could be robbing alot of race pace as the tires wear out even faster.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by F87source

There are 3 fuel pumps, only 1 is an FIA spec part, and mounting in the tanks vary. So it is most likely a redbull issue not a conspiratorial attempt at redbull like you make it out to be.

Saw this on F1Technical. Apparently this has been an ongoing problem from testing for multiple teams.

AMuS: The teams and the FIA are worried about fuel delivery. The main pump from the catchtank into the high-pressure pump is a standard part built by Marelli since this year. During the tests, some teams had problems with the electronics, which were cast in a resin box next to the pump. Cracks developed. This allowed petrol to penetrate and destroy the electronics. Allegedly, this was the reason why hardly any race distances were covered during the tests. After qualifying, some teams asked the FIA to check the pumps. The request was granted, of course. Nothing would be more embarrassing than a mass death because of this part.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Saw this on F1Technical. Apparently this has been an ongoing problem from testing for multiple teams.

Yeah I just saw scarbs talk about this on Peter windsor's pod cast. Apparently some teams have had this issue during testing and as a result teams were allowed to inspect the pumps after quali. Mclaren took the opportunity to also change the pump when the found the issue, but redbull did not - according to this article:https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/10668...ady-known.html


we will know more in the coming days.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by F87source

Yeah I just saw scarbs talk about this on Peter windsor's pod cast. Apparently some teams have had this issue during testing and as a result teams were allowed to inspect the pumps after quali. Mclaren took the opportunity to also change the pump when the found the issue, but redbull did not - according to this article:https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/10668...ady-known.html


we will know more in the coming days.

Looks like teams are going to be replacing fuel pumps after quali, until Marelli addresses the issue with new part revision.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Looks like teams are going to be replacing fuel pumps after quali, until Marelli addresses the issue with new part revision.

Seems like it. I have no idea why redbull didn't check it, other rumours were they didn't test long enough distances during testing so they never had these issues while other teams spotted it and learned to inspect. Again more speculation, but i'm sure redbull will never let this happen again. It is crazy how fast the e10 fuel eats through this resin.

[Bubbles]

Looks like the spec fuel pump part failed due to the E10 fuel, mclaren experienced this failure in qualifying and was allowed to swap in new pumps because it is a spec part (used by all teams). FIA checked all cars in part ferme for this issue and did not allow RBR to change the failing part because the data was inconclusive. Other teams were allowed to change the part.

Interestingly, if the spec part caused the ICE to fail should it count against RBR PU allowance?

Bad luck, but it explains the RBR performance.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Looks like the spec fuel pump part failed due to the E10 fuel, mclaren experienced this failure in qualifying and was allowed to swap in new pumps because it is a spec part (used by all teams). FIU checked all cars in part ferme for this issue and did not allow RBR to change the failing part because the data was inconclusive. Other teams were allowed to change the part.

Interestingly, if the spec part caused the ICE to fail should it count against RBR PU allowance?

Bad luck, but it explains the RBR performance.

Interesting, I am reading all sorts of nonsense right now, I am not sure what is true and what isn't. I guess I will wait until RB announces something.


But IMO if this part causes RB's engine to fail they should not be penalized for it, because it wasn't even their part. But we will see.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Looks like the spec fuel pump part failed due to the E10 fuel, mclaren experienced this failure in qualifying and was allowed to swap in new pumps because it is a spec part (used by all teams). FIU checked all cars in part ferme for this issue and did not allow RBR to change the failing part because the data was inconclusive. Other teams were allowed to change the part.

Interestingly, if the spec part caused the ICE to fail should it count against RBR PU allowance?

Bad luck, but it explains the RBR performance.

If that is true, Horner has to be livid.

[F87source]

Ok so far what I have gathered is the race's analysis which I initially quoted post race, is wrong, they thought redbull suffered from pump cavitation.


So far it is concluded that redbull's pump failed due to e85 eating through the resin case of the pump controller. The contention still lies in the two scenarios in hearing, one is redbull didn't opt to change the controller, the other was redbull wasn't allowed to do a swap. Not sure what the case is yet.



Another thing I'm hearing is redbull is having braking issues like McLaren.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Looks like the spec fuel pump part failed due to the E10 fuel, mclaren experienced this failure in qualifying and was allowed to swap in new pumps because it is a spec part (used by all teams). FIU checked all cars in part ferme for this issue and did not allow RBR to change the failing part because the data was inconclusive. Other teams were allowed to change the part.

Interestingly, if the spec part caused the ICE to fail should it count against RBR PU allowance?

Bad luck, but it explains the RBR performance.

Thank you Bubbles, so RB was denied pump change while others were allowed.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by F87source

Ok so far what I have gathered is the race's analysis which I initially quoted post race, is wrong, they thought redbull suffered from pump cavitation.


So far it is concluded that redbull's pump failed due to e85 eating through the resin case of the pump controller. The contention still lies in the two scenarios in hearing, one is redbull didn't opt to change the controller, the other was redbull wasn't allowed to do a swap. Not sure what the case is yet.



Another thing I'm hearing is redbull is having braking issues like McLaren.

This sounds plausible but I fail to understand why 5% or 10% ? more ethanol would make such parts fail in the first place and of course the fuel pump change question. Fia has some explaining to do.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

This sounds plausible but I fail to understand why 5% or 10% ? more ethanol would make such parts fail in the first place and of course the fuel pump change question. Fia has some explaining to do.

