Discussion:
Oil Burning AKA Party Mode.
(too old to reply)
Botham
2018-03-24 18:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
b***@topmail.co.nz
2018-03-25 01:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 2:02:13 AM UTC+8, Botham wrote:
> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.

might by nitrous oxide, isn't that used at parties?
keefy
2018-03-25 19:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 25/03/18 03:15, ***@topmail.co.nz wrote:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 2:02:13 AM UTC+8, Botham wrote:
>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>
> might by nitrous oxide, isn't that used at parties?
>
And drag racing
Alan Baker
2018-03-26 17:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-24 11:02 AM, Botham wrote:
> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>

And exactly HOW do you know that "party mode" means?
Bigbird
2018-03-26 18:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Botham wrote:

> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> again, for the 5th year running.

You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
Alan Baker
2018-03-26 18:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Botham wrote:
>
>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>> again, for the 5th year running.
>
> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
>

And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...
Sir Tim
2018-03-26 21:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker <***@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>> Botham wrote:
>>
>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>
>> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
>>
>
> And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...
>

Nah, he was talking about Ferrari ;-)
keefy
2018-03-26 22:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26/03/18 23:13, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan Baker <***@telus.net> wrote:
>> On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Botham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>
>>> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
>>>
>>
>> And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...
>>
>
> Nah, he was talking about Ferrari ;-)
>
Errr, which 'he'?
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-27 06:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sir Tim wrote:

> Alan Baker <***@telus.net> wrote:
> > On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> >> Botham wrote:
> >>
> >>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >>> again, for the 5th year running.
> >>
> >> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
> >>
> >
> > And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about
> > Mercedes...
> >
>
> Nah, he was talking about Ferrari ;-)

Quite. Surely his first sentence was a massive clue.

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
build
2018-03-28 13:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 05:38:26 UTC+11, alan wrote:
> On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > Botham wrote:
> >
> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >> again, for the 5th year running.
> >
> > You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
> >
>
> And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...

Alan,
Perhaps Bird typed that with a big stirring spoon ;-)

beers,
Sir Tim
2018-03-28 13:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
build <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 05:38:26 UTC+11, alan wrote:
>> On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Botham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>
>>> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
>>>
>>
>> And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...
>
> Alan,
> Perhaps Bird typed that with a big stirring spoon ;-)
>

Of course, as most of us immediately apprehended :-)

--
Sir Tim
Alan Baker
2018-03-28 21:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 6:02 AM, build wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 05:38:26 UTC+11, alan wrote:
>> On 2018-03-26 11:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Botham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>
>>> You have no proof Ferrari are still doing that.
>>>
>>
>> And you apparently have no clue that he was talking about Mercedes...
>
> Alan,
> Perhaps Bird typed that with a big stirring spoon ;-)
>
> beers,
>

I suppose that's possible. :-)
keefy
2018-03-26 22:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>
Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
Edmund
2018-03-27 08:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:

> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>
> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
> motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.

According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
six times as much oil as Renault.
If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.

Edmund
larkim
2018-03-27 08:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>
> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >> again, for the 5th year running.
> >>
> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
> > motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>
> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
> six times as much oil as Renault.
> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>
> Edmund

In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain power
from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
better phrase)?

If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really make any
logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?

I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel restrictions
which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?

Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge though,
despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is sparse to
say the least.
Edmund
2018-03-27 09:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:

> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>
>> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>> >> again, for the 5th year running.
>> >>
>> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>> > large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>
>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
>> times as much oil as Renault.
>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,

AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.

> why would you seek to gain power
> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
> a better phrase)?

First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
use that brand.
Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.

> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really make
> any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>
> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>

> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is
> sparse to say the least.

My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault said
which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault uses
1/6 of that.

BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks right?

Edmund
larkim
2018-03-27 09:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >> >> again, for the 5th year running.
> >> >>
> >> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
> >> > large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >>
> >> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
> >> times as much oil as Renault.
> >> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>
> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.

Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to ?100kg/hour? I
presume during quali and race, with the 105kg limiting allowance.

I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually a
limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe things like
lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage is the issue rather
than peak flow.

>
> > why would you seek to gain power
> > from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> > is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
> > a better phrase)?
>
> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> use that brand.
> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.

Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of oil
higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose to use
petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing as the
fuel flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area, so presumably
would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.

>
> > If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really make
> > any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
> >
> > I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> > restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
> >
>
> > Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
> > though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is
> > sparse to say the least.
>
> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault said
> which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault uses
> 1/6 of that.
>
> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks right?
>
> Edmund

Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must admit
that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does exist) was a
way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit rather than getting
around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.

If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
~misfit~
2018-03-27 10:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>
>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>
>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>
>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>
> Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
> ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg limiting
> allowance.
>
> I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually a
> limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe things
> like lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage is the
> issue rather than peak flow.
>
>>
>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and
>>> which is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>> (for want of a better phrase)?
>>
>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>> use that brand.
>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>
> Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of oil
> higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose to use
> petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing as the
> fuel flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area, so
> presumably would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.
>
>>
>>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really
>>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>>>
>>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
>>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>>>
>>
>>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
>>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power
>>> trains is sparse to say the least.
>>
>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
>> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
>> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
>>
>> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
>> right?
>>
>> Edmund
>
> Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
> admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
> exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
> rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
>
> If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!

It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the absolute
limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the amount of oil that
maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for 2018 on allowing a solenoid
on the crankcase breather. Thay have also stipulated that the breather goes
to atmosphere rather than ICE inlet (as was standard ractice in F1
previously and is on almost all other ICEs).

Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very visible
place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like polluters while
Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so that any vapour / oil fog
is dragged into the exhaust plume and 'hidden'.

Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible in F1 in 2018 (and only
ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was). If Renault
are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a source or cite)
then it was because they couldn't work out how to do it themselves.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
larkim
2018-03-27 10:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 11:20:27 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
> >>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> >>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> >>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >>>>
> >>>> Edmund
> >>>
> >>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
> >>
> >> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
> >
> > Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
> > ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg limiting
> > allowance.
> >
> > I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually a
> > limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe things
> > like lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage is the
> > issue rather than peak flow.
> >
> >>
> >>> why would you seek to gain power
> >>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and
> >>> which is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
> >>> (for want of a better phrase)?
> >>
> >> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> >> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> >> use that brand.
> >> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
> >
> > Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of oil
> > higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose to use
> > petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing as the
> > fuel flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area, so
> > presumably would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.
> >
> >>
> >>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really
> >>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
> >>>
> >>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> >>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
> >>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power
> >>> trains is sparse to say the least.
> >>
> >> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
> >> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
> >> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
> >>
> >> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
> >> right?
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
> > admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
> > exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
> > rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
> >
> > If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
>
> It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the absolute
> limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the amount of oil that
> maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for 2018 on allowing a solenoid
> on the crankcase breather. Thay have also stipulated that the breather goes
> to atmosphere rather than ICE inlet (as was standard ractice in F1
> previously and is on almost all other ICEs).
>
> Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very visible
> place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like polluters while
> Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so that any vapour / oil fog
> is dragged into the exhaust plume and 'hidden'.
>
> Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible in F1 in 2018 (and only
> ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was). If Renault
> are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a source or cite)
> then it was because they couldn't work out how to do it themselves.
> --
> Shaun.
>
> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
> little classification in the DSM*."
> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Thanks Shaun, helpful - good to get my lack of knowledge updated!!
~misfit~
2018-03-27 10:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 11:20:27 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>>>>>>> oil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>
>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>
>>> Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
>>> ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg
>>> limiting allowance.
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually
>>> a limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe
>>> things like lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage
>>> is the issue rather than peak flow.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and
>>>>> which is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>> (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>>
>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>> use that brand.
>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>
>>> Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of
>>> oil higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose
>>> to use petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing
>>> as the fuel flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area,
>>> so presumably would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it
>>>>> really make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
>>>>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical
>>>>> knowledge though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and
>>>>> power trains is sparse to say the least.
>>>>
>>>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
>>>> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
>>>> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
>>>>
>>>> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>
>>> Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
>>> admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
>>> exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
>>> rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
>>>
>>> If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
>>
>> It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the
>> absolute limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the
>> amount of oil that maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for
>> 2018 on allowing a solenoid on the crankcase breather. Thay have
>> also stipulated that the breather goes to atmosphere rather than ICE
>> inlet (as was standard ractice in F1 previously and is on almost all
>> other ICEs).
>>
>> Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very
>> visible place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like
>> polluters while Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so
>> that any vapour / oil fog is dragged into the exhaust plume and
>> 'hidden'.
>>
>> Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible in F1 in 2018 (and
>> only ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was).
>> If Renault are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without
>> a source or cite) then it was because they couldn't work out how to
>> do it themselves. --
>
> Thanks Shaun, helpful - good to get my lack of knowledge updated!!

