Ferrari Mailing List: Re: F1 SPOILER

[Dave Craig (dave.craig]

Oops!  Put and s where the z s are at.

I know it is Alonso and not Alonzo.  I guess the auto correct was getting
me.  Or something like that!
:-)

Dave 



-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Craig [mailto:dave.craig [at] sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:12 AM
To: Dave Craig
Cc: 'The FerrariList'
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] F1 SPOILER

Grahame,

Finally, the most important question.  Was Alonzo's engine new or was Monza
the 2nd race?  Well, it was a new engine and a new specification for the
engine.  Here is a quote from Bob Bell Renault's technical director taken on
Thursday before the race.

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/4879/765.html

BB: << We have the special Monza aero items on the car, and a good engine
upgrade for Fernando (Alonso) who will use a D-spec engine. I believe we are
in strong shape.>>

And to back this up, they also mentioned this in the pre-race interview that
Renault and several other teams were using or testing engine upgrades
(Notice all of the Honda engine meltdowns) and that Alonzo was on a new
engine and Michael's engine was on its second race.  

My personal belief is that Alonzo's engine was going up in smoke regardless
of the situation.  Renault has said that it was a bottom end failure.  We
see engines go up in smoke every week, but we don't typically see engines
chunking parts down the track like Alonzo's did.  My guess would be a broken
wrist pin or a broken connecting rod at the wrist pin.  Either way, this was
a catastrophic failure that was going to end this engine's life at Monza or
at China.  Granted, if it would have lasted the entire race, they might have
gotten luck and noticed it before the China race and just taken a 10 spot
penalty.  But, it was still going to hurt Alonzo's chase for the title one
way or the other.

It will be interesting to see if Alonzo gets a D-spec engine at China.

Ok, there is my $.02
Dave 



-----Original Message-----
From: Grahame Reinthal [mailto:grahame [at] reinthal.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:08 PM
To: Dave Craig
Cc: The FerrariList
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] F1 SPOILER

I know we can never really know unless we could see all the telemetry, but
here are a few more thoughts on this...

Following the Colin Chapman idea that the ideal race car expires just as it
crosses the line, was Monza a first or second race for Fernando's motor?  If
it was the second, then it fell only just a little short of target.

Which raises an interesting question: Fernando did tell us that in Turkey he
played around with the revs at significant points to keep Michael behind
him. So when Renault engineers talk about not going beyond "normal rev
limits" at Monza, what is normal?

If it was the second race for his engine, then maybe turning up the wick in
Turkey and then turning up the wick to just barely make it for that last
qualifying lap in Monza and then turning up the wick to try to move up from
10th on the grid all became too much... whatever! So yes, maybe it is
possible that pushing hard to make up the 5 places denied did contribute to
a shortening of the life of the motor, but then also so should the super
pushing hard to make it in the first place to get to do that last qualifying
lap, and so also should the pushing in Turkey (if it's the same motor).

On the issue of the stewards and the decision about impeding Massa's
qualifying lap, I read somewhere that the 3 race stewards concerned at Monza
came from 3 different countries - Italy, UK and South America somewhere (but
with an Italian name).  I think this is also the case for the other races in
the season (i.e. a local and 2 others).  So the Italian conspiracy idea
seems less likely if that is true.

But even if it was true that Fernando was unfairly penalised the 5 places
for the qualifying issue, it seemed far more obvious to me that he should
have been penalised early in the race when he was overtaking (can't remember
who it was) but had not completed the overtaking manoeuvre before he cut the
chicane and moved ahead. To me it seemed that he got a clear advantage over
the other car by cutting the chicane, and should have relinquished the place
immediately, which he did not do, and when he did not do this, he should
have been given some form of penalty, such as a drive-through, which would
have really exaggerated his bad afternoon. Do you perhaps think that the
stewards were feeling a little embattled after the furore over the Massa
incident, such that they let this one go through to the keeper???

Just some thoughts...

Cheers,
Grahame


> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Hans.
> 
> 
> On 9/11/06, LS <lashdeep [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Clyde, read the last 4 posts and get back to us when you're caught up!
> >
> > LS
> >
> > ---
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/grahame%40reinthal.co
> m.au
> 
> Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper


_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/dave.craig%40sbcglobal.
net

Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper


_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/dave.craig%40sbcglobal.
net

Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper