FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Didnt an F1 car do something cheaty with fuel tanks? And what about using traction control when it was banned. I think there's lots in F1.

[bigpat]

I don't know if it's cheating but Ferrari and Shell developed denser fuel, and chilled it, to further reduce its volume, so you'd fit more in the car for a given time during refuelling stops....

In the 80's cars, some naturally aspirated cars (versus the turbo cars) had 'water-cooled brakes', with tanks that were half empty during the race ( so the cars were running underweight), but the rules said cars, when weighed after, had to have all their fluids on board topped up, with which they passed the weight check...

Benetton-Ford were, and still are accused for using traction control in 1994 with Michael Schumacher. Apparently written into a RAM only chipped, that erased when the master switch was turned off. No one proved it, so under the rules and checks of the day, they did nothing wrong.

Ferrari did it in the Schumacher era, by making ultra fast gearchanges, and using the rest of the allowed gear change time, to try and soften the re-engagement of the power to the rear wheels. They didn't hide it (they didn't advertise it either), but it was a case of exploiting the rules to the maximum, which, hats off to them, was clever thinking.....

[Hansy]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

The regulations are written rules, the tests check whether or not something is within those written rules.

(...)

Spygate in 2007, showed how severe the financial, and bad PR consequences of being caught cheating in F1 are. I believe only Ferrari, & McLaren could survive a $100 million fine. I believe Red Bull would simply walk away in the same case. Look at Renault wiping their hands of team ownership after Singapore 2008.....

Great post I think you summed it up perfectly.

[spankyham]

Awesome posts Bigpat!

[Hammer278]

Didnt an F1 car do something cheaty with fuel tanks? And what about using traction control when it was banned. I think there's lots in F1.

That was Honda and they were banned for 2 races.

In the end, its about cheating/bending the rules without getting caught. If Honda weren't caught, they were never cheating. Its how sport works and if Redbull have come up with something which cannot be brought to trial, hats off to them. Its up to the others to beat them at that game or bring their own stuff to make it work for them. Fair play and ethics will never win in any form of business, fact.

[stonemonkey]

I don't know if it's cheating but Ferrari and Shell developed denser fuel, and chilled it, to further reduce its volume, so you'd fit more in the car for a given time during refuelling stops...
.....

Did BMW not have their fuel stored too cold one year in brazil? I seem to remember some comments that it could improve performance slightly for a lap or so until it warmed up in the tank. They were let off with it but there are regs about fuel temp.

Good posts bigpat.

[stonemonkey]

Back in the day, one of the race cars I worked on, used production based engines, and specified parts, including a 90 degree intake elbow to the inlet manifiold. The rules allow porting (removal of material), but not adding, such as welding, or putty etc. This rule is very common in racing worldwide.....

The 90deg elbow, had a depression cast into it, from factory, which inhibits flow, so each grind out as much as we can get away with, before we brake through the wall. If you weld extra material to the outside, it allows removal of more material for better flow. Problem is if you see to outside "not as cast", it's illegal.
So we smoothed out the exterior weld, and had that shape cast by a foundry, machined it all up, with the optimised internal shape. When scrutineered, it could be seen the outside was in an "as cast " condition. We never tried to conceal anything. We REALLY carefully read the wording, not 'the spirit of the rules" of the rules, and gained 5 BHP. I believe we were lateral thinkers....

Did the rules allow for that part to be replaced with a part of your own design?

[darwin dali]

Didnt an F1 car do something cheaty with fuel tanks? And what about using traction control when it was banned. I think there's lots in F1.

That was Honda and they were banned for 2 races.

BAR-Honda to be precise.

[bigpat]

Back in the day, one of the race cars I worked on, used production based engines, and specified parts, including a 90 degree intake elbow to the inlet manifiold. The rules allow porting (removal of material), but not adding, such as welding, or putty etc. This rule is very common in racing worldwide.....