Heh! You're welcome.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Edmund
2018-03-27 12:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:20:21 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
>>>>> six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Edmund
>>>>
>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>
>> Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
>> ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg limiting
>> allowance.
>>
>> I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually a
>> limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe things
>> like lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage is the issue
>> rather than peak flow.
>>
>>
>>>> why would you seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains no
>>>> signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less effective at
>>>> delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>
>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not use
>>> that brand.
>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>
>> Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of oil
>> higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose to use
>> petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing as the fuel
>> flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area, so presumably
>> would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.
>>
>>
>>>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really
>>>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>>>>
>>>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
>>>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
>>>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains
>>>> is sparse to say the least.
>>>
>>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault
>>> said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault
>>> uses 1/6 of that.
>>>
>>> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks right?
>>>
>>> Edmund
>>
>> Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
>> admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
>> exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
>> rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
>>
>> If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
>
> It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the absolute
> limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the amount of oil that
> maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for 2018 on allowing a
> solenoid on the crankcase breather. Thay have also stipulated that the
> breather goes to atmosphere rather than ICE inlet (as was standard
> ractice in F1 previously and is on almost all other ICEs).
>
> Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very
> visible place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like polluters
> while Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so that any vapour
> / oil fog is dragged into the exhaust plume and 'hidden'.
>
> Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible

Jumping to conclusions!

> in F1 in 2018 (and
> only ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was).

Do you have a credible source for your bold statement?

> If
> Renault are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a
> source or cite) then it was because they couldn't work out how to do it
> themselves.

They might have other reasons.

Edmund
Bigbird
2018-03-27 16:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Edmund wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:20:21 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
> > > >
> >>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> > > > > >
> >>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
> yet >>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
> extremely >>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
> oil.
> > > > > >
> >>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> uses/burn >>>>> six times as much oil as Renault.
> >>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
> can.
> > > > > >
> >>>>> Edmund
> > > > >
> >>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
> > > >
> >>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
> > >
> >> Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
> >> ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg
> limiting >> allowance.
> > >
> >> I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour
> actually a >> limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators
> describe things >> like lift and coast, it always seems to me that
> fuel usage is the issue >> rather than peak flow.
> > >
> > >
> >>>> why would you seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains
> no >>>> signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less
> effective at >>>> delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
> better phrase)?
> > > >
> >>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> >>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> use >>> that brand.
> >>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
> > >
> >> Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of
> oil >> higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd
> choose to use >> petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are
> managing as the fuel >> flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel
> cell area, so presumably >> would not detect any oil in the mix at
> that point.
> > >
> > >
> >>>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it
> really >>>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
> > > > >
> >>>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> >>>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in
> quali?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >>>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical
> knowledge >>>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE
> and power trains >>>> is sparse to say the least.
> > > >
> >>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
> Renault >>> said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
> while Renault >>> uses 1/6 of that.
> > > >
> >>> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
> right?
> > > >
> >>> Edmund
> > >
> >> Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
> >> admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
> >> exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
> >> rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
> > >
> >> If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
> >
> > It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the
> > absolute limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the
> > amount of oil that maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for
> > 2018 on allowing a solenoid on the crankcase breather. Thay have
> > also stipulated that the breather goes to atmosphere rather than
> > ICE inlet (as was standard ractice in F1 previously and is on
> > almost all other ICEs).
> >
> > Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very
> > visible place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like
> > polluters while Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so
> > that any vapour / oil fog is dragged into the exhaust plume and
> > 'hidden'.
> >
> > Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible
>
> Jumping to conclusions!
>
> > in F1 in 2018 (and
> > only ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was).
>
> Do you have a credible source for your bold statement?
>
> > If
> > Renault are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a
> > source or cite) then it was because they couldn't work out how to
> > do it themselves.
>
> They might have other reasons.
>

As you now seem concerned about "credible sources" do you have a
credible source for anything you have claimed in the last 5 years?

Yes, it's rhetorical.
Edmund
2018-03-27 18:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:31:20 +0000, Bigbird wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:20:21 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>> > Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> >>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>> yet >>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>> > > > > > > >
>> >>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>> extremely >>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>> oil.
>> > > > > >
>> >>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>> uses/burn >>>>> six times as much oil as Renault.
>> >>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>> can.
>> > > > > >
>> >>>>> Edmund
>> > > > >
>> >>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>> > > >
>> >>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>> > >
>> >> Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
>> >> ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg
>> limiting >> allowance.
>> > >
>> >> I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour
>> actually a >> limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators
>> describe things >> like lift and coast, it always seems to me that
>> fuel usage is the issue >> rather than peak flow.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >>>> why would you seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains
>> no >>>> signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less
>> effective at >>>> delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
>> better phrase)?
>> > > >
>> >>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>> >>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>> use >>> that brand.
>> >>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>> > >
>> >> Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of
>> oil >> higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd
>> choose to use >> petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are
>> managing as the fuel >> flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel
>> cell area, so presumably >> would not detect any oil in the mix at
>> that point.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >>>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it
>> really >>>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>> > > > >
>> >>>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
>> >>>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in
>> quali?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> >>>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical
>> knowledge >>>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE
>> and power trains >>>> is sparse to say the least.
>> > > >
>> >>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
>> Renault >>> said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
>> while Renault >>> uses 1/6 of that.
>> > > >
>> >>> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
>> right?
>> > > >
>> >>> Edmund
>> > >
>> >> Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
>> >> admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
>> >> exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
>> >> rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
>> > >
>> >> If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
>> >
>> > It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the
>> > absolute limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the
>> > amount of oil that maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for
>> > 2018 on allowing a solenoid on the crankcase breather. Thay have
>> > also stipulated that the breather goes to atmosphere rather than
>> > ICE inlet (as was standard ractice in F1 previously and is on
>> > almost all other ICEs).
>> >
>> > Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very
>> > visible place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like
>> > polluters while Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so
>> > that any vapour / oil fog is dragged into the exhaust plume and
>> > 'hidden'.
>> >
>> > Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible
>>
>> Jumping to conclusions!
>>
>> > in F1 in 2018 (and
>> > only ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was).
>>
>> Do you have a credible source for your bold statement?
>>
>> > If
>> > Renault are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a
>> > source or cite) then it was because they couldn't work out how to
>> > do it themselves.
>>
>> They might have other reasons.
>>
>
> As you now seem concerned about "credible sources" do you have a
> credible source for anything you have claimed in the last 5 years?
>
> Yes, it's rhetorical.
Hi Bird,

You still can't help yourself do you.
I say white you say black, I say black you say white no
matter what I say you have a problem with it.
Now for your information :
The one I responded to found it necessarily to mention I
did not add a legal documents to prove every letter i said.
I am sure you like that very much don´t you.
Never mind I told here several times I don't record endless
databases and I don't add all legal documents whether you like
it or not.
You or whoever choose not to believe me? I could not care less.
It tells a lot more about you then it tells about me, so
you really don't have to respond any of my postings.

And now to the funny part!
He himself made a pretty bold statement and suggested his
opinion is a well known fact.
Guess what? it isn't, not only it is not well known, it is
not even true, it is nothing more then his own personal
opinion.

Now do you want to guess why I asked him if he himself
had a credible source for his assumption?
Hint : I returned the favor.

