Engine usage in tyre test

[AC]

A comment on JA's bog pointed out that the Merc engine and gearbox would
have done an extra 1000km to do the testing. That's 3-4 race distances,
right?

Wont that cause them a problem at some point? Limited, sealed engine and
gear box usage, right?


--
AC

[Bobster]

The engine (and gearbox) usage restrictions only apply to engines used
during racing. You can use extra engines for, for example, promotional
movie shooting.

But most teams are paying for their engines, and even if they're not
they have a contract that gives them X engines a year. So they'd still
run into problems - especially if they wanted to a 1000 kms of
testing.

I think there's only two teams that could take up Pirelli's offer -
Merc and Ferrari. Because they make engines rather than have a deal
with a supplier.

[AC]

Bobster wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:33 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> A comment on JA's bog pointed out that the Merc engine and gearbox would
>> have done an extra 1000km to do the testing. That's 3-4 race distances,
>> right?
>>
>> Wont that cause them a problem at some point? Limited, sealed engine and
>> gear box usage, right?
>>
>> --
>> AC
>
> The engine (and gearbox) usage restrictions only apply to engines used
> during racing. You can use extra engines for, for example, promotional
> movie shooting.

Ah, of course.

>
> But most teams are paying for their engines, and even if they're not
> they have a contract that gives them X engines a year. So they'd still
> run into problems - especially if they wanted to a 1000 kms of
> testing.
>
> I think there's only two teams that could take up Pirelli's offer -
> Merc and Ferrari. Because they make engines rather than have a deal
> with a supplier.
>

Might explain why only those two tested for Pirelli. I suppose McLaren
and RBR could afford it, but if they see no performance advantage.... On
the other hand, they bleat on about the tyres being no good, so you
would think they might want to spend the cash.

--
AC

[Brian Lawrence]

Since both Nico & Lewis drove, they probably used their own race cars
and so it may have been shared equally between them.

It also seems likely/logical that they used the engines they had taken
to Spain anyway - they didn't take extra engines. The Friday engines had
been used for several race weekends already, and would not be used for
any future race weekends anyway.

The same would have been true for any other team(s) who might have been
invited to test.

Some media seem to be spinning the story that the FIA are
'investigating' Ferrari about their test with the 2011 car. AFAIC
the FIA have asked them several written questions about it, so are
simply gathering data.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

[Bobster]

McLaren could afford it, and they make their own transmission which
takes care of part of the problem. But then they'd have to call up
Merc and ask for extra engines. And in doing that they send a signal
to Merc, who have a team, that something is going on.

Might be a bit easier for RBR as they effectively are the works
Renault team.

I know that you're not Saward's biggest fan, but he observes (and it's
true) that Horner has started being a bit more measured in what he
says about Pirelli. One possible explanation is that he realises that
what the team has been saying has been injurious to a potential
testing arrangement and to relationships with Pirelli generally.
Pirelli might be reluctant to get into bed with somebody who has
complained so much and so hard.

Personally, I believe Pirelli when they say that the teams didn't know
what they were testing and got no data ABOUT THE TYRES. But I can
still see how 1000km of testing on a track they have very up to date
data on could be useful for a team - even if they just wanted to do
some reliability testing on new parts that they couldn't otherwise do.

But, again, Saward makes the not unreasonable point that without in-
season testing and working with simulation tools back in the factory
the teams have achieved a very high level of reliability anyway.

But you have to think that the on-track running has some payback for
the teams. The thought of Merc or Ferrari devoting resources to these
tests simply and solely for the greater good is chucklesome.

[AC]

Tried posting this as a new subject, but from what I can see, it wont
post. :(

Seems relevant enough here, so I'll try to post it as a reply.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107817

Interesting in its self, but this stood out for me:

"Even if we started this year with the first tyre test, it would take
easily three years until you can finish a safe and performing F1 tyre,"

Three years? Really? Wow. Takes less time to develop an engine.

OK, I take their word for it. Seems unlikely then that the FIA will piss
Pirelli off that much then.

Poor Merc....

