It is currently Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:45 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Advantage of Extra 5kg?
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:41 pm
Posts: 17
Morning all,

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what was the advantage of not declaring Leclerc’s extra 5kg?

Can’t see the point.

B


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16980
It was likely just a mistake.

The only advantage would be if Ferrari were cheating the fuel sensors as speculated earlier in the season and using a higher than allowed flow rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3900
DeepPyro69 wrote:
Morning all,

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what was the advantage of not declaring Leclerc’s extra 5kg?

Can’t see the point.

B


I imagine extra fuel allows you to run more agressive engine modes throughout the race, and also do less lift and coast. Of course the added weight would slow the car down but the benefits outweigh the downside I would think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4571
kleefton wrote:
DeepPyro69 wrote:
Morning all,

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what was the advantage of not declaring Leclerc’s extra 5kg?

Can’t see the point.

B


I imagine extra fuel allows you to run more agressive engine modes throughout the race, and also do less lift and coast. Of course the added weight would slow the car down but the benefits outweigh the downside I would think.


I'm not sure they would. At many circuits, teams have more than enough space in the fuel tank to reach the end of the race, but still run minimal fuel amounts rather than run extra fuel for a more aggressive engine mode.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7764
Location: Michigan, USA
kleefton wrote:
I imagine extra fuel allows you to run more agressive engine modes throughout the race, and also do less lift and coast. Of course the added weight would slow the car down but the benefits outweigh the downside I would think.

I believe it's the other way around; the downsides outweigh the benefits. It's known that F1 teams don't fuel their cars to the maximum, so clearly they feel the saved weight is more important than being able to run rich for longer.

Teams do lift and coast because of the fact that saved weight is better than running a higher engine mode. Nobody makes them do it.

EDIT: An additional factor which wouldn't have come into play in Abu Dhabi is that running higher modes reduces the engine life, which is usually a key concern for teams over the course of the year. Leclerc's engine only needed to last the race, so there is that to consider.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34246
Asphalt_World wrote:
kleefton wrote:
DeepPyro69 wrote:
Morning all,

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what was the advantage of not declaring Leclerc’s extra 5kg?

Can’t see the point.

B


I imagine extra fuel allows you to run more agressive engine modes throughout the race, and also do less lift and coast. Of course the added weight would slow the car down but the benefits outweigh the downside I would think.


I'm not sure they would. At many circuits, teams have more than enough space in the fuel tank to reach the end of the race, but still run minimal fuel amounts rather than run extra fuel for a more aggressive engine mode.

I guess some of the thinking is that the more aggressive engine mode requires fooling the ffs and running beyond the legal limit, using more fuel then is actually measured by the ffs.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8271
Exediron wrote:
kleefton wrote:
I imagine extra fuel allows you to run more agressive engine modes throughout the race, and also do less lift and coast. Of course the added weight would slow the car down but the benefits outweigh the downside I would think.

I believe it's the other way around; the downsides outweigh the benefits. It's known that F1 teams don't fuel their cars to the maximum, so clearly they feel the saved weight is more important than being able to run rich for longer.

Teams do lift and coast because of the fact that saved weight is better than running a higher engine mode. Nobody makes them do it.

EDIT: An additional factor which wouldn't have come into play in Abu Dhabi is that running higher modes reduces the engine life, which is usually a key concern for teams over the course of the year. Leclerc's engine only needed to last the race, so there is that to consider.

It also puts more strain to the tyres, reducing their life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3832
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16980
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.


I dunno,

this is Ferrari. I remember when they entirely forgot to put any fuel in Massa's car for his qualifying run one year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1724
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.


I dunno,

this is Ferrari. I remember when they entirely forgot to put any fuel in Massa's car for his qualifying run one year.