Edmund
build
2018-03-28 12:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 21:20:27 UTC+11, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:10:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
> >>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> >>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> >>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >>>>
> >>>> Edmund
> >>>
> >>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
> >>
> >> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
> >
> > Yes of course, you're correct - fuel flow remains limited to
> > ?100kg/hour? I presume during quali and race, with the 105kg limiting
> > allowance.
> >
> > I don't know the answer to this btw, but is the 100kg/hour actually a
> > limiting factor in quali? The way the commentators describe things
> > like lift and coast, it always seems to me that fuel usage is the
> > issue rather than peak flow.
> >
> >>
> >>> why would you seek to gain power
> >>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and
> >>> which is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
> >>> (for want of a better phrase)?
> >>
> >> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> >> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> >> use that brand.
> >> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
> >
> > Yes, of course it is supplementary. But is the calorific value of oil
> > higher or lower than petrol? If it is not higher, you'd choose to use
> > petrol instead UNLESS it is fuel flow that you are managing as the
> > fuel flow sensor I believe is mounted in the fuel cell area, so
> > presumably would not detect any oil in the mix at that point.
> >
> >>
> >>> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really
> >>> make any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
> >>>
> >>> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> >>> restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
> >>> though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power
> >>> trains is sparse to say the least.
> >>
> >> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
> >> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
> >> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
> >>
> >> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks
> >> right?
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > Absolutely, I can see the potential trickery in it. Though I must
> > admit that I'd had it in my head that the oil burning (if it does
> > exist) was a way of getting around the 105kg fuel allowance limit
> > rather than getting around the 100kg/hour fuel flow limit.
> >
> > If my understanding is incorrect, that wouldn't surprise me!
>
> It was always to get around the fuel flow rate rather than the absolute
> limit. However the FIA have significantly reduced the amount of oil that
> maye be consumed and have done an about-turn for 2018 on allowing a solenoid
> on the crankcase breather. Thay have also stipulated that the breather goes
> to atmosphere rather than ICE inlet (as was standard ractice in F1
> previously and is on almost all other ICEs).

I'm trying to recall how many decades it's been since PCV systems became compulsory. I recall PCV's in the 60's and by the early 70's most cars had them. Certainly by 1980 they were compulsory because they were clean, efficient and improved oil performance by breathing the crankcase to the inlet manifold or TIK. So all cars have had PCV systems for about 4 decades, 40 years or more.


> Ferrari are protesting this by situating their breather in a very visible
> place near the tail light, trying to make F1 look like polluters while
> Mercedes have situated theirs near the exhaust so that any vapour / oil fog
> is dragged into the exhaust plume and 'hidden'.
>
> Hence on-demand oil burning is no longer possible in F1 in 2018 (and only
> ever gave a few percentage points of extra power when it was). If Renault
> are (were?) making the claims Edmund is quoting (without a source or cite)
> then it was because they couldn't work out how to do it themselves.
> --
> Shaun.
Brian W Lawrence
2018-03-27 13:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:

> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault said
> which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault uses
> 1/6 of that.

Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
the levels fell.

Each PU can only use a single specification of oil over the race
weekend. This must be nominated before the event and 1L samples must
be supplied to the FIA for testing. It is permissable to use
different specs. for different PUs within a team.


<https://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2018/03/cyril-abiteboul-unsure-fia-can-enforce-oil-burn-rules/>


<https://www.crash.net/f1/news/890127/1/horner-calls-clampdown-f1-oil-burn-qualifying>
~misfit~
2018-03-27 14:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>
>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
>> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
>> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
>
> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
> the levels fell.
>
> Each PU can only use a single specification of oil over the race
> weekend. This must be nominated before the event and 1L samples must
> be supplied to the FIA for testing.

This came about after Ferrari were discovered to be using two oil tanks with
different specifications of oil in each last season.

> It is permissable to use
> different specs. for different PUs within a team.

Fair enough, one driver might be on an old ICE and the other on a new one
and they would require quite different oil formulations.

> <https://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2018/03/cyril-abiteboul-unsure-fia-can-enforce-oil-burn-rules/>

Laughable!
"I know it's a constant concern from customer teams and for very good reason
to make sure they are treated equally because that certainly should be the
case. "It certainly has been the way that we have been acting towards our
customers in our 40 years of history of being an engine supplier in Formula
1."

It's fairly common knowledge that the new rule that stipulates all teams run
the same software is a result of a complaint from Toro Rosso after they
weren't allowed to turn their engines up at the end of last season - which
resulted in them scoring no points in the latter races and losing $10m
prizemoney to Renault.

> <https://www.crash.net/f1/news/890127/1/horner-calls-clampdown-f1-oil-burn-qualifying>

I'm no F1 engineer but I do know quite a bit about ICEs and now that the
solenoid that could be used to close the breather and pressurise the
crankcase is no longer allowed in F1 I don't see how controlled on-demand
oil burning is possible. There is no 'control', no way to switch it on and
off.

Oh just checked and the Abiteboul interview was 2017.08.29 (before the
solenoid was banned and before they shafted Toro Rosso) and the Horner one
2018.02.27, before the 2018 season started and reads like a typical RBR red
herring.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Edmund
2018-03-27 15:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:03:15 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Once upon a time on usenet Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>>
>>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault
>>> said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault
>>> uses 1/6 of that.
>>
>> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
>> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
>> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
>> the levels fell.
>>
>> Each PU can only use a single specification of oil over the race
>> weekend. This must be nominated before the event and 1L samples must be
>> supplied to the FIA for testing.
>
> This came about after Ferrari were discovered to be using two oil tanks
> with different specifications of oil in each last season.
>
>> It is permissable to use different specs. for different PUs within a
>> team.
>
> Fair enough, one driver might be on an old ICE and the other on a new
> one and they would require quite different oil formulations.
>
>> <https://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2018/03/cyril-abiteboul-unsure-fia-
can-enforce-oil-burn-rules/>
>
> Laughable!
> "I know it's a constant concern from customer teams and for very good
> reason to make sure they are treated equally because that certainly
> should be the case. "It certainly has been the way that we have been
> acting towards our customers in our 40 years of history of being an
> engine supplier in Formula 1."
>
> It's fairly common knowledge that the new rule that stipulates all teams
> run the same software is a result of a complaint from Toro Rosso after
> they weren't allowed to turn their engines up at the end of last season
> - which resulted in them scoring no points in the latter races and
> losing $10m prizemoney to Renault.
>
>> <https://www.crash.net/f1/news/890127/1/horner-calls-clampdown-f1-oil-
burn-qualifying>
>
> I'm no F1 engineer but I do know quite a bit about ICEs and now that the
> solenoid that could be used to close the breather and pressurise the
> crankcase is no longer allowed in F1

> I DON'T SEE HOW CONTROLLED ON-DEMAND OIL BURNING IS POSSIBLE.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a team spending a million dollar
per day can not think of a way to do it, does it?

Edmund

> Cheers,
build
2018-03-28 12:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 00:03:14 UTC+11, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>
> > My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault said
> > which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault uses
> > 1/6 of that.
>
> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
> the levels fell.


So the 0.6Lt per 100Km is an oil flow rate. That would not allow a different setting in qually.


> Each PU can only use a single specification of oil over the race
> weekend. This must be nominated before the event and 1L samples must
> be supplied to the FIA for testing. It is permissable to use
> different specs. for different PUs within a team.
>
>
> <https://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2018/03/cyril-abiteboul-unsure-fia-can-enforce-oil-burn-rules/>
>
>
> <https://www.crash.net/f1/news/890127/1/horner-calls-clampdown-f1-oil-burn-qualifying>
Edmund
2018-03-28 14:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:54:06 -0700, build wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 00:03:14 UTC+11, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>>
>> > My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault
>> > said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault
>> > uses 1/6 of that.
>>
>> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
>> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
>> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
>> the levels fell.
>
>
> So the 0.6Lt per 100Km is an oil flow rate. That would not allow a
> different setting in qually.

I never heard there is a max lubrication oil flow rate, did you?