--
AC

[AC]

Well, I have noticed that Horner seems keen to shift blame to Merc and
mention Pirelli less. But, its not the biggest catch on the planet,
insulting hte sole tyre supplier cant have many up sides to it.

>
> Personally, I believe Pirelli when they say that the teams didn't know
> what they were testing and got no data ABOUT THE TYRES. But I can
> still see how 1000km of testing on a track they have very up to date
> data on could be useful for a team - even if they just wanted to do
> some reliability testing on new parts that they couldn't otherwise do.
>
> But, again, Saward makes the not unreasonable point that without in-
> season testing and working with simulation tools back in the factory
> the teams have achieved a very high level of reliability anyway.
>
> But you have to think that the on-track running has some payback for
> the teams. The thought of Merc or Ferrari devoting resources to these
> tests simply and solely for the greater good is chucklesome.
>

Quite.

--
AC

[Bobster]

Well it can't always have been that way, otherwise nobody would have
got involved. And it's not like you're going to get measured against a
competitor. You will have to endure lots of Mateschitz moaning about
his cars would be lapping so fast that they'd be crashing into
themselves if it wasn't for your lousy tyres, so that might get a bit
wearying.

Pirelli didn't have three years. OK, some folks might not think that
Pirelli's product is either safe or performant.

>
> Three years? Really? Wow. Takes less time to develop an engine.
>
> OK, I take their word for it. Seems unlikely then that the FIA will piss
> Pirelli off that much then.

Like I said, it's a poisoned chalice, and I wonder if anybody else
wants a sip.
>
> Poor Merc....
Well they DID break a regulation by using their 2013 car. So it's not
like they're being sacrificed on some altar of expediency.

Though as I said before, Brawn is not stupid and I don't see how he'd
have done this unless he thought he had his ducks in a row. Though
there do seem to be plenty of bosses at Merc....

[AC]

So, you think them to be out right lying?

>>
>> Three years? Really? Wow. Takes less time to develop an engine.
>>
>> OK, I take their word for it. Seems unlikely then that the FIA will piss
>> Pirelli off that much then.
> Like I said, it's a poisoned chalice, and I wonder if anybody else
> wants a sip.
>>
>> Poor Merc....
> Well they DID break a regulation by using their 2013 car.

Did they?

From here:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107821

"Mercedes insists that its running of a 2013 car, which is a breach of
the rules, was ratified by the FIA."

Yet, as I have said before, they only tell us half the info, which
raises more questions.

If what Merc says is provably true, then what are the FIA up to? Acting
innocent, and running a disciplinary when they are a major part of the
problem.

On top of that, it seems that Ferrari are uneasy. Seems they re trying
to steer the agenda like Horner is.

> So it's not
> like they're being sacrificed on some altar of expediency.

Hmmmmmm. I dunno about that. The way the FIA are acting all detached,
while Merc say they ratified it does not fill me with any confidence in
the process at all.

>
> Though as I said before, Brawn is not stupid and I don't see how he'd
> have done this unless he thought he had his ducks in a row. Though
> there do seem to be plenty of bosses at Merc....
>

By now they must all know what's what.


--
AC

[Bobster]

On Jun 2, 11:13 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 10:39 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

> >>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107817
>
> >> Interesting in its self, but this stood out for me:
>
> >> "Even if we started this year with the first tyre test, it would take
> >> easily three years until you can finish a safe and performing F1 tyre,"
>
> > Well it can't always have been that way, otherwise nobody  would have
> > got involved. And it's not like you're going to get measured against a
> > competitor. You will have to endure lots of Mateschitz moaning about
> > his cars would be lapping so fast that they'd be crashing into
> > themselves if it wasn't for your lousy tyres, so that might get a bit
> > wearying.
>
> > Pirelli didn't have three years. OK, some folks might not think that
> > Pirelli's product is either safe or performant.
>
> So, you think them to be out right lying?

No. I'd guess that they're saying it would take THEM three years to
get into that position. When Bridgestone were pulling out there were
at least two companies - Pirelli and Michelin - interested in becoming
sole supplier, and neither of them would have had three years.