:lol:

Hungary 2007, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:45 pm
Posts: 128
I don't understand why it's a rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7764
Location: Michigan, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34246
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

I don't think that any of us were aware that these was done in the first place but I did hear that more stringent checks were going to be done so maybe these checks in Abu Dhabi were not exactly the same?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8271
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

The tests were carried out starting this year but on a random selection. With that in mind, if a team was bold enough they could risk doing this every race. What I don't get is why would they declare 5kg less than what they put in the car. There is no limit if they want to put more fuel than the other teams, their engine may be thirstier than others for all we know, just declare the correct amount and there is no problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8271
donr wrote:
I don't understand why it's a rule.

It was introduced by the FIA this year. They haven't exactly advertised it nor explained why they have it, but here we are

Edit - Just to add that this article explains the procedure:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... i/4605643/

Quite a tedious procedure just before the race


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8271
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

I don't think that any of us were aware that these was done in the first place but I did hear that more stringent checks were going to be done so maybe these checks in Abu Dhabi were not exactly the same?


Not sure where you heard that, the tests are as per the link I provided above, they sound quite stringent as they are and no other TD has been issued regarding changing this process to my knowledge


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3832
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

Different circuits have different characteristics, and it's not an essential part of the plan. They could over use strategically and underuse later on. The benefit comes for overtaking, in and out laps and qualifying hot laps - other laps (particularly on qualifying with the in and out laps) can fudge the sensor the other way.

Ferrari haven't given a list for all the times they've been tested - and this power gain has been a post summer break development so if the majority of the checks occurred before then, it wouldn't have mattered. If Singapore was another circuit, the over use could have been managed without having to over declare, particularly given how Ferrari pace managed that race (and the opening of Russia where they suddenly couldn't pull away from Mercedes after having over half a second in qualifying)

Abu Dhabi may well have been one of the few tracks where they actually needed to over fuel the car to get more gain than they would normally need to make up for the 6 tenths they were losing in sector 3. It's likely they have used it before, and have been saving the "it's not a rule" joker card to play the first time they got caught out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34246
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In terms of weight, 1kg of unnecessary weight costs 2 seconds per race distance. Therefore 5kg extra weight equates to a race time of 10 seconds slower than without it.

This is why it is very hard to believe this happened by accident - because an unnecessary 10 seconds on a race time is an ice age in Formula 1, teams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claw back a tenth or two a lap, so if an engineer did just accidentally overfill the car to the tune of nearly 5kg they probably wouldn't be doing that job again.

However the belief here is that Ferrari were under-declaring on fuel so they could burn the excess during the race. They've be accused of interfering with the fuel flow sensors, enabling them to pass through more fuel to the engine than the sensors read, and in this case, if they had 105kg of fuel logged during the race, but actually burned 109.88kg.

In this situation, the bonus power from the fuel gives far more performance than is lost from the weight penalty (especially as that gets reduced during the race, it would only be about 4 seconds lost due to weight rather than 10 because each lap more and more of the 4.88kg is burned off) - the power advantage, as well as enabling them to overtake far more cars on the long Abu Dhabi straights, making traffic a trivial issue, would give them up to half a second a lap in extra performance. This is the suspicion for what they were doing.

It's impossible to prove it wasn't just a clumsy engineer overfilling the tank, but this isn't like filling your Ford Focus down at the local Shell garage, F1 cars are built to millimetre tolerances they aren't going to suddenly accidentally overfill a car by near 5% and add 5kg of unnecessary ballast.

If that's the case, how do you explain Ferrari's claim that this is the 10th time they've had their fuel checked and the first time they've failed the test? If over-fueling the car was a core part of their power gain, wouldn't you think it would have been detected before now?

I don't think that any of us were aware that these was done in the first place but I did hear that more stringent checks were going to be done so maybe these checks in Abu Dhabi were not exactly the same?


Not sure where you heard that, the tests are as per the link I provided above, they sound quite stringent as they are and no other TD has been issued regarding changing this process to my knowledge

Yes I've seen that now but it does say they have the right to weigh so I'm not sure they always carry out that procedure?

No they clearly said that more stringent tests were to be carried out which included the teams have to detail all the fluids being put in the car that relate to being hydrocarbons, all things that can be burnt in the combustion chamber of the engine.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group