Ferrari Failures

[blakebeatty]

Have i perhaps missed count, or was there an f2007 lifted off the track every day thus far in testing?

What's with all of the Ferrari failures?

[ioan]

Have i perhaps missed count, or was there an f2007 lifted off the track every day thus far in testing?

What's with all of the Ferrari failures?

Pushing the car to the limit?!
2 days ago the managed some 250 laps between them so reliability is OK.

[Donney]

It's a good thing the car breaks now instead of breaking in a GP. It is now when they have to find the car limits so they can improve during the season and finnish as many races as possible.

[ioan]

Ferrari declared it was just electrical problems, easy to improve areas, so I think it's nothing to worry to much, if they find out all of them before Melbourne!

[K-Pu]

Well, it´s better to have electric failures...

Imagine if you have engine problems... consider yourself dead for the rest of the season (or at least for a long while).

[Sleeper]

Ferrari declared it was just electrical problems, easy to improve areas, so I think it's nothing to worry to much, if they find out all of them before Melbourne!
Thats what they all say.

Their reliability does seem to be a bit iffy at the moment, there always fast but some days they do 250 laps and others they do 50 with multiple faliures. I'm not exactly a Ferrari fan but lets hope they sort this out as it would be a bit embarrising considering their record over the last 8 or 9 years as being bullit proof. I'd rather see them loose in a straight fight. ;)

[Daika]

Failure in testing is good. Otherwise what is the point of testing? Fail gloriously!!!

[blakebeatty]

i think that you ferrari fans are being a bit optimistic, no other team has experienced the sheer number of failures that ferrari has.

[samuratt]

I think we are not used to see a Ferrari car failing (even more if MS is driving it), so now we just get a little nervous when we see one blowing! :D

[blakebeatty]

I think we are not used to see a Ferrari car failing (even more if MS is driving it), so now we just get a little nervous when we see one blowing! :D

too true!

[Viktory]

chill, it's just testing :)

[mstillhere]

i think that you ferrari fans are being a bit optimistic, no other team has experienced the sheer number of failures that ferrari has.
I think you are right...no...wait,..... I just remember of one:McLaren for two years in a row.....yeah, that's it.....right??

[Sleeper]

I think you are right...no...wait,..... I just remember of one:McLaren for two years in a row.....yeah, that's it.....right??
We're talking about this year though, and the form book on reliability seems to be changing.

[blakebeatty]

I think you are right...no...wait,..... I just remember of one:McLaren for two years in a row.....yeah, that's it.....right??


maybe it's raikonnen?

[mstillhere]

We're talking about this year though, and the form book on reliability seems to be changing.

Honestly, if I may ask, as some other memebers have written, what is in your opinion the point of testing? If you were managing a F1 team, would not you be curious to know how much beating can actually your cars take?

And, if I may, add a remark: true, so far, that Ferrari has had electrical problems and a couple of engine failures. But it's not like the other teams (including McLaren) did not have any problems (I trust what you are saying about the amount of Ferrari problems, since I don't know for sure how many problems has had each team during these testing days). What it really matters is the ability for the teams, when they start the championship, the LEAVE their problems at the testing tracks and capitalize on what has been learned during the tests. That's the challenge for the real skilled engineer.

[futuretiger9]

Ferrari will not be too alarmed. They could dismiss some of these issues as "new car problems" or just generally experimenting with things. Although concerns have been raised about the new Ferrari structure, they should have everything sorted by the start of the season.

[Sleeper]

Honestly, if I may ask, as some other memebers have written, what is in your opinion the point of testing? If you were managing a F1 team, would not you be curious to know how much beating can actually your cars take?

And, if I may, add a remark: true, so far, that Ferrari has had electrical problems and a couple of engine failures. But it's not like the other teams (including McLaren) did not have any problems (I trust what you are saying about the amount of Ferrari problems, since I don't know for sure how many problems has had each team during these testing days). What it really matters is the ability for the teams, when they start the championship, the LEAVE their problems at the testing tracks and capitalize on what has been learned during the tests. That's the challenge for the real skilled engineer.

