http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/479876/Uneasy_peace_among_the_engine_manufacturers/ Uneasy peace among the engine manufacturers? As the Formula One fraternity gathers itself before the long haul flight to Melbourne, some within the paddock believe not all is as it should be with regards to engines. Heading in to pre-season testing it was believed Mercedes had produced the strongest power unit, as engines are now known, with Ferrari the weakest. It was a conclusion drawn from early meetings of the Technical Working Group where Mercedes lobbied for more aggressive technical controls as the new engine formula was being ironed out, while Ferrari suggested more leeway might not be a bad thing. Sat quietly, and therefore somewhere in the middle, was Renault. Following a difficult time during the three pre-season tests in Spain and Bahrain it seems it is the French power unit which faces the most questions heading in to the season, but there are others being asked quietly of Ferrari. There are many who feel Ferrari has not met the design brief which it agreed to as the final engine regulations were penned, specifically Article 5.18.5 of the Technical Regulations which states that "Measures must be taken to ensure that in the event of failure of the turbine wheel any resulting significant debris is contained within the car." Both Mercedes and Renault built containment shields in to their power units as a result, something it's understood all manufacturers had initially agreed to do, though Ferrari elected not to and has argued it doesn't need such a system because it has designed its turbo not to fail. The exact weight of the containment shield has been estimated by some at 3 kilograms, though this is open to speculation and interpretation as weight is not specified as part of the regulations. However what we can read into the situation is that Mercedes and Renault are almost certainly a little more bloated than they need be. Unfortunately for them though it's not simply a case of removing the shield and playing Ferrari at its own game as there are safety concerns over its presence - it was the reason it was put there in the first place - and tight homologation deadlines effectively forbade it. The whole situation is an emotive topic within the paddock and first raised its head in late January. While there was some suggestion Ferrari may beef up its engine in anticipation of an unlikely protest in Melbourne there has been no official word from the Italian team saying as such. It all means that as teams pack up for the journey south there remains a sour taste in the mouths of those who believe the playing field is perhaps not as level as it should be on the engine front.
Pretty sure Horner will be up there looking to get something from it. Hypocritical bugger that he is. But in reality, if there is a genuine safety concern then it should probably be looked at.
Think of all the weight the teams could save by not having any kind of crash structure. "It's OK, we'll make sure we don't crash". Same logic.
Regs are regs and must be abided by. The MGU H is a moving part and like any Mechanical moving device can be prone to stress failure etc. We don't want another Massa 2009.
I'd be surprised if at Australia there was no protection added. It's too much of a risk to leave it off.
I cant see how they can get round it. If its a regulation aimed at saftey...how do you decline to follow/accpet it?
The homologation date means Mercedes and Renault don't have enough time to copy Ferrari's solution, so instead they are complaining. The FIA already accepted Ferrari's explanation. Time for Renault and Mercedes to stop whining.
It's not about copying the 'solution'. Ferrari don't have a cover as set out in the regs and simply saying that the turbo won't fail isn't good enough. As it is, Ferrari are far enough behind that performance wise it doesn't seem to matter anyway.
Ferrari have not broken the rules. They interpreted the rule differently but correctly, as the FIA said their solution is legal.
Have they tested their point, or is it just a theory that the turbo will deactivate, or the sensor will react in time to turn it down? Will only take one incident for it to be a major event and fingers will be pointed at Ferrari for circumventing what is a safety issue, not a performance issue.
It's like having a crash test and saying we are not going have a front wing! I am not sure what the rule is but if it says the turbo must have a cover.........
I'm fairly sure that it was reported a while ago that Ferrari had decided to play it safe and just add the cover to save any issues.
I would guess it's more complicated than just to design, make and fit a cover. The turbo will be generating huge amounts of heat, so anything that is designed to stop fragments flying out must also need additional cooling requirements. So if Ferarri have made a cover then hopefully the turbo will not cook it's self during the race.
Shouldn't there be some kind of "crash-test"-like procedure for determining whether the cover is sufficient or not? Something like replacing the key moving parts with clearly defective versions, ramp it up to high rpms, and see what happens? I feel there either should be an FIA-mandated test, or the teams have to submit enough evidence to the FIA to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their solution is safe. Clearly in the case of Ferrari it's more difficult to prove, but the onus should be on them to do so. Saying it's "designed not to fail" shouldn't be enough when it comes to a genuine safety concern, with what are effectively prototypes. As other's have pointed out, the Titanic was unsinkable, an open goal is unmissable, and Pirelli tyres were safe. It's not like this is just putting the Ferrari drivers at risk either, shrapnel could potentially injure other drivers, mechanics, marshals, spectators, etc. I suspect Ferrari will have to (or already have) caved in, but it'd be interesting to see how they persuade the FIA to declare it's current form legal if they don't.
