Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

’Magic paint’ to give Ferrari power boost


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 LORDBYRON

LORDBYRON
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 14:57


"It is simply what correspondent Alberto Antonini refers to as a ’magic paint’ that is applied as a shield to deliver more heat to the turbine."
"It is believed that, amid the tight engine development ’freeze’, the FIA will green-light the mid-season change on the grounds of reliability."

Looks like the second half of the season will be getting alot more interesting. I wonder if renault will be allowed to make this change also for "reliability reasons" to bridge the gap to mercedes?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nextgen-a...oost,79970.html



Advertisement

#2 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,715 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:00

we are still going to get spanked at spa and monza by merc cars regardless of 'magic paint', not getting my hopes up for anything when it comes to the pu.


Edited by MikeV1987, 04 August 2014 - 15:01.


#3 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:08

we are still going to get spanked at spa and monza by merc cars regardless of 'magic paint', not getting my hopes up for anything when it comes to the pu.

Agree.

#4 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • Member

  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:19

There's far too much magic in F1 these days...First there was Mercedes with their magic paddle, now this!  :p



#5 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:20

Nobody is bridging the gap to Mercedes - their PU is too far ahead of what Ferrari and Renault has produced and some of the upcoming races are only going to make that more obvious.


Edited by Jon83, 04 August 2014 - 15:53.


#6 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,715 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:29

monza will be embarrassing. 

 

the teams drafting tactic in qualy will not help much  :lol:


Edited by MikeV1987, 04 August 2014 - 15:31.


#7 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 August 2014 - 15:52

ah yes, that famous issue of not being reliable in a straight line...



#8 Radion

Radion
  • Member

  • 967 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 16:30

Magic paint plus that update that marussia has been testing for ferrari and they are back in the business. :cool:

 

Edit: Oh, just realised that magic paint is the update marussia has been testing. So no back in the business. :(


Edited by Radion, 04 August 2014 - 16:32.


#9 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 04 August 2014 - 16:37

Any little bit helps.. :p



#10 crbassassin

crbassassin
  • Member

  • 437 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 August 2014 - 17:22

Can't Mercedes do the same thing to their power units too?



#11 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 August 2014 - 17:24

Can't Mercedes do the same thing to their power units too?

 

Maybe don't need to.



#12 blacky

blacky
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 04 August 2014 - 17:45

Mercedes and co. already have a heat containing cover.

 

According to media they didn't have it in the car at the homologation-date due to space and weight.


Edited by blacky, 04 August 2014 - 17:48.


#13 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 18:11

Is this magic paint from Zircotec by any chance? It was used a lot to protect components in the EBD days. I wonder if it's making an appearance again.

 

In order to gain performance I'd recommend Ferrari buy some magic beans from me.



#14 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 18:40

we are still going to get spanked at spa and monza by merc cars regardless of 'magic paint', not getting my hopes up for anything when it comes to the pu.

I want to laugh cause how you said it, well it was funny. Then again, as a tifoso, it made me sad :p



#15 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:24

Good news for Ferrari fans but i don't understand what this has to do with reliability. It's for performance.



#16 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,699 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:28

Good news for Ferrari fans but i don't understand what this has to do with reliability. It's for performance.


You can't modify or change components for a performance increase, only for reliability reasons.

#17 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,207 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:32

You can't modify or change components for a performance increase, only for reliability reasons.

 

Yep and I think the FIA is likely not to allow Ferrari to use this solution. They'll have to make a hell of a case to put it off as being for reliability reasons. I just don't see it happening TBH.



#18 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:36

It's the same trick the manufacturers have been playing since the V8 engine freeze. I'm not quite sure how the FIA approves updates, but it appears they have to prove it is primarily for reliability - with any performance improvements purely coincidental, naturally.



#19 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:42

You can't modify or change components for a performance increase, only for reliability reasons.

I understand that which is why this being allowed doesn't make sense.



Advertisement

#20 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,699 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 04 August 2014 - 19:50

Rules are that only reliability upgrades are allowed so the teams claim it's for reliability when it clearly isn't.

#21 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:08

Someone from Maranello must have lobbied strongly for this. Nice to see as i though Stefano was far too diplomatic. Seems Mr. Mattiaci knows how to get things done. :up:



#22 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:10

can't they forward a reliability argument something like - less heat dissipation to surrounding or adjacent hardware / parts  - heat is good for and within the exhaust but not good for the rest of it.

 

Safety argument is there as well -- need for heat shielding to surrounding structures -- prevention of fire blah blah...



#23 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:15

can't they forward a reliability argument something like - less heat dissipation to surrounding or adjacent hardware / parts  - heat is good for and within the exhaust but not good for the rest of it.