The point of testing is to make the car faster and more reliable, now the Ferrari is definitely fast but we havnt seen much improvment in reliability, though we should give it a couple more weeks to be fair.

True, every team has had at least one or two problems, its to be expected as they're new cars, but non (except maybe BMW) have had as many as Ferrari. As I've said we should wait a bit before we make absolute judgments but the shear number of failures on the Ferrari, something which is a big surprise with them, is becoming worrying.

[VresiBerba]

Honestly, if I may ask, as some other memebers have written, what is in your opinion the point of testing? If you were managing a F1 team, would not you be curious to know how much beating can actually your cars take?

Sure, but having problems is never a good thing, even if it's only testing. The reason parts break is because they are of poor quality, re-designing those parts take time, effort and money. It's of course better if no parts ever break down, not in testing and certainly not in racing.

[Roamy]

Has anyone here done a comparision between massa and MS last year??

gracias

[ioan]

Has anyone here done a comparision between massa and MS last year??

gracias

Trying the impossible?!
In fact as impossible as MS vs any of them!

[mstillhere]

The point of testing is to make the car faster and more reliable, now the Ferrari is definitely fast but we havnt seen much improvment in reliability, though we should give it a couple more weeks to be fair.

True, every team has had at least one or two problems, its to be expected as they're new cars, but non (except maybe BMW) have had as many as Ferrari. As I've said we should wait a bit before we make absolute judgments but the shear number of failures on the Ferrari, something which is a big surprise with them, is becoming worrying.

Well,
although I am not going to drag this conversation for ever, it's is also true that recently Fisichella, Alonso and Montoya today seem all to agree that Ferrari is in pretty good shape, and none of them made any reference, to my knowledge anyway, to the mechanical problems Ferrari has had. Similar opinions were also expressed by a number of team general managers (none of them were from McLAren, if I am correct, though). I am supposing they did not make reference to the red car problems, in my opinion, because they know that what happens to the car in testing is very different than what happens to the car on the track. Lastly, I really doubt that Ferrari would go from an engine failure every 6 years (Schumacher's car) into a much worse reliability record. After all, Ferrari is Ferrari.

[F1boat]

Well, Ferrari had problems with reliabilty in the past, including 2002, barrichello had an awful start of the season. In the end, Ferrari is usually able to fix the problems in time.

[tinchote]

I'm too lazy to search now, but does anyone see - along the years - a correspondence between testing and racing reliability? I tend to think there is not.

[Sleeper]

Has anyone here done a comparision between massa and MS last year??

gracias
If you mean a comparison between how well they did last year, Autosport recons that Massa was on average half a second slower than MS.

[tinchote]

If you mean a comparison between how well they did last year, Autosport recons that Massa was on average half a second slower than MS.

I assume he was talking about reliability

[airshifter]

I'm too lazy to search now, but does anyone see - along the years - a correspondence between testing and racing reliability? I tend to think there is not.

I've never paid too much attention to the reliability in testing vs racing, but we know that times don't reflect the same usually.

I don't pay much attention to testing failures. Since the cars are in a state of change often they won't be prepared the same way as for a race. I would think that it would also be the best time to find limits of engines and other parts, so if you plan on seeing how long the engine can handle higher revs during testing is the time to do it.

Ferrari has had some rough starts to recent seasons, but they seem to recover quickly in most cases.

[Dzeidzei]

...recently Fisichella, Alonso and Montoya today seem all to agree that Ferrari is in pretty good shape, and none of them made any reference, to my knowledge anyway, to the mechanical problems Ferrari has had. Similar opinions were also expressed by a number of team general managers (none of them were from McLAren, if I am correct, though). I am supposing they did not make reference to the red car problems, in my opinion, because they know that what happens to the car in testing is very different than what happens to the car on the track...