Edmund
Alan Baker
2018-03-28 21:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 7:55 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:54:06 -0700, build wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 00:03:14 UTC+11, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>>>
>>>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault
>>>> said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault
>>>> uses 1/6 of that.
>>>
>>> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
>>> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
>>> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and when
>>> the levels fell.
>>
>>
>> So the 0.6Lt per 100Km is an oil flow rate. That would not allow a
>> different setting in qually.
>
> I never heard there is a max lubrication oil flow rate, did you?
>
> Edmund
>

There is a maximum USAGE rate, but it would depend a lot on how the
rules measure that usage.
Edmund
2018-03-29 08:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:56:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-28 7:55 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:54:06 -0700, build wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 00:03:14 UTC+11, Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>> On 27/03/2018 10:10, Edmund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of
>>>>> Renault said which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit
>>>>> while Renault uses 1/6 of that.
>>>>
>>>> Well during the race the max permitted amount of oil usage is
>>>> 600ml/100km, so the Renault teams must be using ~100ml. The amount in
>>>> the tanks is known at all times by FIA, so they would know if and
>>>> when the levels fell.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the 0.6Lt per 100Km is an oil flow rate. That would not allow a
>>> different setting in qually.
>>
>> I never heard there is a max lubrication oil flow rate, did you?
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>>
> There is a maximum USAGE rate, but it would depend a lot on how the
> rules measure that usage.

Exactly.

Edmund
build
2018-03-28 13:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >> >> again, for the 5th year running.
> >> >>
> >> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
> >> > large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >>
> >> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
> >> times as much oil as Renault.
> >> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>
> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>
> > why would you seek to gain power
> > from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> > is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
> > a better phrase)?
>
> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> use that brand.
> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.

I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of no significance. It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar allowing greater advance and leaner burn.


> > If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really make
> > any logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
> >
> > I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel
> > restrictions which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
> >
>
> > Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge
> > though, despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is
> > sparse to say the least.
>
> My reaction was to the oil burning and what I read someone of Renault said
> which is both Ferrari and Merc using the max limit while Renault uses
> 1/6 of that.
>
> BTW if you use your imagination you can think of similar tricks right?
>
> Edmund
Edmund
2018-03-28 14:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:

> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>> >> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>> >> >> again, for the 5th year running.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>> >> > large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>> >>
>> >> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
>> >> times as much oil as Renault.
>> >> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>> >>
>> >> Edmund
>> >
>> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>
>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>
>> > why would you seek to gain power
>> > from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
>> > is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
>> > a better phrase)?
>>
>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>> use that brand.
>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>
> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of no significance.

Any reason why you think so?

> It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
> allowing greater advance and leaner burn.

The rumor is that it is both.

Edmund
build
2018-04-03 11:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> >> >> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> >> >> >> again, for the 5th year running.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
> >> >> > large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >> >>
> >> >> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
> >> >> times as much oil as Renault.
> >> >> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Edmund
> >> >
> >> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
> >>
> >> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
> >>
> >> > why would you seek to gain power
> >> > from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> >> > is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
> >> > a better phrase)?
> >>
> >> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
> >> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
> >> use that brand.
> >> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
> >
> > I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
> > no significance.
>
> Any reason why you think so?

I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic* calorific value.

However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation agent or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.


> > It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
> > allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>
> The rumor is that it is both.
>
> Edmund
News
2018-04-03 14:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>
>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>
>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>
>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>> use that brand.
>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>
>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>> no significance.
>>
>> Any reason why you think so?
>
> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>

Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.


> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation agent or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.
>
>
>>> It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
>>> allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>>
>> The rumor is that it is both.
>>
>> Edmund
>
Heron
2018-04-03 15:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>> want of
>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>
>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>
>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>> no significance.
>>>
>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>
>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>> calorific value.
>>
>
> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.

Name so much as a single, documented history of any
spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
consumption) to enhance either performance or
mileage.

>> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation agent
>> or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.
>>
>>
>>>> It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
>>>> allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>>>
>>> The rumor is that it is both.
>>>
>>> Edmund
News
2018-04-03 15:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>>> want of
>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>> no significance.
>>>>
>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>
>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>>> calorific value.
>>>
>>
>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
>> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.
>
> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
> consumption) to enhance either performance or
> mileage.

Catch up, willya?
Heron
2018-04-03 15:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>>>> want of
>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>
>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>>>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>>>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>>>> calorific value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
>>> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.
>>
>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>> mileage.
>
> Catch up, willya?

I KNEW that you couldn't.
News
2018-04-03 16:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of
>>>>> 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to
>>>>> be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>
>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>> mileage.
>>
>> Catch up, willya?
>
> I KNEW that you couldn't.


At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
Heron
2018-04-03 16:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of
>>>>>> 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to
>>>>>> be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>>
>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>> mileage.
>>>
>>> Catch up, willya?
>>
>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>
>
> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.

Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.
News
2018-04-03 16:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 12:52 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre,
>>>>>>> to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>> mileage.
>>>>
>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>
>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>
>>
>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>
> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.


Reinforcing your D-K props! Go for it!
Heron
2018-04-03 16:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 11:55 AM, News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 12:52 PM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per
>>>>>>>> kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need
>>>>>>>> to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or
>>>>>>> combustion management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x
>>>>>>> the regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used
>>>>>>> outside 'party mode'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>>> mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>>
>>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>>
>> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
>> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
>> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
>> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
>> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.
>
>
> Reinforcing your D-K props! Go for it!

Again, I KNEW that you couldn't.
News
2018-04-03 17:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 12:56 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:55 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 12:52 PM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric
>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per
>>>>>>>>> kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need
>>>>>>>>> to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or
>>>>>>>> combustion management benefits for a few hot laps could be
>>>>>>>> 40-50x the regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is
>>>>>>>> used outside 'party mode'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>>>> mileage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>>>
>>>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>>>
>>> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
>>> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
>>> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
>>> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
>>> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.
>>
>>
>> Reinforcing your D-K props! Go for it!
>
> Again, I KNEW that you couldn't.


Go for your D-K Trifecta! DO IT!
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 17:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 9:56 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:55 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 12:52 PM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric
>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per
>>>>>>>>> kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need
>>>>>>>>> to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or
>>>>>>>> combustion management benefits for a few hot laps could be
>>>>>>>> 40-50x the regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is
>>>>>>>> used outside 'party mode'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>>>> mileage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>>>
>>>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>>>
>>> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
>>> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
>>> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
>>> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
>>> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.
>>
>>
>> Reinforcing your D-K props! Go for it!
>
> Again, I KNEW that you couldn't.

<https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/weekend-debate-oil-burning-in-f1-engines-a-fans-view-and-an-engineers-view/>
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 17:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 9:55 AM, News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 12:52 PM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per
>>>>>>>> kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need
>>>>>>>> to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or
>>>>>>> combustion management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x
>>>>>>> the regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used
>>>>>>> outside 'party mode'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>>> mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>>
>>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>>
>> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
>> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
>> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
>> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
>> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.
>
>
> Reinforcing your D-K props! Go for it!

Amazing how guys like him think they're smarter than the dozens of
expert commentators who have explained just how and why oil is being
burned in an F1 engine. Heron is smarter than everyone (for instance) at
Autosport, who've only been covering motor racing longer than almost any
of us has been alive.
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 16:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 9:52 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre,
>>>>>>> to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>> mileage.
>>>>
>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>
>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>
>>
>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>
> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.

Oil burns. It may not burn as WELL as gasoline for the purpose of spark
ignition, but we're talking about burning a small amount of oil in with
a large amount of gasoline in a situation where both the oil and the
engine can be designed for the purpose.
~misfit~
2018-04-04 00:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:44 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 11:58 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 10:49 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 11:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric
>>>>>>>>>> value of lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil
>>>>>>>>>> and the do not use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per
>>>>>>> kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need
>>>>>>> to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or
>>>>>> combustion management benefits for a few hot laps could be
>>>>>> 40-50x the regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is
>>>>>> used outside 'party mode'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>> mileage.
>>>>
>>>> Catch up, willya?
>>>
>>> I KNEW that you couldn't.
>>
>>
>> At least try. Or not, your D-K choice.
>
> Why don't YOU attempt to "catch me up" on ANY
> pertinent point that I may possibly be missing.
> As with Baker, I expect your response to be more
> of the same avoidance, deceit and obfuscation, it's
> really all that your pathetic ilk has ever had.