Well there are a few reasons:

1) ethanol is a powerful solvent, and it dries out materials extremely quickly causing cracking and eventually material failure. This is why on street cars, when the government started mandating E10 fuels, car companies moved from rubber fuel lines which were susceptible to damage from ethanol to PTFE based lines which are not effected by this. Injectors and pumps need to also be able to deal with the solvent nature of ethanol which robs some lubricity from the gasoline. This is why cars running E85 have to switch to gasoline every few tanks to ensure injectors don't stick (unless you run full e85 tolerant fuelling components, or run a top cylinder lube).


2) Ethanol is hygroscopic meaning it absorbs water from the atmosphere, it then forms acidic components which damages metal and "eats" through things. This is why on modern cars again the fuel lines are made of PTFE and fuel injectors, fuel pumps etc are also made to be able to tolerate the use of ethanol.


So these two factors combined likely damage the fuel pump electronic casing, which probably wasn't designed to tolerate ethanol. We will know more when redbull or f1 releases more info, but this is my guess on why ethanol is wreaking so much havoc based on what ethanol does to street cars.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by F87source

Well there are a few reasons:

1) ethanol is a powerful solvent, and it dries out materials extremely quickly causing cracking and eventually material failure. This is why on street cars, when the government started mandating E10 fuels, car companies moved from rubber fuel lines which were susceptible to damage from ethanol to PTFE based lines which are not effected by this. Injectors and pumps need to also be able to deal with the solvent nature of ethanol which robs some lubricity from the gasoline. This is why cars running E85 have to switch to gasoline every few tanks to ensure injectors don't stick (unless you run full e85 tolerant fuelling components, or run a top cylinder lube).


2) Ethanol is hygroscopic meaning it absorbs water from the atmosphere, it then forms acidic components which damages metal and "eats" through things. This is why on modern cars again the fuel lines are made of PTFE and fuel injectors, fuel pumps etc are also made to be able to tolerate the use of ethanol.


So these two factors combined likely damage the fuel pump electronic casing, which probably wasn't designed to tolerate ethanol. We will know more when redbull or f1 releases more info, but this is my guess on why ethanol is wreaking so much havoc based on what ethanol does to street cars.

On the wider picture why fia okay'd ethanol in the first place is questionable, mixing misinformed gov't proposals with motor racing shows the wrong direction it is heading.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

On the wider picture why fia okay'd ethanol in the first place is questionable, mixing misinformed gov't proposals with motor racing shows the wrong direction it is heading.

Actually it is what is keeping F1 relevant, because ethanol is a sustainable bio fuel and it is environmentally relevant as it is not adding any more hydrocarbons into the hydrocarbon cycle, hence it is not contributing to the green house effect. This means f1 will be more road relevant as it develops technology in the same direction that street cars are trending in - which is being more environmentally friendly. If f1 cars didn't follow this direction they would be road irrelevant and no large manufacturers would join (manufacturers only join f1 for publicity and developing road car tech, if cars go eco friendly in the future and f1 cars didn't it wouldnt be a good marketing look or technoliogically relevant mkaing it useless for large companies to join - this is one of the reasons why honda is leaving as they want to go electric) thus eliminating the idea of a constructors championship, in a sport already lacking constructors.


So this is the bare minimum f1 can do to try and stay somewhat relevant and entice constructors to join.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by F87source

Actually it is what is keeping F1 relevant, because ethanol is a sustainable bio fuel and it is environmentally relevant as it is not adding any more hydrocarbons into the hydrocarbon cycle, hence it is not contributing to the green house effect. This means f1 will be more road relevant as it develops technology in the same direction that street cars are trending in - which is being more environmentally friendly. If f1 cars didn't follow this direction they would be road irrelevant and no large manufacturers would join (manufacturers only join f1 for publicity and developing road car tech, if cars go eco friendly in the future and f1 cars didn't it wouldnt be a good marketing look or technoliogically relevant mkaing it useless for large companies to join - this is one of the reasons why honda is leaving as they want to go electric) thus eliminating the idea of a constructors championship, in a sport already lacking constructors.


So this is the bare minimum f1 can do to try and stay somewhat relevant and entice constructors to join.

I was referring loosely to the misinformation greenie analysts are giving to governments on pollution that then follows the long line from gov't 'recommendations' going on to the manufacturers, as you state, then from that onto motor racing groups like F1. Joining a motorist action group will put you straight on what's really happening and how the greenies are twisting the truth on pollution.

[MontyB1]

Doesn't seem to be the spec supplied part that was an issue in the fuel system for RB, but the exact cause is still a mystery. Not long to find out what it was and if its a big or small fix on a back to back fly away race however.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...ilure/9188330/

[M5Rick]

They're not sure yet but the fia supplied pump is the main suspect to do with the acidic ethanol fuel.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Thank you Bubbles, so RB was denied pump change while others were allowed.

So quick to grab your pitch fork.
All teams in Q3 had the opportunity to inspect over night.

Intriguingly, just after the race Horner implied that the primer pump was not the issue that stopped the RB18s while confirming that the team did a pre-race inspection.

"Yes, we did," he said when asked if the team took the opportunity offered. "But I think that was a general concern rather than specific to Red Bull.