I think the logic of it all is this: if a forum fan gets an idea, then basicly the drivers and the team bosses dont know sh*t. Im only waiting comments on how KR is demolishing even the Ferraris.

But hey, it sounds like a good idea. Lets test, guys, and try not to break anything... lets go for a secure race distance.

Yeah right.

[555-04Q2]

Have i perhaps missed count, or was there an f2007 lifted off the track every day thus far in testing?

What's with all of the Ferrari failures?

I blame Kimi...

Kimi on radio to pit wall:

<Hey JT what lap am I on at the...plop...sh!t...JT I dropped my bottle of vodka all over the electrical circuit while going around turn 10 and...hey...wheres that smoke coming from...oh oh...JT we have a problem here>

[RaikkonenRules]

What idiot would drink Vodka while driving an F1 car. :laugh:

[VresiBerba]

But hey, it sounds like a good idea. Lets test, guys, and try not to break anything... lets go for a secure race distance.

Yeah right.

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

[Dzeidzei]

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

Feels stupid to even have to point this out to you, but no. The point of testing is to make the car faster and to find out how much beating different parts of it can take. If you can improve on the parts that do brake down, even better.

If you cant understand this, theres nothing I can do for you.

[VresiBerba]

Feels stupid to even have to point this out to you, but no.

Good, because what you said in post #27 was borderline stupid.

[Andy65]

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

In a way I would agree, you need to take a car past it's limits to know where they are, I remember reading that one day lotus was testing one of it's cars before a race and Graham Hill kept spinning, someone asked Colin Chapman why he let this driver carry on like this, Chapmans reply was something like, how the bloody hell will he ever find the limits the car if he never spins the bloody thing !!

[XR8]

Hey! Raikonnenrules! Your right. what idiot would drink vodka while driving a F1 car ? He would drink Johnny Walker Scotch, would,nt he!

[SGWilko]

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

Doh, not specifically to break them, but to find out how much stress they can take, so that each part can be given a shelf/mileage life.

I mean, putting a guy in a car with unproven parts is a tad irresponsible, surely?

[ioan]

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

Yes, as long as the things aren't the driver's bones, but one of the highly stressed parts from the powertrain and engine.

[Dzeidzei]

Good, because what you said in post #27 was borderline stupid.

Im sure it was for you. Have you ever heard of irony? Nevermind...

[555-04Q2]

So you think the point of testing is to break things?

That is an important part of testing. Our company does it everyday. We test our equipment to its breaking point then we know it limitations and how they can be used.

[VresiBerba]

That is an important part of testing. Our company does it everyday. We test our equipment to its breaking point then we know it limitations and how they can be used.

It's one thing testing construction equipment or aeroplane parts where the only rule is physics. There's quite a difference from sports where other rules has to be followed, like sporting rules. Therefore I'm quite certain that no team test the limits and cross them just to find out that the breaking limit is 107% when they only need 100%, as that would only generate completely useless (emphasis on USEless) data.

Therefore if a car stays together at 100% and no parts break, mission is accomplished.

[blakebeatty]

UH OH, Another one today in Bahrain!

[Juppe]

It's one thing testing construction equipment or aeroplane parts where the only rule is physics. There's quite a difference from sports where other rules has to be followed, like sporting rules. Therefore I'm quite certain that no team test the limits and cross them just to find out that the breaking limit is 107% when they only need 100%, as that would only generate completely useless (emphasis on USEless) data.

Therefore if a car stays together at 100% and no parts break, mission is accomplished.


And you know where the 100 % point is, because ........

(Please fill in the missing words :) )

[blakebeatty]

And you know where the 100 % point is, because ........

(Please fill in the missing words :) )

i would think that after some fifty years in the sport, that they have a decent ability to judge what their car's limitations are. the car and engine is run through countless simulations, dynos, etc to test the limitations.

[Juppe]

i would think that after some fifty years in the sport, that they have a decent ability to judge what their car's limitations are. the car and engine is run through countless simulations, dynos, etc to test the limitations.

