F1 » Horner: Perhaps Dennis didn't hear misfire


Red Bull team boss Christian Horner has rubbished claims that Sebastian Vettel was running low on fuel in Bahrain, as rivals ponder Virgin's design error.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

davem

March 27, 2010 10:32 AM

Later in the article RB said we take a risk on fuel mixture and can get it wrong so maybe redbull got it wrong. SV was running very quickly at the front which with pace and extra drag would mean he would burn more than MW who was running slower in a fuel saving slipstream and so be able to lean fuel out earlier to maintain position. They may have gone too marginal on SV fuel to get him P1.
We will see tomorrow won't we but if it was fuel I doubt they will make same mistake again.

Commodore S - Unregistered

March 27, 2010 11:18 AM

It was said down here this afternoon that mistake with the fuel tank is going to cost the team in the vicinity of $3.0AUDM as the whole car has to be re-designed/re-constructed and could take in excess of 3 months.

J.E.T - Unregistered

March 27, 2010 11:23 AM

The lengths Red Bull go to cover up the issues.
This was Renaults response to Mr Horner:

A broken spark plug was the "symptom, not the cause" of the problem aboard Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull in Bahrain two weeks ago.
Renault's engine technical boss Ron White also said the actual cause of the problem remains "a mystery".

What happens when you run (too)lean? You put pressure on the spark plug and cylinder components. (basically)
The fuel mix mappings can be changed from within the car and vettel was running far too lean. As a result this is what happened. Ron Dennis could still be right and Horner could be blaming Renault for his own teams **** ups!

107SS2009

March 27, 2010 12:13 PM

The fuel mixture (air fuel ratio) will not be leaned it will stay fixed, leaning out air/fuel mixture is asking for trouble (possible engine damage)the fuel induced with the air charge into the cylinders plays a major rule in cooling pistons vales and spark plugs, the term used leaning out is incorrect, the ECU will reduce the revs for economy driving, selectable on the steering wheel, may be up to four levels, this is because fuel consumed is directly related to BHP produced and BHP produced is in turn related to engine revs.

107SS2009

March 27, 2010 12:40 PM

Ross Brawn didn't mentioned/said “fuel mixture” he said run lean with less power, which he means engine revs in technical terms because as I said, fuel consumed/engine power output/engine revs are directly related “dependant on each other”

JET - Unregistered

March 27, 2010 12:43 PM

Thats not accurate.
F1 engines are capable of running "lean" and also "rich". An F1 steering wheel has a "mix" button thats numbered 1-5 0r 1-10 etc.
These codes allow the driver to select a mix setting without having to reduce the RPM of the engine.

For 2010 this is especially significant. For many reasons, but for example when stuck behind a saftey car, the driver can run a rich mixture which burns the fuel quicker so as to shed excess fuel weight.

Paradoxically, as was SPECULATED in vettels case, perhaps Red Bull missed a litre, the mappings can be set so the car runs to the 18k permissable RPM but uses less fuel, other wise known as the "lean mix".
cont/d

Commodore S - Unregistered

March 27, 2010 12:47 PM

@ J.E.T.

Yes Virgin was the team I was referring to.

Hello Sunny. I thought we agreed sometime ago the ECU controlled the engine mapping which did include the air mixture which in turn does induce the rich/lean terminology.I am no whiz kid however at the time when seeing Vettel in trouble the first thing that sprang to mind the car was running lean. It had that mannerisim.

Page 1 of 2
1 2  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.