Speculating of course.
Mercedes F1 to run thicker oil
- Thread starter supercity
- Start date
- Status
More speculation.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Did he define the word "thicker", or we just speculating that he means viscosity ?
ok, ok...
Actually, that is more confirmation at least. But thicker relative to what? What other changes were made? Just curious as i can't watch the event from where i am.
Did he define the word "thicker", or we just speculating that he means viscosity ?
ok, ok...
Actually, that is more confirmation at least. But thicker relative to what? What other changes were made? Just curious as i can't watch the event from where i am.
This is no different than any other form of racing, with the exception of the NHRA Fuel cars. They try to gamble by using the thinnest oil possible. Sometimes, as in the case of Mercedes last week, they lose the gamble.
Guess it worked.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
So are we now saying the car Not Blowing Up is due to the "thicker oil?" Using that logic you can also make the leap that Rosberg's Mercedes was better because he was running the thinner oil and won the race. Neither seem plausible IMO.
:facepalm:
They basically said that they had been pushing the boundaries (no pun intended) in their lubricants, and had failures.
They (re) introduced additional viscosity to restore more of the safety margin that they lost going thinner (Viscosity, although many on BITOG don't want to admit it) always increases MOFT, but also introduces more viscous drag...(like lift is good, and drag is bad on a plane).
Look at a bell curve, and (hopefully) failures are an outlier at one end...move the curve towards that end, and more are PRONE to failure...doesn't make blow up/not blow up a digitial on/off conclusion.
They basically said that they had been pushing the boundaries (no pun intended) in their lubricants, and had failures.
They (re) introduced additional viscosity to restore more of the safety margin that they lost going thinner (Viscosity, although many on BITOG don't want to admit it) always increases MOFT, but also introduces more viscous drag...(like lift is good, and drag is bad on a plane).
Look at a bell curve, and (hopefully) failures are an outlier at one end...move the curve towards that end, and more are PRONE to failure...doesn't make blow up/not blow up a digitial on/off conclusion.
Originally Posted By: wemay
Using that logic you can also make the leap that Rosberg's Mercedes was better because he was running the thinner oil and won the race. Neither seem plausible IMO.
How do you know that? Did they say they were running different oils in each of their cars?
Using that logic you can also make the leap that Rosberg's Mercedes was better because he was running the thinner oil and won the race. Neither seem plausible IMO.
How do you know that? Did they say they were running different oils in each of their cars?
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I never said i knew anything regarding what either team has done. "...leap..."
But Something's different...
From link:
"Hamilton will revert to the engine he used in Singapore for the Japanese GP this weekend, while Rosberg will continue with the power unit he ran in Malaysia."
But Something's different...
From link:
"Hamilton will revert to the engine he used in Singapore for the Japanese GP this weekend, while Rosberg will continue with the power unit he ran in Malaysia."
Originally Posted By: supercity
Paddy Lowe confirmed there will be a minimal reduction in power as they will use a higher viscosity oil in an interview with Ted Kravitz today after FP3 at Suzuka.
He also mentioned it in a print article, and Martin Brundle did as well. Perhaps Lewis Hamilton shouldn't run his engine turned up so much all the time.
When one is scoring 25 points a race, it's easy to justify. When one starts losing engines and getting zero points, things have to change.
Paddy Lowe confirmed there will be a minimal reduction in power as they will use a higher viscosity oil in an interview with Ted Kravitz today after FP3 at Suzuka.
He also mentioned it in a print article, and Martin Brundle did as well. Perhaps Lewis Hamilton shouldn't run his engine turned up so much all the time.
When one is scoring 25 points a race, it's easy to justify. When one starts losing engines and getting zero points, things have to change.
There is some interesting data from an older youtube vid of Peter Windsor's F1 Racing Magazine Show from 2013. The program (for youtube search purposes) is The Racer's Edge Episode 20 - Getting Personal with Tim Goss from Vodaphone... etc etc.
In the period from about 4:20 and 22:05 or so Goss and his supporting Mobil 1 program manager discuss the lube/performace/QC/assurance and so on and its contribution to the effort. To the extent that Goss says at one point that gains in the millisecond range are sought from lubrication. Some good examples are included including heat resistance vs. radiator size vs. aero. Good stuff. One takeaway I got was that tribology is often happening in real time so to speak and any resemblance to commercial products is theoretical at best.
I hope this is compatible with the discussion.
In the period from about 4:20 and 22:05 or so Goss and his supporting Mobil 1 program manager discuss the lube/performace/QC/assurance and so on and its contribution to the effort. To the extent that Goss says at one point that gains in the millisecond range are sought from lubrication. Some good examples are included including heat resistance vs. radiator size vs. aero. Good stuff. One takeaway I got was that tribology is often happening in real time so to speak and any resemblance to commercial products is theoretical at best.