You give them more credit than they would most likely deserve. :)

If they were that good, we wouldn't see any failures in testing, would we?

But the truth is that you never really know where the limitations are, before you go beyond them. No simulation or experience will tell you that before you try, not with the knowledge we have at the moment.

Another truth is that there is always the weakest link in the chain, which hinders the performance. When you recognise it, you will be able to push the limit to the next weakest link and so forth.... its really a never ending process, because you can never be sure where the competitors are.

The point is: there is no such thing as a 100 % performance that cannot be topped by improving something.

[VresiBerba]

And you know where the 100 % point is, because ........

(Please fill in the missing words :) )

Well among other things, 100% is exactly 19.000 engine revolutions. Better yet, what is 107%, driving like a mad-man, hopping curbs like you'd never do or disconnect TC and toast your tyres to charcoal? What good would that do? What good would it do to intentionally break your gearbox during a test day, don't you think they already did that during in-house testing rather than test it's limits on the track?

[VresiBerba]

The point is: there is no such thing as a 100 % performance that cannot be topped by improving something.

Don't be silly, of course there is. 100% is carefully calculated to achieve a safe limit, beyond that point the engineers can no longer garantuee operation. Everything from engine, gearbox, driveshaft, hubs and wheels is designed and constructed based on known parameters which are not supposed to break during normal (100%) operation. Going beyond that limit is not physically possible unless of course you did something terribly wrong and either the part will break or the car is simply too slow and you have to redisign anyway.

But of course, every machine will break at some point, but if you're not allowed to go beyond that point due to certain restrictions and sporting regulations, there's simply no point in exploring those areas, unless you want to cheat that is.

[VresiBerba]

Here's by the way a pretty good article:


We do a lot more in-house testing than before – our R&D department will test designs to destruction before they ever see a track. And our working methods and processes are always improving as well, so the fault-resolution process is getting better and better.

http://blog.renaultf1.com/index.php?en/2007/02/20/270-reliability-testing-as-simple-as-a-b-c

[Juppe]

Here's by the way a pretty good article:



http://blog.renaultf1.com/index.php?en/2007/02/20/270-reliability-testing-as-simple-as-a-b-c


Did you not read the article yourself or don't you understand anything of mechanics and engineering?

No engineer is able to fully foresee what is the 100 % limit for any given part. Hands up, if you can - anybody?

Hence the testing.

[VresiBerba]

Hence the testing.

WRONG! They test to find out if the car is as reliable as it is on paper and to find setups. A team would NEVER send a driver out just to see if, for instance a wishbone would stay together, that would be outright criminal! Those tests you are talking about has already been carried out in-house and as such already has a breaking point and a safe operation margin.

[janneppi]

From the same blog:

For example, we have been doing long runs, on high fuel loads, to understand the tyres. That also gives us a good chance to assess lots of car components, and put the necessary miles on new bodywork, or a new wing package, to ensure they can withstand the strains of running at full speed.”
and

From year to year, a component whose design is unchanged can suddenly start causing problems. Perhaps the car is vibrating in different modes, perhaps some other components are new and causing a problem, but you need constant vigilance,” concludes Tim. “It is about achieving peace of mind for the opening races, but new parts are constantly being added to the car and need to be assessed.
No team can get it 100% right on paper, no computer model or stress test is 100% accurate, not even for single parts despite their safe fail marging because you can't see all the things that affect, hence the testing. If F1 was as simple as single parts being tested in house and strapped on the car, we'd have no wheels coming off or rear wings flying away.

[blakebeatty]

02-28, another failure for massa. i think that this is something to worry about. at this point in testing (near the last test) the bugs should be eliminated and the limits, well understood

[fly_ac]

02-28, another failure for massa. i think that this is something to worry about. at this point in testing (near the last test) the bugs should be eliminated and the limits, well understood

It was a engine failure, which was past it's lifecycle, so I don't see anything to worry about. ;)