>
>
>
> >> Three years? Really? Wow. Takes less time to develop an engine.
>
> >> OK, I take their word for it. Seems unlikely then that the FIA will piss
> >> Pirelli off that much then.
> > Like I said, it's a poisoned chalice, and I wonder if anybody else
> > wants a sip.
>
> >> Poor Merc....
> > Well they DID break a regulation by using their 2013 car.
>
> Did they?

Well we have this in the sporting regs
22.4 No track testing may take place :
...
h) Between the start of a ten day period which precedes the start of
the first Event of the Championship and 31 December of the same year
with the following exceptions :

The exceptions being straight line aero testing, a FIA-sanctioned
young drivers test and 8 promotional events a year not exceeding 100km
each and using special tyres supplied by Pirelli

"Track testing" is defined as "any track running time not part
of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship,
using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One
Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or
subsequent year."

So using an old car would have been all right - in terms of the
sporting regs.

>
>  From here:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107821
>
> "Mercedes insists that its running of a 2013 car, which is a breach of
> the rules, was ratified by the FIA."

Which is where it gets interesting. There is a seeming clash between
Pirelli's contract and the sporting regs. So did FIA specifically
grant Merc an exemption?

If FIA did, or if there's no clash between the contract and the
sporting regs then FIA could just say so. But they're not doing that.
So at the least they gave permission for something to happen but now
think something else happened instead.
<snip>

> Hmmmmmm. I dunno about that. The way the FIA are acting all detached,
> while Merc say they ratified it does not fill me with any confidence in
> the process at all.

Yes. But FIA can't just do nothing now that there's been an official
protest. They must at least go through the motions. Which maybe
explains all the stuff I mentioned earlier. A process has been set in
motion by the protests, and so FIA must be seen to be getting
information, reaching a decision and doing all of that according to
their own rules.

>
>
>
> > Though as I said before, Brawn is not stupid and I don't see how he'd
> > have done this unless he thought he had his ducks in a row. Though
> > there do seem to be plenty of bosses at Merc....
>
> By now they must all know what's what.

Yes, but they're not necessarily all as smart as Brawn.

[awa...@yahoo.com]

In article <6f33fe2c-dba4-42cf...@fv8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No. I'd guess that they're saying it would take THEM three years to
>get into that position. When Bridgestone were pulling out there were
>at least two companies - Pirelli and Michelin - interested in becoming
>sole supplier, and neither of them would have had three years.

but they both had the worldwide logistics & capability to be able to turn out
F1 tyres on spec, quickly (often within days) and cart them round the world
for the teams. both had prior F1 experience to boot, much was made of Pierre
Dupasquiers knowledge and prior involvement in the michelin F1 programme. They
both supply many top level motorsport championships and have the R&D and data
to go with it.

Hankook do DTM,Euro F3 and various other bits round the world, their F1
database is empty, theyd have to buy in the knowledge, develop and refine as
they went and create the necessary logistics capability,, for what so teams
like RBR can bitch & moan at them every week till they get it right for them.

its basically 3 years to get to a state where theyd be confident to expose
themselves to the kind of backbiting were seeing with Pirelli at the moment,

and weve seen before actually with Bridgestone who started from similar
position. they started in 95,spent 96 using a testbed car and intended to
compete only from 98, so 3 years,but went for 97 as they felt confident enough
they wouldnt have any mishaps to enter...it took another year learning,
developing before they hit a winning combination with McLaren.

and even with Michelin it took some years work to get back to being
competitive.

[BW]

On Jun 2, 6:18 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> subsequent year."
>
> So using an old car would have been all right - in terms of the
> sporting regs.
>
> >  From here:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107821
>
> > "Mercedes insists that its running of a 2013 car, which is a breach of
> > the rules, was ratified by the FIA."
>
> Which is where it gets interesting. There is a seeming clash between
> Pirelli's contract and the sporting regs. So did FIA specifically
> grant Merc an exemption?
>

It is fairly obvious that Pirelli desperately needed to test using a
current car.
So they must have asked somebody upstairs.