A-Men brother. That's why I usually don't feed the trolls [hint hint].
You're only keeping them hard...
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 15:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 8:46 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>>> want of
>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>> no significance.
>>>>
>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>
>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>>> calorific value.
>>>
>>
>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
>> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.
>
> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
> consumption) to enhance either performance or
> mileage.

What is it with you and others like you that you can't get this?

Spark ignited engines don't intentionally burn oil (except for this one
exception in F1) for the simple reason that they are allowed to burn as
much of a better fuel as they are able.

F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to use
by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using oil—imperfect
though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows them to exceed a
limit that is imposed on them.

It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to use
energy you otherwise couldn't.
Heron
2018-04-03 16:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 10:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-04-03 8:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>>>> want of
>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>
>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>>>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>>>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>>>> calorific value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
>>> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.
>>
>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>> mileage.
>
> What is it with you and others like you that you can't get this?
>
> Spark ignited engines don't intentionally burn oil (except for this one
> exception in F1) for the simple reason that they are allowed to burn as
> much of a better fuel as they are able.
>
> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to use
> by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using oil—imperfect
> though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows them to exceed a
> limit that is imposed on them.
>
> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to use
> energy you otherwise couldn't.

Obfuscate and deceive, which is, as always, your only tactic.
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 16:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 9:00 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 10:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-04-03 8:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of
>>>>> 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to
>>>>> be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>
>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>> mileage.
>>
>> What is it with you and others like you that you can't get this?
>>
>> Spark ignited engines don't intentionally burn oil (except for this
>> one exception in F1) for the simple reason that they are allowed to
>> burn as much of a better fuel as they are able.
>>
>> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to
>> use by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using
>> oil—imperfect though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows
>> them to exceed a limit that is imposed on them.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to
>> use energy you otherwise couldn't.
>
> Obfuscate and deceive, which is, as always, your only tactic.

No.

I'm pointing out a real reason one would want to burn oil in an F1
engine that doesn't apply to pretty much any other spark engine ever built:

There is a limit on the rate of gasoline usage.
Heron
2018-04-03 16:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 11:02 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-04-03 9:00 AM, Heron wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 10:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-03 8:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of
>>>>>> 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to
>>>>>> be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>>
>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>> mileage.
>>>
>>> What is it with you and others like you that you can't get this?
>>>
>>> Spark ignited engines don't intentionally burn oil (except for this
>>> one exception in F1) for the simple reason that they are allowed to
>>> burn as much of a better fuel as they are able.
>>>
>>> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to
>>> use by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using
>>> oil—imperfect though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows
>>> them to exceed a limit that is imposed on them.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to
>>> use energy you otherwise couldn't.
>>
>> Obfuscate and deceive, which is, as always, your only tactic.
>
> No.
>
> I'm pointing out a real reason one would want to burn oil in an F1
> engine that doesn't apply to pretty much any other spark engine ever built:
>
> There is a limit on the rate of gasoline usage.

As if a shortage of fuel for SPICGEs in an emergency
were something new or never before encountered. Burning
oil in fact causes a great decrease in efficiency and,
given time, can and will produce ill effects from
contamination, pre-ignition and detonation due to
carbon hot spots in the combustion chamber.

This response was for the consideration of others,
not you, who wouldn't relate the truth even if by
some miracle you actually stumbled across it.
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 16:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 9:26 AM, Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 11:02 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-04-03 9:00 AM, Heron wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 10:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-03 8:46 AM, Heron wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>>>>>> advantages and which
>>>>>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol"
>>>>>>>>>>> (for want of
>>>>>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>>>>>> no significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate
>>>>>>> of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre,
>>>>>>> to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a
>>>>>>> *gigantic* calorific value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>>>>>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the
>>>>>> regulatory limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside
>>>>>> 'party mode'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
>>>>> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
>>>>> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
>>>>> consumption) to enhance either performance or
>>>>> mileage.
>>>>
>>>> What is it with you and others like you that you can't get this?
>>>>
>>>> Spark ignited engines don't intentionally burn oil (except for this
>>>> one exception in F1) for the simple reason that they are allowed to
>>>> burn as much of a better fuel as they are able.
>>>>
>>>> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to
>>>> use by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using
>>>> oil—imperfect though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited
>>>> engines—allows them to exceed a limit that is imposed on them.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to
>>>> use energy you otherwise couldn't.
>>>
>>> Obfuscate and deceive, which is, as always, your only tactic.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I'm pointing out a real reason one would want to burn oil in an F1
>> engine that doesn't apply to pretty much any other spark engine ever
>> built:
>>
>> There is a limit on the rate of gasoline usage.
>
> As if a shortage of fuel for SPICGEs in an emergency
> were something new or never before encountered. Burning

This isn't about emergencies, but about what engines can do BY DESIGN.

> oil in fact causes a great decrease in efficiency and,
> given time, can and will produce ill effects from
> contamination, pre-ignition and detonation due to
> carbon hot spots in the combustion chamber.

In an engine not designed to burn oil, using oil not designed to be burned.

I knew precisely what your comeback would be.

>
> This response was for the consideration of others,
> not you, who wouldn't relate the truth even if by
> some miracle you actually stumbled across it.
geoff
2018-04-03 20:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/04/2018 3:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

>
> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to use
> by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using oil—imperfect
> though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows them to exceed a
> limit that is imposed on them.
>
> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to use
> energy you otherwise couldn't.

And clog up the workings. Great.

geoiff
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 21:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 1:56 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 4/04/2018 3:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> F1 engines are LIMITED in the amount of gasoline they are allowed to
>> use by a flow sensor: 100kg/hr and no more. So for them, using
>> oil—imperfect though it is as a fuel for spark-ignited engines—allows
>> them to exceed a limit that is imposed on them.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that as a fuel it's not ideal, if it allows you to
>> use energy you otherwise couldn't.
>
> And clog up the workings.  Great.

Does the oil returned to intake manifold of regular road cars by the PCV
valve "clog up the workings"?

No.

And that is using regular old engine oil...

...which I guarantee F1 cars aren't using.

Again:

Normal road cars don't bother trying to use oil as supplementary fuel,
because they have no limit to the rate at which they can use ordinary
fuel. The designers are free to have the gasoline flow at whatever rate
the engine can make use of.

F1 teams are constrained to a instantaneous flow rate of 100kg/hr, so
even if they can design an engine with volumetric efficiency sufficient
to require more fuel than that, they can't add the fuel necessary to get
the benefit of the additional oxygen they can get into the cylinders.

Burning a small KNOWN amount of oil in such situations lets you use that
free oxygen to produce more power. Since the ECU knows what is going on,
any adjustments necessary to ignition timing can be made to compensate
for any change in the octane rating of the mixture of gasoline and oil.

And make no mistake: this is still mostly gasoline. There is nothing
that prevents one from successfully running a gasoline engine on
gasoline that contains a small amount of oil.

Have you never heard of two stroke engines?

If there was no power to be gained by doing this, then the teams that
weren't doing it wouldn't have bothered to complain about it.
geoff
2018-04-03 23:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/04/2018 9:12 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-04-03 1:56 PM, geoff wrote:

>
> Have you never heard of two stroke engines?

Yeah. Dirty smokey things. Rub your finger around the silencer outlet.
>
> If there was no power to be gained by doing this, then the teams that
> weren't doing it wouldn't have bothered to complain about it.


And the FIA are so inept that the srutineering engineering team cannot
see a control to initiate, or a mechanism to achieve this supplementary
fuel source ?

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 23:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 4:16 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 4/04/2018 9:12 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-04-03 1:56 PM, geoff wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you never heard of two stroke engines?
>
> Yeah. Dirty smokey things. Rub your finger around the silencer outlet.

