Re: Red Bull query Oil burning rules
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:34 am
So it's all been fairly quiet on the oil front. FIA were monitoring it over the weekend, anyone heard any results from that yet?
Apart from the fact it was only FP1 & 2, Mercedes ended up within one tenth of the fastest time, not sure i would call that lacking pace.Blackhander wrote:Thread mine!
Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... il-burning
Agreed, obviously not calling it already, simply pointing out what COULD be an emerging link between the two. We obviously have to wait and see. However that tenth of the pace is much worst than seems as this track could practically have been designed to make the most of Mercedes strengths. It is simply brake points, slow 90 degree turns and straights meaning they should be making ground around the entire lap... As of so far, they're not at all doing that.rivf1 wrote:Apart from the fact it was only FP1 & 2, Mercedes ended up within one tenth of the fastest time, not sure i would call that lacking pace.Blackhander wrote:Thread mine!
Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... il-burning
I would be keeping a close eye on the Q2 -> Q3 times, i have no doubt these big oil companies could certainly figure out how to add some chemicals to the oil to facilitate this but it's certainly not something mercedes could use for long periods of time. I don't know how they could hide that much oil unless it was only used in very short bursts like say for a Q3 boost mode. I just don't see how they could have enough oil on-board to burn for long periods of time which is what it would take for them to have an advantage for an entire practice session.Blackhander wrote:Agreed, obviously not calling it already, simply pointing out what COULD be an emerging link between the two. We obviously have to wait and see. However that tenth of the pace is much worst than seems as this track could practically have been designed to make the most of Mercedes strengths. It is simply brake points, slow 90 degree turns and straights meaning they should be making ground around the entire lap... As of so far, they're not at all doing that.rivf1 wrote:Apart from the fact it was only FP1 & 2, Mercedes ended up within one tenth of the fastest time, not sure i would call that lacking pace.Blackhander wrote:Thread mine!
Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... il-burning
Certainly flips the suspected narrative on its head. I'd wait and see what happens in the next few races to be sure though, could well be a tyre issue on this track as the Ferrari has shown to be kinder on its tyres thus far, and that could lead to warm up issues on a track where getting them up to temperature is proving an issue.moby wrote:Strange. They clamp down on this and Ferrari seem to struggle
this is the first season they've come back?bonecrasher wrote:I love how Mercedes always come back like a boss. Boom!
Not sure they have "come back".bonecrasher wrote:I love how Mercedes always come back like a boss. Boom!
Not that I've seen.Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Any news on this?
I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.Option or Prime wrote:OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.
I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.Exediron wrote:I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.Option or Prime wrote:OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.
The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.
Yes, they used the 4th back in Spain.WHoff78 wrote:Slightly off topic but the article suggests both Ferrari drivers have used 4 turbo chargers. Does that mean a completely new unit would incur a 5 place penalty? Of course they may just introduce new parts with the current turbos but just curious?
OK, that is a great help, so is it the better distribution of oil simply for lubrication or as a way of introducing the additives or combustion. If we assume it is the latter would that really be a game changer in engine performance?jono794 wrote:I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.Exediron wrote:I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.Option or Prime wrote:OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.
The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.
You may find this interesting https://motivengines.wordpress.com/2014 ... n-pistons/Option or Prime wrote:OK, that is a great help, so is it the better distribution of oil simply for lubrication or as a way of introducing the additives or combustion. If we assume it is the latter would that really be a game changer in engine performance?jono794 wrote:I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.Exediron wrote:I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.Option or Prime wrote:OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.
The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.
I do not know the tec details, but apparently they do not get the 'crumble' any more. It used to be a problem, but 'think' it is down the the heat cycle that gets it close enough to particle welding. TBH I have not seen a sintering machine in use for a couple of years and am behind the times now I am retired.RaggedMan wrote:The biggest issue with 3D printed metal materials is that, unless something has changed, you don't get the full crystalline structure that you get with cast or forged metals within the piece. While it might make it possible to make the pistons with features that couldn't be done with casting or machining I'd worry about strength and durability.
Option or Prime wrote:So presumably the only reason these pistons are not being used in the engine is because of potential failure. Have pistons manufactured in this way been used in lower formula to establish reliability?