The 90deg elbow, had a depression cast into it, from factory, which inhibits flow, so each grind out as much as we can get away with, before we brake through the wall. If you weld extra material to the outside, it allows removal of more material for better flow. Problem is if you see to outside "not as cast", it's illegal.
So we smoothed out the exterior weld, and had that shape cast by a foundry, machined it all up, with the optimised internal shape. When scrutineered, it could be seen the outside was in an "as cast " condition. We never tried to conceal anything. We REALLY carefully read the wording, not 'the spirit of the rules" of the rules, and gained 5 BHP. I believe we were lateral thinkers....

Did the rules allow for that part to be replaced with a part of your own design?

The rules didn't expressly forbid it.........

Hammer278, I don't believe is about cheating but avoiding detection. As I've stated, I believe cheating is the deliberate attempt to do something illegal, and concealing it. I believe its OK to 'bend' rules, not break them.....

I believe F1 now regulate fuel temp in the pit to no more than 10 deg C below ambient, and don't allow any cooling in the car itself.

...Oh and thanks for the kind words guys

Cheers, Pat

[Jabberwocky]

I don't know if it's cheating but Ferrari and Shell developed denser fuel, and chilled it, to further reduce its volume, so you'd fit more in the car for a given time during refuelling stops....

wasn't the fuel lighter, so that the 12kg/s of fuel rate was more Litres?

As I said last year about the flexi wing test. The car is built to a specification if the spec says 5mm with 200kg on it and it passes then what the wing does after that is fair play. This See Saw Tea Tray is something else. The car is built to pass the test and not the rules. The FIA should not need to give any notice on changing the test as the rules have not changed.

[Jabberwocky]

Look at it this way, If I take my car in for an MOT* today and it passes. It does not mean that it would pass a test tommorow

*MOT Is a test to check a vehicle is road worthy in the UK, I am sure most countries have them but with other names.

[bigpat]

I understood the rigs restricted the flow rate, measured in litres, not mass, as different fuels very in density slightly, due to their composition...

I don't see a difference between the wings and the see saw. Once they both pass the static loading test, then it's fair play for both on the track too is it not? I sense some sour grapes here........

And the FIA is obligated to notify the teams of a change in testing, as the apparatus may affect the car's structure in some way Any racing car is never over-engineered to pass tests, all else its just too slow.

As an example, I'm sure F1 monocoques could be made much much stronger and safer, but they would be a lot heavier, and the car slower. So you make it as stiff as need to PASS THE TEST, and enjoy the weight saving instead. The team has made a safe monocoque, because it passed the minimum test standard....

Same with the MOT (roadwortiness) test. It passes the legislated test that day, you must assume its fit for its purpose, until the certificate expires etc...

[darwin dali]

Look at it this way, If I take my car in for an MOT* today and it passes. It does not mean that it would pass a test tommorow

*MOT Is a test to check a vehicle is road worthy in the UK, I am sure most countries have them but with other names.

TÜV (Technischer Überwachungs-Verein) in Germany, MFK (Motorfahrzeugkontrolle) in Switzerland, State Inspection in the US (at least in my state that is).

[Jabberwocky]

I think my biggest thing is that the test is being used against itself. The car has been designed to pass the test and not the rule.

I have no sour grapes towards RBR, they built an amazing fast car, that has passed all the tests it's needed to.

It is like the year and a day law about killing someone. Would it be right to put someone into a coma and then waiting a year and a day to switch off the life support?

You should never of put them in the coma but keeping them alive until you are no longer accountable is cheating the law.

[Jabberwocky]

Look at it this way, If I take my car in for an MOT* today and it passes. It does not mean that it would pass a test tommorow

*MOT Is a test to check a vehicle is road worthy in the UK, I am sure most countries have them but with other names.

TÜV (Technischer Überwachungs-Verein) in Germany, MFK (Motorfahrzeugkontrolle) in Switzerland, State Inspection in the US (at least in my state that is).

thanks hunni bunni