What is the word on Aloso's failure in Sepang? Anybody heard. Also with the using of 2 engines in Bahrain in each car and now the failure of an additional engine is Ferrari going to come up short on engines or were the engines in the cars last weekend also used in Bahrain (perhaps why Alonso's failed). I would hope that the Bahrain engines (4) would be used in a location such as Sepang where the likelyhood of a wet race (less engine stress) is high. Of course that was not the case Sunday but it would be playing the odds.
Ferrari may be in serious trouble. Alonso's engine failed, and IIRC *both* Ferrari powered Saubers had engine failures. This is on the heels of changing both engines in Bahrain. Not good.
McLaren is the only one that hasn't had engine problems for all three races so far. It is easier to make a fast car reliable than a reliable car fast. Merc seems to be in the latter category. FA needs a haircut. Hot races coming up...and that will be a test of Fcar engines. F-duct where art thou?
F-duct useless without a good powerplant. Florian posted in another thread about the Renault being the most powerful motor? Could be as Renault and RedBull are both very fast along with Force India and Mclaren with Mercedes power. Ferrari I think are in a catch up mode. The car is running too hot too often. More hot races still as well.
+1 However, it seems that the Saubers pretty much suck right now! - Can't read too much into their failures being my point..... I gotta say though, I am a little surprised at how poor they've been overall, not just engine failures. Anyway, hopefully, all the broken motors will be autosopied (sp?) RSN and F can make the application to the FIA for allowance to make changes - Seems like everyone else already has....... Cheers, Ian
from what we were told at the Aus Gp by TV reporters, Ferrari were using one engine for practice,Qualifying( the one they used for Bahrain practice,Qualifying) then for race day another engine( the same engine used from Bahrain race) Could this be Ferrari's strategy for this year?
IMHO (let me put one of my hats on: as an engine builder), the transmission downshifting problem could very well have contributed to an engine already on the ragged edge to premature failure. Listening to some of the downshifts as well as watching the car's attitude several of the downshifts were dramatic and seemed to break the rear tires loose indicating a slight downshift over-rev. This is probably the single most destructive force that an engine can or can't handle. I've seen crankshafts broken, flywheels shear bolts off, valves contact pistons, etc. due to downshift over revs. Alonso really did not have a choice other than park the car and he did a brilliant job adapting to what the TCU was doing or not doing. With the number of engines alloted and the number already used, depending upon the condition of rebuild and what the FIA "allows" and constitutes as a new engine they could very well be in trouble well before the end of the season.
Your 'hat' speaks well. I think they have a real problem on their hands. The other engine failures were probably not gearbox related(Sauber). Thanks for the insight.
More than likely it did not help the situation but it seems like Ferrari is marginal on cooling right now.
Not disagreeing that the gearbox might have contributed to the engine failure (although I don't think it did), but these engines can't overrev since the TCU won't allow it. What seems like rear-tires breaking loose because of over-rev would've been because of the load moving suddenly forward when he was threshold braking.
I'm not sure how anyone can postulate that the TCU won't allow it not to over rev when there was clearly a problem with either a sensor, software corruption, interference or something mechanically out of position, broken or cracked, etc that with out a doubt allowed the engine to over rev numerous times on downshift. The computer is not smart enough to know if it is getting erroneous information, at least thankfully not yet. The day when it can think for itself we are all doomed.
Based on what are you so sure the engine was overreving, the rear end instability under braking? That's a physics thing, look at my last post. The only sensor that'd allow a shift to cause the engine to overrev is an engine speed sensor; in which case, the engine wouldn't run properly at all, and for which there are redundancies. Same with wheel speed sensors, there are four of them. Software corruption that causes such a problem doesn't even happen in road cars. Most of all, are you accusing Alonso of missing so many downshifts in the first place that he repeatedly pulls the paddles so early that'd cause engine over-rev's (if not governed). My guess is that this was a mechanical actuation problem. Hydraulic, solenoid, etc.
I don't think it did. In fact I think it must have preserved the engine! The revs where dying, the same effect as pushing the clutch in completely. When the car could rev again it didn't shoot right up to the limiter at all, maybe to about 9-12K. If the gearbox was ok it would have blown up earlier on IMO. Now I'm not a engine builder but its just using common sense I think, how can an engine overrev when the revs are dying .
Exactly. The only way it'd happen is if Alonso was trying to shift that early (yea right) and the tcu somehow allowing it.
I don't know if this is correct. In the past, the SpeedTV boys (particularly Machett), discussed how F1 engines are the opposite of typical car engines. Power on and power off are what kill an F1 one engine, not sustained high RPM running. Apparently, the engine can live stressed but doesn't like to live with the stresses coming and going. This would mean to me that Alonso's engine problems most certainly played a role in his engine blowing up. Although, if I am wrong, please correct me. Mark
Sounds like a case of shock loads to me. Without drawing a bunch of graphs, velocity is the derivative of position. In other words, how fast your position changes is your velocity. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity: how fast your velocity changes is your acceleration. And how fast your acceleration changes is known as jerk, or jolt. A recalcitrant transmission suddenly putting huge transient loads on the whole system is not unlike hitting the crank with a hammer.
Not at all blaming Alonso he did a great job adapting to a problem and may have had lap times capable of competing with RedB without the issue. With my experience on the various late model F1 systems in the road cars which is based on the racing F1 systems you can over rev the engine due to various reasons "I've seen it with my own eyes" Reprogramming has cleared this issue, as has bleeding the system, and things mechanical as you suggested like recentering the shift actuator or replacing a pump shift solenoid or even simply fixing a leak. Interestingly enough recently I had a shift actuator completely apart fixing a similar issue that was from a piece of trash in the 1-2 section allowing fluid to bypass a piston seal. Recently fixed another similar downshift issue into the lowe gears by correcting an improper PIS value entered into the program by another shop. So I think it's a toss up on ECU vs mechanical since it did it the entire race. It could be as simple as a programming error initially and hence my suggestion of possible corruption. We'll never know unless an insider speaks My ear seemed to think it was at the same downshift point and it was either skipping a gear or dropping into neutral or both
+1 He's on record saying it was the drive of his life..... My ear seemed to think it was broken! Nothing that sounds that bad can be good for the engine or the 'box - I like snakeseare's analogy: While we'll never know, I'm going to say he would have lasted to the end without the problem. Incidentally, the Autosport report explained it as follows: The darn thing was almost dieing before coming back again - IIRC, he said he had to go to first gear every time - and THAT can't be good for the motor..... Cheers, Ian