But it shows that there is nothing impossible about burning gasoline
with oil in it.

>>
>> If there was no power to be gained by doing this, then the teams that
>> weren't doing it wouldn't have bothered to complain about it.
>
>
> And the FIA are so inept that the srutineering engineering team cannot
> see a control to initiate, or a mechanism to achieve this supplementary
> fuel source ?

Who says they can't or didn't?
~misfit~
2018-04-04 00:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Heron wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 9:52 AM, News wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>> burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>>>>>>>>> oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>> uses/burn six
>>>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>>> can. Edmund
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>>> and which
>>>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for
>>>>>>> want of
>>>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>>> no significance.
>>>>
>>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>>
>>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>>> calorific value.
>>>
>>
>> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
>> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
>> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.


Ferrari in F1 last year. They ran two different grades of oil in seperate,
switchable tanks fro the first part of the season.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

> Name so much as a single, documented history of any
> spark ignited, gasoline engine that ever utilized
> the intentional burning of oil (other than normal
> consumption) to enhance either performance or
> mileage.
>
>>> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation
>>> agent or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or
>>>>> similar allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>>>>
>>>> The rumor is that it is both.
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
~misfit~
2018-04-04 00:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet News wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 7:12 AM, build wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>>> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>>>>>>>> oil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>>> can. Edmund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages
>>>>>> and which is broadly less effective at delivering power than
>>>>>> "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>>>
>>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>>> use that brand.
>>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>>
>>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>>> no significance.
>>>
>>> Any reason why you think so?
>>
>> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
>> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be
>> even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic*
>> calorific value.
>
> Instantaneous use-rates and associated caloric value or combustion
> management benefits for a few hot laps could be 40-50x the regulatory
> limited 'average', when nearly none is used outside 'party mode'.

That sounds great and could be possible (it was last year on the Ferrari)...
Now tell me, since the control solenoid for crackcase pressure regulation is
outlawed for this year how do they switch this mythical oil burn on and off?
Everything that is allowed (and disallowed) on an F1 ICE is in the regs so
please point out how it can possibly be done.

Or are you suggesting that there's a controllable mini oil injector
somewhere on the inlet plenum that is an evolution of a banjo bolt,
switching internal galleries on and off which, to the uninitiated looks just
like a normal bolt?

Perhaps Toto controls it with the bluetooth on his smartphone so that the
FIA don't find the control circuitry?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

>> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation
>> agent or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.
>>>> It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
>>>> allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>>>
>>> The rumor is that it is both.
>>>
>>> Edmund
Alan Baker
2018-04-03 15:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-03 4:12 AM, build wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>>>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
>>>>>> times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>
>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>>>>
>>>>> why would you seek to gain power
>>>>> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
>>>>> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of
>>>>> a better phrase)?
>>>>
>>>> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>>>> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>>>> use that brand.
>>>> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>>>
>>> I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of
>>> no significance.
>>
>> Any reason why you think so?
>
> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6 millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be even remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic* calorific value.
>
> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation agent or similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.
>

There's no flow rate sensor built into the oil system, so the usage is
only ever measured in BULK and against the total distance driven, so you
could use oil at 10 times the maximum allowed rate provided you only did
so for a tenth of the distance you drove.
Edmund
2018-04-03 22:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 04:12:46 -0700, build wrote:

> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:42:59 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:40 -0700, build wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 20:10:50 UTC+11, Edmund wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:45:00 -0700, larkim wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>> >> >> >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>> >> >> >> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>> >> >> > extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>> >> >> > oil.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>> >> >> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>> >> >> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Edmund
>> >> >
>> >> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session,
>> >>
>> >> AFAIK there is no unlimited fuel flow.
>> >>
>> >> > why would you seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains no
>> >> > signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less effective
>> >> > at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>> >>
>> >> First I think you are grossly underestimate the caloric value of
>> >> lubrication oil, even the ordinary wall marked oil and the do not
>> >> use that brand.
>> >> Second it is not instead of petrol, it is in addition to.
>> >
>> > I reckon the calorific value is probably (almost certainly) of no
>> > significance.
>>
>> Any reason why you think so?
>
> I'd have thought that it would be obvious that an oil flow rate of 6
> millilitres per kilometre or about 1 teaspoon per kilometre, to be even
> remotely useful that teaspoon would need to have a *gigantic* calorific
> value.

Well now you are talking about the amount of oil not the caloric value.
Anyway, I don't know if there is a limited flow rate for oil but I don't
think so.

Now we have a race distance of 300 + km = 1800 cc oil for consumption.
Suppose an ICE uses 300 cc they way a "normal" not tricked ICE consumes
oil. Which leave them to use 1500 cc oil at will.
This is a very significant amount of energy from caloric pov alone.
>
> However with such a small quantity of oil as an anti-detonation agent or
> similar there is a possibility it maybe useful.

Yes that is another thing which again is not instead but in addition.
>
>
>> > It's probably used as a sort of sophisticated anti-knock or similar
>> > allowing greater advance and leaner burn.
>>
>> The rumor is that it is both.
>>
>> Edmund

Edmund
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-27 11:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:45:02 UTC+2, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >
> > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> > >> again, for the 5th year running.
> > >>
> > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
> > > motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >
> > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
> > six times as much oil as Renault.
> > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >
> > Edmund
>
> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain power
> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
> better phrase)?

Because the definition of "oil" was not well defined. So you could have additives in the oil that would produce a bigger bang in the cylinder.
Alan Baker
2018-03-27 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>
>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
>>> motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>
>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
>> six times as much oil as Renault.
>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain power
> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
> better phrase)?

Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.

>
> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali, does it really make any
> logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>
> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel restrictions
> which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>
> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge though,
> despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is sparse to
> say the least.
>
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-27 16:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > > > > Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
> > > > > yet again, for the 5th year running.
> > > > >
> > > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
> > > > extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
> > > > oil.
> > >
> > > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> > > uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> > > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> > >
> > > Edmund
> >
> > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain
> > power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
> > advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering power
> > than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>
> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
>

Try reading.

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Alan Baker
2018-03-27 16:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>>>>> oil.
>>>>
>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>
>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain
>>> power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>> advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering power
>>> than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>
>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
>>
>
> Try reading.

I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited to
100kg/hr.

Have you got something to add?
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-27 17:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > > > > > > Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
> > > > > > > burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
> > > > > > extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
> > > > > > oil.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> > > > > uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> > > > > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
> > > > > can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edmund
> > > >
> > > > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to
> > > > gain power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
> > > > advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering
> > > > power than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
> > >
> > > Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
> > >
> >
> > Try reading.
>
> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited to
> 100kg/hr.
>
> Have you got something to add?

No, you appear to have caught up.

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Alan Baker
2018-03-27 17:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>> burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some
>>>>>>> oil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they
>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>
>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to
>>>>> gain power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>> advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering
>>>>> power than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>>
>>>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try reading.
>>
>> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited to
>> 100kg/hr.
>>
>> Have you got something to add?
>
> No, you appear to have caught up.
>

I was never behind.

:-)
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-27 20:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
> > > > > > > > > burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
> > > > > > > > extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn
> > > > > > > > some oil.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
> > > > > > > uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> > > > > > > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
> > > > > > > they can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Edmund
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek
> > > > > > to gain power from a fuel source which gains no signficant
> > > > > > weight advantages and which is broadly less effective at
> > > > > > delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a better
> > > > > > phrase)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try reading.
> > >
> > > I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited
> > > to 100kg/hr.
> > >
> > > Have you got something to add?
> >
> > No, you appear to have caught up.
> >
>
> I was never behind.
>

Sure...

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Alan Baker
2018-03-27 20:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-27 1:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil
>>>>>>>>>> burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which
>>>>>>>>> extremely large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn
>>>>>>>>> some oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think
>>>>>>>> they can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek
>>>>>>> to gain power from a fuel source which gains no signficant
>>>>>>> weight advantages and which is broadly less effective at
>>>>>>> delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a better
>>>>>>> phrase)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading.
>>>>
>>>> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited
>>>> to 100kg/hr.
>>>>
>>>> Have you got something to add?
>>>
>>> No, you appear to have caught up.
>>>
>>
>> I was never behind.
>>
>
> Sure...
>

I was just trying to be polite, DD.