 

Safety argument is there as well -- need for heat shielding to surrounding structures -- prevention of fire blah blah...

 

Sure they can say that, but only because the FIA writes purposefully vague rules for occasions like this.



#24 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:34

can't they forward a reliability argument something like - less heat dissipation to surrounding or adjacent hardware / parts  - heat is good for and within the exhaust but not good for the rest of it.

 

Safety argument is there as well -- need for heat shielding to surrounding structures -- prevention of fire blah blah...

 

Also it makes it safer when the mechanics work on the car if fewer bits of the car are hot to the touch. I'm fairly sure they're allowed to make changes on safety grounds.



#25 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:36

we are still going to get spanked at spa and monza by merc cars regardless of 'magic paint', not getting my hopes up for anything when it comes to the pu.

 

The only magic there is to Ferrari is Fernando Alonso. The paint may be a heat shield, but not "magic"....



#26 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,686 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:38

 


"It is simply what correspondent Alberto Antonini refers to as a ’magic paint’ that is applied as a shield to deliver more heat to the turbine."
"It is believed that, amid the tight engine development ’freeze’, the FIA will green-light the mid-season change on the grounds of reliability."

Looks like the second half of the season will be getting alot more interesting. I wonder if renault will be allowed to make this change also for "reliability reasons" to bridge the gap to mercedes?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nextgen-a...oost,79970.html

 

It's called fiddling the rules to improve the show, they do it every time.



#27 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:47

The only magic there is to Ferrari is Fernando Alonso. The paint may be a heat shield, but not "magic"....

 

This is the truth.

I cannot imagine how horrible this year would be had Fernando not been there.... Oh wait I can.... 1992 Season for Ferrari.


Edited by George Costanza, 04 August 2014 - 20:49.


#28 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,540 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:47

Rules are that only reliability upgrades are allowed so the teams claim it's for reliability when it clearly isn't.

If reliabilitiy is improved, it is natural that more power can be taking out of the system without breaking it.



#29 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,207 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 August 2014 - 20:49

Someone from Maranello must have lobbied strongly for this. Nice to see as i though Stefano was far too diplomatic. Seems Mr. Mattiaci knows how to get things done. :up:

 

They haven't used the new solution yet. Let's not count our chickens before the eggs are hatched eh.



#30 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,850 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 04 August 2014 - 21:34

This is the truth.

I cannot imagine how horrible this year would be had Fernando not been there.... Oh wait I can.... 1992 Season for Ferrari.

Jesus, try being a McLaren fan . . . . 

 

Is the Ferrari power unit that bad?  Held up Hamilton in Hungary well enough.



#31 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 August 2014 - 21:35

hmmm, as far as I'm aware any upgrade to the power unit has to be run past the other teams first as well so if it is just a performance upgrade I expect the others to kick up a fuss (although its the FIA who decide if it can go ahead I'm sure they take into consideration the other teams views to some extent).

 

Maybe "paint" doesn't come under the engine homologation rules???

 

Also if it has already been run on Marussia I can't see how the FIA will prevent Ferrari from using it.



#32 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 22:17

A paint might not be considered a "component"



#33 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 22:25

can't they forward a reliability argument something like - less heat dissipation to surrounding or adjacent hardware / parts  - heat is good for and within the exhaust but not good for the rest of it.
 
Safety argument is there as well -- need for heat shielding to surrounding structures -- prevention of fire blah blah...

Wasn't there some kind of issue before the season with a team deciding they didn't need the weight of heat shielding around the turbo or something, and other teams suggesting that it might be considered as bit dangerous ?

#34 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,951 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 04 August 2014 - 23:03

Someone from Maranello must have lobbied strongly for this. Nice to see as i though Stefano was far too diplomatic. Seems Mr. Mattiaci knows how to get things done. :up:

You make it sound as if lobbying and diplomacy are fundamentally different.....



#35 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 23:09

Wasn't there some kind of issue before the season with a team deciding they didn't need the weight of heat shielding around the turbo or something, and other teams suggesting that it might be considered as bit dangerous ?

 

Yes, there was.  It was about turbo charger protective cover dispute (Merc & Renault said yes, Ferrari said no).   this article



#36 OvDrone

OvDrone
  • Member

  • 2,221 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 August 2014 - 23:41

Is the 'magic paint' Domenicali's tears?



#37 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 August 2014 - 23:53

Wasn't there some kind of issue before the season with a team deciding they didn't need the weight of heat shielding around the turbo or something, and other teams suggesting that it might be considered as bit dangerous ?

 

Quite different.

 

The argument then was about whether you needed shielding from the possible explosion of an overstressed turbo, with bits flying everywhere - magic paint wouldn't be much use in that scenario.

