😴

I am that person. Just now I bored my mates here in college because I accidentally began to explain VTECH.

More fun at *the* parties

@@bobbycheese22 I don't do parties

Y'all can come to my party anytime and we can argue about turbos vs superchargers lol

Underrated

😂

They have elected a new Pope!

😁👍

LOL

I'm leaning more towards a bottom end failure, the engine noise cut suddenly (not just a lack of turbo whine), there was very little smoke and you could see a violent disassembly from further forward. It would also explain why he couldn't put the car into gear to stop it rolling backwards while he hopped out, if your crankshaft has snapped then putting it in gear won't stop it rolling. Reference: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/idF-rdSfsLiom5s.html

@@DjDolHaus86 That could be the case.

I think it was initially turbo failure but the explosion when he was already coasting out of the track was something else. I think it was electric fire exlposion caused by the fire started from the turbo failure. Spectacular one as well from the slow motion videos.

@@glue80 , yea, if the initial failure was also the thing that blew the side of lower the car off, that probably was not the turbo. Could of been a knock-on effect from a turbo failure though.

@@DjDolHaus86 He couldn't put the car in gear because if I remember correctly the regulations tell that whenever a car stops on the track they have to leave it in neutral for some reason. For the engine explosion when I saw it on tv I immediately thought they blew the head but seeing the replay you can see a yellowish explosion from the exhaust which might have been the turbo shattering and then there's the orange explosion from under the engine cover which is quite high up in the engine and I think it might have been an exhaust manifold failure. In conclusion Sainz was pushing too much and the "DANGER TO MANIFOLD" warning popped up on the wheel hahaha

And we saw that with Sainz

Check Chain Bear then. No one better at explaining technical stuff.

@@falinestixiaolong9691 Chain Bear is excellent, also KYLE.ENGINEERS

Agreed. Nearly perfect reliability is part of what made Mercedes' dominance so dull.

@@LivingDeadbeat mercedes still reliable as hell though

@@safwanahmed5592 reliable yes, but not dominant anymore. And while they seem to be improving, big question is if they can catch up with RBR and Ferrari without sacrificing at least some of that reliability.

@@WizardOfOss Considering how they've dominated I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

I remember seeing jenson button have a top end faliure right before the line. Said line would have given his first win (if I remember correctly)

I was going to say the same, it might have just been a script error. Anything below the head/block join is usually considered "bottom end".

Thank you. This immediately bothered me as well.

Oil is typically black smoke, fuel is usually blue smoke.

I was wondering who else saw that! I was really hoping for an explanation in this video. It was a big enough “bang” to crack the side of the side-pod open….

ya, if oiling failed heat would cause the housing to fail, shaft spins out of kilter and pow! compressed fuel/air + burning metal shards

Good point, but also none of that was a question.

And this is the engine which is fitted in the new LMDh? for 6 and 24h races in tne WEC and in the US/IMSA?Realy?

Same. This video covered general ICE failures. I want to know about those crazy bearings and other wizardry!

Keeps friction down

I am *pretty* sure that F1 engines of this generation use plain bearings for the mains and rods. And surely if roller or needle they wouldn't be of the design used for illustration, which is a more "heavy/slow" capacity, not high speed. The bearing assembly shown is not radially uniform, and would not support the loads equally during rotation. It's also heavy and bulky, two things that are anathema in racing engine design.

@@stemartin6671 afaik, plain bearings has the lowest friction the higher the oil pressure

@@ilham7345 no, roller bearings are very low friction in most conditions and can cope with less oil pressure or even just splash lubrication in some cases. They also hold the crank in position better as there isn't a layer of oil between the crank and bearing causing crank float.

I did think that was a bit strange. Top end equals above combustion chamber imo

Yeah, I thought bottom end was all the stuff that directly or indirectly mounts to the block: oil pick-up, pistons, rods, crank and all the bearings that are associated with those parts as well... And the top end was stuff like the head, valaves, cams and etc on the engine

Just building an engine for myself at the moment and would agree with you I’d always heard of pistons being part of the bottom end

I have always heard the rotating assembly as being in the bottom end. Pistons, connecting rods, etc.

Found it weird as well. Bottom end as far as I'm concerned is anything below the cylinder head.

This guys a KZfaqr, not a mechanic or engineer.

I think that it was a mixture of a turbo failure and a bottom end because I think that the turbo ruptured the oil cooling line to itself and the lack of oil caused a bottom end failure also.

@@BlackNitro99 turbos on these engines are hardwired, so I doubt it. Leclerc's DNF was clearly a seizing turbo though.

@@zwedenhuizenA 20 year engine builder calling a hard oil line, hardwired? Not saying you're not a good NA builder but how much experience do you really have with forced induction? Hard lines will fatigue crack, which will lead to a larger hole forming or a complete failure, which will cause low-no oil pressure, leading to a completely scrap motor. F1 turbos are also water cooled so it's also possible for a coolant line to rupture and for the engine and turbo to go that way.

Was that the one where you could see pistons bouncing down the track? I loved that one.

Maybe even a history of ICE's in F1? I've never been able to comprehend how they spun the old engines so fast.

@@TimPaddy The high rpm are mainly enabled by having very wide bore and very short stroke. this reduces piston speeds and the resulting g forces which destroy the engine. plus probably 150 details i didnt mention

the failures sound the same probably because they're still fundamentally the same components, only with much higher precision and smaller limits before catastrophic failure.

Binotto already said this in an interview. “We tried to push for pure performance. The engines are frozen until 2026 but can be touched to improve reliability. The PU is fast, the reliability can be fixed later.”

From pure logic, I would imagine a turbo is the cheapest. You could maybe salvage very little from a top failure if you are very lucky, but probably not in F1, but a bottom failure would ruin the engine. This is just me being logical, and I am no mechanic.

My reasoning for asking this is the following: If Ferrari is using Induced engine oscillations, it would explain the increase in traction and decrease of purposing. You could achieve that by measuring the frequency of the purpoising and then tune the fuel mapping of the engine to adjust for that, so that the engine makes less power when the car squats and more power when it rebounds, in effect creating a flat running car with the benefit of increased fuel economy. In effect you are using a counter resonance of frequent forces to balance them out. From my own observations, the Ferrari cars tend to bounce a lot under a lot of aerodynamic load such as at high speeds or when the cars go at the limit close to top speed. While accelerating fast say from 100KPH to about 250KPH the cars don't experience purposing and its fair to say no car on the grid is. However, once the cars go above this speed then the effect starts and is more pronounced when the car closes in on its top speed. That would mean that high speed corners, like in Jeddah or the Red Bull Ring "Turn 2" would prove catastrophic for these cars. But last race I saw Ferrari going across all DRS zones with very little oscillations. Also, when Leclerc went across a fast corner and "jumped a bit", the car shook quite violently for a couple of seconds and then completely flat. Yes, hard suspension and all but I think there is more there such as the car momentarily went out of counter resonance with itself and the oscillations shook the car violently. I also noticed that when a corner is slow in fast out, the effect is small but when the corner is fast in slow out, the effect is pronounced and the car shakes on entry but has amazing traction out of the corner and can take the corner much faster than the opposition(Turn 3 Austria). Finally, you could induce engine oscillations with fuel mapping, and even though the engine would run no issues, the gas flow pulsations going into the turbo would really put a lot of strain on the turbo shaft, grenading it in the process. Now my question isn't are they using oscillations, but could they?

@@d.martins4471 cool! I have worked in the engine industry for a little while, however it’s mainly been domesticated V8’s so wasn’t sure if there is a difference