I've been following this stuff in one form or another since I was about 8.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-28 09:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-27 1:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you
> > > > > > > > > > which extremely large motor manufacturer claims all
> > > > > > > > > > ICEs burn some oil.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and
> > > > > > > > > Mercedes - uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
> > > > > > > > > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I
> > > > > > > > > think they can.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Edmund
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you
> > > > > > > > seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains no
> > > > > > > > signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less
> > > > > > > > effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want
> > > > > > > > of a better phrase)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't
> > > > > > > heard that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Try reading.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always
> > > > > limited to 100kg/hr.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you got something to add?
> > > >
> > > > No, you appear to have caught up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was never behind.
> > >
> >
> > Sure...
> >
>
> I was just trying to be polite, DD.
>

By asking a question, in a sarky manner, that was already addressed in
the posts you claim to have already read.

Sure...

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Alan Baker
2018-03-28 21:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 2:14 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-27 1:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing
>>>>>>>>>>>> oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you
>>>>>>>>>>> which extremely large motor manufacturer claims all
>>>>>>>>>>> ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and
>>>>>>>>>> Mercedes - uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I
>>>>>>>>>> think they can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you
>>>>>>>>> seek to gain power from a fuel source which gains no
>>>>>>>>> signficant weight advantages and which is broadly less
>>>>>>>>> effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want
>>>>>>>>> of a better phrase)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't
>>>>>>>> heard that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always
>>>>>> limited to 100kg/hr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you got something to add?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you appear to have caught up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was never behind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure...
>>>
>>
>> I was just trying to be polite, DD.
>>
>
> By asking a question, in a sarky manner, that was already addressed in
> the posts you claim to have already read.

What was "sarky [sic]" about it?

>
> Sure...
>

Don't read more in to it than I wrote, DD.

:-)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-27 20:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 2:01:34 PM UTC-6, DumbedDownUSA wrote:

> Sure...

Hey bigbird. Try to compose a complete sentence.
Alister
2018-03-28 12:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:19:33 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>>> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain
>>>>>> power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>> advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering power
>>>>>> than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Try reading.
>>>
>>> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited to
>>> 100kg/hr.
>>>
>>> Have you got something to add?
>>
>> No, you appear to have caught up.
>>
>>
> I was never behind.
>
> :-)

then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.

if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
have said previously




--
The meek are contesting the will.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-28 12:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:

> then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.

It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
>
> if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
> have said previously
>
>
>
>
> --
> The meek are contesting the will.
build
2018-03-28 12:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 23:43:07 UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:
>
> > then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.
>
> It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
> >
> > if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
> > have said previously
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The meek are contesting the will.

I read it as a rhetorical question.
larkim
2018-03-28 13:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 13:47:43 UTC+1, build wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 23:43:07 UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:
> >
> > > then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.
> >
> > It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
> > >
> > > if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
> > > have said previously
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The meek are contesting the will.
>
> I read it as a rhetorical question.

Can we just all agree that I posited something which was completely bogus
as I'd forgotten that fuel flow was the main limiting factor, irrespective
of whether it is quali or race. Me = wrong.

It was just my dumb lack of understanding, why you lot feel the need to
squabble about how you correct me I fail to understand.

I'd ask if you were children if it weren't for the fact that you've been
at this for years now and even if it started as a childhood past time I'd
have expected real children to have grown out of it by now!!
build
2018-03-28 13:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 29 March 2018 00:20:52 UTC+11, larkim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 13:47:43 UTC+1, build wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 23:43:07 UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:
> > >
> > > > then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.
> > >
> > > It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
> > > >
> > > > if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
> > > > have said previously
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The meek are contesting the will.
> >
> > I read it as a rhetorical question.
>
> Can we just all agree that I posited something which was completely bogus
> as I'd forgotten that fuel flow was the main limiting factor, irrespective
> of whether it is quali or race. Me = wrong.
>
> It was just my dumb lack of understanding, why you lot feel the need to
> squabble about how you correct me I fail to understand.
>
> I'd ask if you were children if it weren't for the fact that you've been
> at this for years now and even if it started as a childhood past time I'd
> have expected real children to have grown out of it by now!!

My reply was about Alan's post not yours Larkim. Me thinks you've got a little mixed up mate.

build
larkim
2018-03-30 11:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So who is Matthew?
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-30 14:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 30 March 2018 13:36:47 UTC+2, larkim wrote:
> So who is Matthew?

I thought that was your name. My apologies if I got it wrong.
larkim
2018-03-30 22:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yep, that's me. That's why I was confused by build's reply!!
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-31 04:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 31 March 2018 00:16:12 UTC+2, larkim wrote:
> Yep, that's me. That's why I was confused by build's reply!!

You're more confused than you think :-)

It was me who posted "It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies."
Alan Baker
2018-03-28 21:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 6:20 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 13:47:43 UTC+1, build wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 23:43:07 UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:
>>>
>>>> then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.
>>>
>>> It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
>>>>
>>>> if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
>>>> have said previously
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The meek are contesting the will.
>>
>> I read it as a rhetorical question.
>
> Can we just all agree that I posited something which was completely bogus
> as I'd forgotten that fuel flow was the main limiting factor, irrespective
> of whether it is quali or race. Me = wrong.
>
> It was just my dumb lack of understanding, why you lot feel the need to
> squabble about how you correct me I fail to understand.
>
> I'd ask if you were children if it weren't for the fact that you've been
> at this for years now and even if it started as a childhood past time I'd
> have expected real children to have grown out of it by now!!
>

Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I certainly didn't
mean for you to be.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-29 05:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I certainly
> didn't mean for you to be.

Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
discussed...

...as I pointed out.

You weren't offended were you?

:-)

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Alan Baker
2018-03-29 16:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 10:46 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I certainly
>> didn't mean for you to be.
>
> Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
> playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
> discussed...
>
> ...as I pointed out.

I wasn't playing catch up, DD.

But you keep trying to pretend. It won't offend me.

>
> You weren't offended were you?

Nope. Amused.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-30 18:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-28 10:46 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I certainly
> > > didn't mean for you to be.
> >
> > Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
> > playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
> > discussed...
> >
> > ...as I pointed out.
>
> I wasn't playing catch up, DD.
>

You keep saying that but the evidence is against you... and you can't
explain your late challenge.... so...

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Alan Baker
2018-03-30 18:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-30 11:11 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-28 10:46 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I certainly
>>>> didn't mean for you to be.
>>>
>>> Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
>>> playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
>>> discussed...
>>>
>>> ...as I pointed out.
>>
>> I wasn't playing catch up, DD.
>>
>
> You keep saying that but the evidence is against you... and you can't
> explain your late challenge.... so...
>

Whatever you need to believe to help you through the day. :-)
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-31 05:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-30 11:11 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-03-28 10:46 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I
> > > > > certainly didn't mean for you to be.
> > > >
> > > > Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
> > > > playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
> > > > discussed...
> > > >
> > > > ...as I pointed out.
> > >
> > > I wasn't playing catch up, DD.
> > >
> >
> > You keep saying that but the evidence is against you... and you
> > can't explain your late challenge.... so...
> >
>
> Whatever you need to believe to help you through the day. :-)

Is that your mantra?

I believe I read a thread and then you asked a question that had
already been discussed. So I told you to read on and catch up.

So either you had read the thread as you claim and are small minded
enough to go back to the start and ask a question that had already been
addressed... or you were not being truthful about being caught up.

You are at least one of those things.

Now have your last word, LWJ, but you can't change facts.

NN

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Alan Baker
2018-03-31 05:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-30 10:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-30 11:11 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-28 10:46 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Were you offended by the way I tried to point it out? I
>>>>>> certainly didn't mean for you to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he be offended by your late challenge? If you were not
>>>>> playing catch up you would have known that it had already been
>>>>> discussed...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...as I pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't playing catch up, DD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You keep saying that but the evidence is against you... and you
>>> can't explain your late challenge.... so...
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you need to believe to help you through the day. :-)
>
> Is that your mantra?