 

Heat shielding vs debris shielding.



#38 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:08

That paint can't be that magic then, can it ?

#39 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:25

When I was a kid I used to watch a film about magic paint - when it was used it would seemingly fix everything, only for their to be hidden side effects as all the painted stuff turned evil...

hmmm, this is most random and pointless post I've ever made I think...



Advertisement

#40 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 10,930 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:29

When I read the thread title, the first thing I thought of was racing stripes. They should try racing stripes. They're always good for about twenty horsepower.



#41 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,382 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:36

And there I thought they improved their aero package with this :p  magic paint is also a plugin for a graphic related software



#42 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,207 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:54

Wasn't there some kind of issue before the season with a team deciding they didn't need the weight of heat shielding around the turbo or something, and other teams suggesting that it might be considered as bit dangerous ?

 

Yes but it wasn't a heat shield. It was a cover for the turbo, not the exhaust.



#43 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:58

Yes but it wasn't a heat shield. It was a cover for the turbo, not the exhaust.

Yes indeed. Does anyone know the details of what happened? I thought that Ferrari, instead of having to install a protective shield/ cover around turbo, may be reinforced it, such that the weight remains lower, and allowed for better packaging. All i read later on was that FIA asked them to implement the shield, so much for FIARRARI :p , but i didn't quite read any stories with specific information as to what the implementation was on Ferrari PU's. Would you know more about it?

 

thanks!


Edited by garagetinkerer, 05 August 2014 - 01:58.


#44 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:14

Wasn't there some kind of issue before the season with a team deciding they didn't need the weight of heat shielding around the turbo or something, and other teams suggesting that it might be considered as bit dangerous ?

 

No, the shield was for the event of the turbo disintegrating. Edit: Others beat me to it. And I'm seconding garagtinkerer's question: Does anybody know the outcome of this disagreement?

 

Why is this a separate thread instead of in the F14T thread?


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 05 August 2014 - 06:16.


#45 fque

fque
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:52

20 extra hp on F14T means little.

 

20 extra hp on RB10 means possibilities to fight for wins.



#46 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:30

20 extra hp on F14T means little.

 

20 extra hp on RB10 means possibilities to fight for wins.

:lol: No chance. 20hp isn't going to erase a 1 sec/lap disadvantage that redbull have at the moment.



#47 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:56

No, the shield was for the event of the turbo disintegrating. Edit: Others beat me to it. And I'm seconding garagtinkerer's question: Does anybody know the outcome of this disagreement?

 

Why is this a separate thread instead of in the F14T thread?

The disagreement was concluded by suggesting Ferrari also incorporate the shield in their car, which as per Ferrari they didn't need. No other details as far as i'm aware has come out. Whether Ferrari engine is built to withstand such failures, or not, they're running with it as of now, iirc. Ferrari, i think wasn't very pleased with the decision, but agreed to it nevertheless. It at the time seemed that Renault/ Mercedes went the traditional route of lightest possible engine/ PU, and a shield to compensate for failures. Ferrari on the other hand were quietly confident that their engine/ PU could withstand such failure events, which made me think that they hadn't gone for the lightest, as is the norm, but went more effective, and efficient overall. I wonder, if they were even allowed to reduce weight from engine/ PU, but i doubt it since the homologation and development ban may mean that Ferrari couldn't. It would suck for a manufacturer in my opinion, as one, their PU is heavy as it is, and then on top of it, they were asked to implement the shield into the car as well. Bonkers!.

 

Details regarding the entire episode, are limited to just the fact, that Ferrari were asked by FIA to incorporate the protective shield.

 

:lol: No chance. 20hp isn't going to erase a 1 sec/lap disadvantage that redbull have at the moment.

I don't know what and why it is... but somehow people think that the gap between Mercedes and RBR is small... which it is not as far as i could tell. In my humble opinion, MGP-W05 is one of the most dominant cars ever to have raced since McLaren's and Williams built the monsters. Brilliant, brilliant car...



#48 SCEPurple

SCEPurple
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:11

Jesus, try being a McLaren fan . . . .

Is the Ferrari power unit that bad? Held up Hamilton in Hungary well enough.


Ham had lost fuel pressure/power

#49 Hans V

Hans V
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:35

Hard to understand as I would think a hotter turbo would heat up the air going into the cylinders, i.e. the oposite of what the intercoolder does. But what do I know. Wasn't there a pre-season speculation that Ferrari had some new technology  enabling them to run without or with very small radiators? 



#50 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:51

The only magic there is to Ferrari is Fernando Alonso. The paint may be a heat shield, but not "magic"....

 

Yeah but I don't think card tricks give that much laptime. Well, maybe 6 tenths a lap on a good day.