Ferrari Mailing List: Re: F1 SPOILER

[JAshburne (JAshburne]

Dennis:
 
I was with you until you got to the 10th place vs. 5th place effect on  
engine life.  If Renault has designed their engine's life to survive with  
Fernando 
driving hard enough to win from no higher than 5th place (or 6th, or  7th) 
but with significantly higher probability of failure if he needs to charge  up 
from 10th place, then I would say that is cutting things too fine.
 
In reality, I am sure that their safety margin for MTBF is likely to a lot  
more than 6 practices, 2 qualifying sessions and 2 races.  The  probability of 
failure within that time period had better be pretty close to  zero (and 
certainly less than 5%, meaning less than 1 engine failure in a 19  race season 
using 10 engines) if they hope to win a world championship.   They just ran 
into 
bad luck or a wear factor that was higher than designed,  or a piece of bad 
metallurgy or any one of a number of other factors that  caused this engine to 
fail somewhere below the mean but still in the fat part of  the distribution 
curve.
 
Net, net, I don't think that the outcome would have been different if he  had 
started 5th.
 
John
 
 
In a message dated 9/11/2006 11:35:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
 
BigHeadDennis [at] earthlink.net writes:

Lashdeep  wrote:

>The Renault engine should be able to endure any level of  effort and abuse,
despite any setback or penalty. It  wasn't.

-------------

Now that's just plain silly.   :-)  

Racing equipment has a finite life, especially in F1.   Teams build
everything to extremely close tolerances, essentially following  Colin
Chapman's dictum that the perfect racing car is the one that falls  apart
after it crosses the finish line - if it lasts any longer, then it  was built
too well/strong/heavy.  Weight is the enemy, so engineers  build things to
last just long enough (and be safe enough too, of  course).  

Want more power but displacement is limited, fuel type  is limited,
aspiration is atmospheric?  Add more revs.  But that  cuts into reliability.
So you build the engine just long enough to last for  qualifying, and you
swap it out for another one that lasts just long enough  for the race.  Wait,
there is a 2-race rule?  Ok, you build the  engine just long enough to last
for TWO races, including qualifying.   But if you have to abuse it, run it to
the ragged edge, it may not last as  long as you want.

Renault built its engine to a certain spec  limit.  That spec limit was their
best guess and compromise - it has  to last 2 races, but must also produce as
much horsepower as  possible.  If it ABSOLUTELY must last two races, then you
opt for  lower rev limits and lose power.  If you grant your driver more
power  for a goodly portion of a race, then you cut into whatever safety
margin  you had built in, and run a much higher risk of blowing the thing  up.

Every team has the ability to build a completely bulletproof motor  that will
last two races.  Heck, last an entire season.  But it  would be dead last.

How fast do you want to go?  Well, how long do  you want to dance on the edge
of the knife?

Renault and Alonso had  to dance on the edge longer because they had to start
from 10th and push  like hell to catch up to Schumacher.  That ate into their
safety  margin.  If they had started 5th, they would not have had to push  as
hard.  

Vty,

--Dennis