I hope this is compatible with the discussion.
I would say it's compatible with the discussion. Shell has a Youtube video out there saying much the same thing, about their portable lab taken to each track and yes, that tribology is happening in real time.
What caused me to bring the video up is that the thick versus thin decision process within the team and lubricant supplier group is indeed very dynamic. So the OP's input on changes to conservative or "thicker" viscosity vs. lighter goes on all the time. The video also mentions a few times they simply got it wrong and, I think Hamilton, paid the price in one of those instances too in the 2012 or 2013 season.
Yes, it's quite possible, and I'm sure they're treading a very fine line all the time. Some of those hot races must be loads of fun when dealing with oil, not to mention brake cooling.
One question that comes to mind in these discussions, perhaps for another thread, is how the component parts of the oil and viscosity were different when engine speeds were around 19,000 RPM. If at all. The stroke was so short that maybe the stress on the big ends and gudgeons are less than I imagine. Just don't know.
There had been some talk about some unique VIIs, but trying to get any real information on this is obviously going to be exceedingly difficult. Of course, there are no technical specifications in any of the regulations, and whatever isn't explicitly defined in the rules is going to be a closely guarded secret, and that likely applies to even some of the older stuff, from back when the revs were that high.
Anything we read or hear from someone in the know (i.e. one of the teams or their petroleum partner) is just as likely to be true as it is a diversion to send a competitor chasing his tail. I've watched way too many Bernie interviews over the years to not be jaded about what I hear.
Anything we read or hear from someone in the know (i.e. one of the teams or their petroleum partner) is just as likely to be true as it is a diversion to send a competitor chasing his tail. I've watched way too many Bernie interviews over the years to not be jaded about what I hear.
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf
Shell paper I linked to in another thread...it's talking of N.A. engines, but the premise is the same.
Quote:
The strategy for minimizing engine friction in a Formula 1 engine is fairly simple. If the engine has a lot of boundary friction, you would use a higher viscosity lubricant, with a friction modifier, whereas if the engine has less boundary friction, you would use a lower viscosity lubricant (again with a friction modifier). By looking at engine friction results for the conventional engine, it is possible to decrease engine friction by 10 or 20% by using the correct lubricant. There are a number of papers41-47 which the reader can refer to for more information on total engine friction calculations. To optimize power output from a high performance engine, it is necessary to choose a lubricant which gives the lowest possible friction. This entails choosing the lubricant viscosity which gives the lowest friction over the range of operating conditions appropriate for the engine, and choosing an optimum friction modifier for reducing friction in boundary lubricated contacts.
Shell paper I linked to in another thread...it's talking of N.A. engines, but the premise is the same.
Quote:
The strategy for minimizing engine friction in a Formula 1 engine is fairly simple. If the engine has a lot of boundary friction, you would use a higher viscosity lubricant, with a friction modifier, whereas if the engine has less boundary friction, you would use a lower viscosity lubricant (again with a friction modifier). By looking at engine friction results for the conventional engine, it is possible to decrease engine friction by 10 or 20% by using the correct lubricant. There are a number of papers41-47 which the reader can refer to for more information on total engine friction calculations. To optimize power output from a high performance engine, it is necessary to choose a lubricant which gives the lowest possible friction. This entails choosing the lubricant viscosity which gives the lowest friction over the range of operating conditions appropriate for the engine, and choosing an optimum friction modifier for reducing friction in boundary lubricated contacts.
All this makes me wonder if someone drained the oil out of Hamilton's car, and replaced it with Mobil 1 10W-30 if anyone, including him, would know the difference?.... Especially if he won.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Shell paper I linked to in another thread...it's talking of N.A. engines, but the premise is the same.
I wonder if they're being intentionally vague on some of the details of the engine geometry of the time, or if the research team simply didn't have access to to the Shell/Ferrari F1 people and/or data.
DeepFriar: If Bernie leaves tomorrow, the new guy will be eaten alive by Ron Dennis and the rest. The only thing that would make matters easier is that Sir Frank has mellowed over the years.
billt460: I should hope the Petronas people would be able to discern M1 10w-30 when they do a UOA after a race.
Shell paper I linked to in another thread...it's talking of N.A. engines, but the premise is the same.
I wonder if they're being intentionally vague on some of the details of the engine geometry of the time, or if the research team simply didn't have access to to the Shell/Ferrari F1 people and/or data.
DeepFriar: If Bernie leaves tomorrow, the new guy will be eaten alive by Ron Dennis and the rest. The only thing that would make matters easier is that Sir Frank has mellowed over the years.
billt460: I should hope the Petronas people would be able to discern M1 10w-30 when they do a UOA after a race.
- Status
Similar threads
