Martin Whitmarsh said the component that failed on Hamilton's car hasn't failed on a McLaren for over 5years. Maketh of that as you wish..
Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
- Status
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Gary Anderson didn't exactly say that Vortex. The modern F1 engine is integrated into the chassis as a stressed member and will not move on the chassis. The fuel pump is mounted to the fuel cell which is in effect a collapsible bag in order to limit the amount of fuel fumes accumulating in the tank (for safety reasons). The movement he was referring to was movement of the drive shaft as the walls of the fuel cell can move about. If the problem is as prevalent as Anderson suggests I would expect the issue to be happening to a lot more guys on the grid who we so often see flying violently over the kerbs. Strangely, I haven't seen such violence from Hamilton's cornering.
Edit: That crossed out bit is so all wrong it's embarassing. Methinks I was harking back to early days when a "bladder" was experimented with. Here Scarb's gives us the low down on current F1 fuelling: http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2012/06/01/analysis-f1-fuel-system/
Edit: That crossed out bit is so all wrong it's embarassing. Methinks I was harking back to early days when a "bladder" was experimented with. Here Scarb's gives us the low down on current F1 fuelling: http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2012/06/01/analysis-f1-fuel-system/
I'll have to watch it again. Doh.
Lewywo4
Race Winner
I wonder if Gary Anderson's answer maybe a reason for Jenson Button's retirement at Monza, which was caused according to Mark Hughes, by a failure in the fuel system?
Vortex
Race Winner
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Just in case readers missed my editing of earlier post. Scarb's details fuel cell and pump tech' here: http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2012/06/01/analysis-f1-fuel-system/
... and yup Vortex is perfectly correct GA did indeed say "... if the engine move on the chassis it can damage the little driveshaft ..."
... and yup Vortex is perfectly correct GA did indeed say "... if the engine move on the chassis it can damage the little driveshaft ..."
tooncheese I take your points and I don't disagree in principle about the theory that it's possible to drive a car harshly, in such a way that increases the risk of damage. And I have never really been a supporter of the more fanciful sabotage conspiracy theories, other than occasionally with tongue firmly in cheek.
I do disagree though about Hamilton's driving in this respect. He doesn't have a particular record as a car breaker as far as I know, and this year he has been driving as smoothly as ever. He said after the race today that he was pulling away from Raikkonen while 'cruising' and that the car felt 'beautiful to drive', statements which don't suggest to me that he had been thrashing the life out of the thing.
The cause of Button's retirement at Monza this year was stated to be a fuel pressure problem - something very similar, by the sound of it, to what Hamilton suffered today. And yet I don't remember anyone at the time suggesting that the way Jenson drove the car may have been a factor. Nor do I remember hearing people claim that Vettel's various alternators failed as a result of his actions behind the wheel, or that any of Schumacher's numerous mechanical retirements were caused by his unnecessary roughness in the cockpit.
I do disagree though about Hamilton's driving in this respect. He doesn't have a particular record as a car breaker as far as I know, and this year he has been driving as smoothly as ever. He said after the race today that he was pulling away from Raikkonen while 'cruising' and that the car felt 'beautiful to drive', statements which don't suggest to me that he had been thrashing the life out of the thing.
The cause of Button's retirement at Monza this year was stated to be a fuel pressure problem - something very similar, by the sound of it, to what Hamilton suffered today. And yet I don't remember anyone at the time suggesting that the way Jenson drove the car may have been a factor. Nor do I remember hearing people claim that Vettel's various alternators failed as a result of his actions behind the wheel, or that any of Schumacher's numerous mechanical retirements were caused by his unnecessary roughness in the cockpit.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
This probably better placed in a technical thread but just in case folks are wondering why I'm surprised at Gary Anderson's comments about the engine moving on the chassis this is why:
From http://www.f1technical.net/articles/4
"An engine is the only power source of a Formula One car - apart from the KERS systems in 2009 which are indirectly charged by the power generated by the engine - and is a structural part of the chassis."
[my emphasis]
"Since the introduction of the Ford Cosworth DFV, an engine in a F1 car is a stressed member of the chassis, meaning that it is an integral part of the car. Before that idea, a chassis was built as a tube frame with the engine placed in it afterwards, while now a chassis would fall apart if no engine was fitted. A current engine is bolted in between the rear end of the monocoque and the frontal side of the gearbox. As of that time, V-type engines have gradually pushed out any other engine type because they are compact and can be constructed very rigidly without requiring further strengthening to the chassis to ensure stiffness."
From http://www.f1technical.net/articles/4
"An engine is the only power source of a Formula One car - apart from the KERS systems in 2009 which are indirectly charged by the power generated by the engine - and is a structural part of the chassis."
[my emphasis]
"Since the introduction of the Ford Cosworth DFV, an engine in a F1 car is a stressed member of the chassis, meaning that it is an integral part of the car. Before that idea, a chassis was built as a tube frame with the engine placed in it afterwards, while now a chassis would fall apart if no engine was fitted. A current engine is bolted in between the rear end of the monocoque and the frontal side of the gearbox. As of that time, V-type engines have gradually pushed out any other engine type because they are compact and can be constructed very rigidly without requiring further strengthening to the chassis to ensure stiffness."
RickD
The reason I mentioned the Brazil 2007 ....it was such a big thing...it made a big difference....but there was no solid explanation.....
My own thoughts were that Lewis could go on flogging his guts out trying to win...but he was never going to be allowed to win the wdc in his rookie year.....seemed to be part of McLaren's 'Spygate' punishment..which had nothing to do with LH.
Most people only tell you what they want you to know....which can be a million miles from the truth....
Others are open & honest......
You say .....(at least I picked up) if I have missed replying to you....please accept my apologies. Sometimes I think...I will go back & answer that when I've checked info etc....then I sometimes forget...not intentional....
The reason I mentioned the Brazil 2007 ....it was such a big thing...it made a big difference....but there was no solid explanation.....
My own thoughts were that Lewis could go on flogging his guts out trying to win...but he was never going to be allowed to win the wdc in his rookie year.....seemed to be part of McLaren's 'Spygate' punishment..which had nothing to do with LH.
Most people only tell you what they want you to know....which can be a million miles from the truth....
Others are open & honest......
You say .....(at least I picked up) if I have missed replying to you....please accept my apologies. Sometimes I think...I will go back & answer that when I've checked info etc....then I sometimes forget...not intentional....
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
And it turned out that you were talking garbage anyway, since the gearbox failure had nothing to do with brushing the wall anyway!
Once again, it's a case that in retrospect, everything is 20/20.....
RickD
Pole Sitter
F1ang-o - Don't worry about missing replying, I meant that is what I picked up from his tone of voice and what he said. It does seem there are a lot of conspiracy thoeries around Brazil 2007 and I can understand why some of them exist. I just don't think they are any more viable than the ones that state McLaren are causing all the failures with Lewis' car deliberately this year and in fact, they would be stupid to do it to his this year when it will cost them so much money. I would guess it is just his fans frustrations coming out rather than being serious allegation, but what do I know..
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
...other than the fact that if Hamilton's gearbox hadn't failed, nothing would ever have been said.
Hamilton didn't have a mechanical problem from the start of his career to the 2009 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. So he's not a car breaker.
There's no doubt that the timing of McLaren/Hamilton's retirements have been utterly atrocious. Other than Canada, Singapore and Abu Dhabi were probably the most hooked up Lewis has been all year. And what do you know?!?!?!!??!!?
- Status