Nope. Sorry.

>
> I believe I read a thread and then you asked a question that had
> already been discussed. So I told you to read on and catch up.

Whatever.

>
> So either you had read the thread as you claim and are small minded
> enough to go back to the start and ask a question that had already been
> addressed... or you were not being truthful about being caught up.

Or I came into a thread that I'd not been following and commented...

>
> You are at least one of those things.
>
> Now have your last word, LWJ, but you can't change facts.

Indeed, I cannot.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-31 05:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-03-30 10:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:

> > ...or you were not being truthful about being caught
> > up.
>
> I came into a thread that I'd not been following and commented...
>

Bingo

Then you lied about it.

EOF

--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting ignorant cowardly racist and proud of it.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Heron
2018-03-31 06:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 12:40 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-30 10:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>
>>> ...or you were not being truthful about being caught
>>> up.
>>
>> I came into a thread that I'd not been following and commented...
>>
>
> Bingo
>
> Then you lied about it.
>
> EOF

Should you not be familiar, he's a well known and
admitted liar which means you're wasting your time.
Alan Baker
2018-03-31 06:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-30 11:00 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 12:40 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-30 10:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>
>>>> ...or you were not being truthful about being caught
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> I came into a thread that I'd not been following and commented...
>>>
>>
>> Bingo
>>
>> Then you lied about it.
>>
>> EOF
>
> Should you not be familiar, he's a well known and
> admitted liar which means you're wasting your time.

Nope.

I never lie. It's not worth my time.
Alan Baker
2018-03-31 06:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-30 10:40 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-30 10:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>
>>> ...or you were not being truthful about being caught
>>> up.
>>
>> I came into a thread that I'd not been following and commented...
>>
>
> Bingo
>
> Then you lied about it.

No. You misread what I wrote.

You assumed when I said I "I was never behind" that I was saying I was
never behind on this thread.

I meant I was never behind on the rules.

>
> EOF
>

Funny. I thought you said something previously:

"Now have your last word, LWJ, but you can't change facts."

I guess I misread, huh?

:-)
~misfit~
2018-03-28 23:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet larkim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 13:47:43 UTC+1, build wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 23:43:07 UTC+11, ***@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 14:25:37 UTC+2, Alister wrote:
>>>
>>>> then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in
>>>> qualifying.
>>>
>>> It seems to me to be clear that Alan was asking Matthew to clarify
>>> what exactly was unlimited in quallies.
>>>>
>>>> if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what
>>>> you have said previously
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The meek are contesting the will.
>>
>> I read it as a rhetorical question.
>
> Can we just all agree that I posited something which was completely
> bogus as I'd forgotten that fuel flow was the main limiting factor,
> irrespective of whether it is quali or race. Me = wrong.
>
> It was just my dumb lack of understanding, why you lot feel the need
> to squabble about how you correct me I fail to understand.
>
> I'd ask if you were children if it weren't for the fact that you've
> been at this for years now and even if it started as a childhood past
> time I'd have expected real children to have grown out of it by now!!

That's the wonderful thing about usenet / teh inernetz / the web - and dark
nights, ski masks etc. The lack of accountability allows people to drop any
social facade and show their true selves. We've developed a massive amount
of surveilance to combat the latter but the former behaviour has become an
epidemic. It's called 'progress'... :-/
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-29 01:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:58:45 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

> That's the wonderful thing about usenet / teh inernetz / the web - and dark
> nights, ski masks etc. The lack of accountability allows people to drop any
> social facade and show their true selves. We've developed a massive amount
> of surveilance to combat the latter but the former behaviour has become an
> epidemic. It's called 'progress'... :-/

You pirating cunt face.
Alan Baker
2018-03-28 21:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-28 5:25 AM, Alister wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:19:33 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-27 10:15 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-27 9:33 AM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-03-27 1:45 AM, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning
>>>>>>>>>> yet again, for the 5th year running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely
>>>>>>>>> large motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes -
>>>>>>>> uses/burn six times as much oil as Renault.
>>>>>>>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain
>>>>>>> power from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight
>>>>>>> advantages and which is broadly less effective at delivering power
>>>>>>> than "petrol" (for want of a better phrase)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the fuel FLOW unlimited during qualifying? I hadn't heard that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading.
>>>>
>>>> I have. And what I've read says that fuel flow is always limited to
>>>> 100kg/hr.
>>>>
>>>> Have you got something to add?
>>>
>>> No, you appear to have caught up.
>>>
>>>
>> I was never behind.
>>
>> :-)
>
> then why did you need to ask if fuel flow was limited in qualifying.

It was a polite way to tell the poster he'd better be able to provide
some support for his claim.

>
> if you are going to try to troll at least try to keep up with what you
> have said previously
>
>
>
>
build
2018-03-28 13:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 19:45:02 UTC+11, larkim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 09:14:54 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
> >
> > > On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
> > >> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
> > >> again, for the 5th year running.
> > >>
> > > Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
> > > motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
> >
> > According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
> > six times as much oil as Renault.
> > If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
> >
> > Edmund
>
> In a fuel unlimited qualifying session, why would you seek to gain power
> from a fuel source which gains no signficant weight advantages and which
> is broadly less effective at delivering power than "petrol" (for want of a
> better phrase)?
>
> If Merc do have a party mode button to use in quali,

Toto Wolf said (with a straight face) on Sky after qually that "Lewis only used *party mode* in Q3". So they do have a *party mode* however all of the teams have a similar mode, last year they referred to it as "StratQ" it's only used in Q3, start, in-laps and occasionally for overtaking

> does it really make any
> logical sense for the fuel for that to be oil?
>
> I can see how using it in a race provides a way around the fuel restrictions
> which could be advantageous, but surely not in quali?
>
> Happy to be put in my place by anyone with good technical knowledge though,
> despite being an F1 fan my knowledge of ICE and power trains is sparse to
> say the least.
geoff
2018-03-28 19:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/03/2018 2:18 AM, build wrote:

>
> Toto Wolf said (with a straight face) on Sky after qually that "Lewis only used *party mode* in Q3". So they do have a *party mode* however all of the teams have a similar mode, last year they referred to it as "StratQ" it's only used in Q3, start, in-laps and occasionally for overtaking
>

And who, knowledgeably, confirmed that it had anything to do with oil ?

geoff
b***@topmail.co.nz
2018-03-27 10:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:14:54 PM UTC+8, Edmund wrote:
>
> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
> six times as much oil as Renault.
> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>

Does that mean all the time, or in qualy mode?
Perhaps Renault have tighter clearances or use higher viscosity oil?
Edmund
2018-03-27 10:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:23:31 -0700, bruce56 wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:14:54 PM UTC+8, Edmund wrote:
>>
>> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn six
>> times as much oil as Renault.
>> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>>
>>
> Does that mean all the time, or in qualy mode?

They do not mention such details but it must be -all the time-
or race conditions and I don't know if the FIA is checking
the oil use in qualifying at all.

> Perhaps Renault have tighter clearances or use higher viscosity oil?

I wouldn't bet my life on that.

Edmund
geoff
2018-03-27 10:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27/03/2018 9:14 PM, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:57:09 +0200, keefy wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/18 19:02, Botham wrote:
>>> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet
>>> again, for the 5th year running.
>>>
>> Tell me what ICE does not burn oil and I will you which extremely large
>> motor manufacturer claims all ICEs burn some oil.
>
> According to Renault some! ICE's - Ferrari and Mercedes - uses/burn
> six times as much oil as Renault.
> If they can do that on demand, I don't know but I think they can.
>
> Edmund
>
>
>
>


You really seem desperate to stoop so low and grasp at any straw, no
matter how pathetic, to attempt to denigrate Merc, or boost Ren.

geoff
geoff
2018-03-26 23:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 25/03/2018 7:02 AM, Botham wrote:
> Making of mockery out of F1. Unable to preventing oil burning yet again, for the 5th year running.
>

Yawn.

geoff
Loading...