TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[dialtone]

And as an aside this engine nonsense is restarted now with Alonso and Marko saying that Ferrari built a special engine for Monza and a whole article from joe saward… blatant double standard.

[vorticism]

There is no way to measure continuous fuel flow, and there is no such thing as a 28khz pump. Whatever Ferrari was doing it wasn’t violating the fuel flow. The rule wasn’t specifying how much fuel per injection or other things of that nature, there were rules about engine construction to avoid reservoirs post sensor and they placed multiple sensors (requiring at least a 56khz pump to sidestep) including investigating the ERS deployment due to the split battery approach from Ferrari, and having Ferrari fuel system with blueprints on a test bench, all of this without even a TD going on. When was the last time that this level of “investigation” happened to any other team in F1.

By comparison what came of oil burning? After a few years (2017-2018?) FIA eventually put a cap on oil capacity and added wording essentially saying "don't put oil injectors anywhere in the plenum."

[denyall]

I bet $1000 that if you applied that level of scrutiny to any team on the grid you would find something.

No bet, I agree.

To write a TD (which is your criteria) someone needs to know what’s going on and nobody knew for Ferrari.

I am not sure your meaning when you say a TD is my criteria. What is it criteria for?

For the fuel flow, as I recall they added a second fuel flow device in lieu of a TD because they couldn't write one or they didn't want to expose Ferrari's IP. I say this second bit because the FIA said the engine was neither legal nor illegal which feels like a nice way of the FIA and Ferrari saying agree to disagree. IMO if the FIA couldn't prove it then Ferrari is in the clear. Since no one knows what the FIA found/didn't find and everything is a big secret, people are left to call it how they feel.

My final though on the "double standard" thing from earlier is that it's not the same thing to say the Ferrari engine investigation is the same as the TD process and then be upset that one is called cheating and the other isn't. As you point out the FIA went leaps and bounds further with the Ferrari engine than they have done with any teams bendy wings.

[ringo]

Fuel flow is more black and white.
That is blatant cheating. There is so much more intent there when you know you want more power that you find a work around something policing a flow.
The aero side now, I do agree that it is cheating as well, but it can be argued that a team can try to come right up against a rule and due to interpretation they fall afoul.
But you cannot misintepret a mass flow. There is no bending or grey area in how many grams pass a certain point in one second.
So i think the aero trickery can be two fold. One instance is poor interpretation to extract as much performance. The other side is intentional work around to circumvent the regulation and the inspections.

[ringo]

I bet $1000 that if you applied that level of scrutiny to any team on the grid you would find something.

No bet, I agree.

To write a TD (which is your criteria) someone needs to know what’s going on and nobody knew for Ferrari.

I am not sure your meaning when you say a TD is my criteria. What is it criteria for?

For the fuel flow, as I recall they added a second fuel flow device in lieu of a TD because they couldn't write one or they didn't want to expose Ferrari's IP. I say this second bit because the FIA said the engine was neither legal nor illegal which feels like a nice way of the FIA and Ferrari saying agree to disagree. IMO if the FIA couldn't prove it then Ferrari is in the clear. Since no one knows what the FIA found/didn't find and everything is a big secret, people are left to call it how they feel.

My final though on the "double standard" thing from earlier is that it's not the same thing to say the Ferrari engine investigation is the same as the TD process and then be upset that one is called cheating and the other isn't. As you point out the FIA went leaps and bounds further with the Ferrari engine than they have done with any teams bendy wings.

My suspicion is that ferrari were accumulating feul in the manifold by pumping a higher rate than needed for a low demand past the flow meter. And when they have a high demand they would pump the max permitted flow and then there may have been a supplemental release of that stored fuel into the engine. That is, pump more than you need under breaking and off throttle, and combust it on full throttle on the straights.

[napoleon1981]

I bet $1000 that if you applied that level of scrutiny to any team on the grid you would find something.

No bet, I agree.

To write a TD (which is your criteria) someone needs to know what’s going on and nobody knew for Ferrari.

I am not sure your meaning when you say a TD is my criteria. What is it criteria for?

For the fuel flow, as I recall they added a second fuel flow device in lieu of a TD because they couldn't write one or they didn't want to expose Ferrari's IP. I say this second bit because the FIA said the engine was neither legal nor illegal which feels like a nice way of the FIA and Ferrari saying agree to disagree. IMO if the FIA couldn't prove it then Ferrari is in the clear. Since no one knows what the FIA found/didn't find and everything is a big secret, people are left to call it how they feel.

My final though on the "double standard" thing from earlier is that it's not the same thing to say the Ferrari engine investigation is the same as the TD process and then be upset that one is called cheating and the other isn't. As you point out the FIA went leaps and bounds further with the Ferrari engine than they have done with any teams bendy wings.

My suspicion is that ferrari were accumulating feul in the manifold by pumping a higher rate than needed for a low demand past the flow meter. And when they have a high demand they would pump the max permitted flow and then there may have been a supplemental release of that stored fuel into the engine. That is, pump more than you need under breaking and off throttle, and combust it on full throttle on the straights.

I hope that at some point it will come out what happened. At this point I just want to know what Ferrari exactly did. It must have been a pretty clever solution.

[PlatinumZealot]

For all we know Ferrari likely had solid fuel impregnated ablative pistons! No one knows.

Anyway..

On the aero, Tombazis is saying that the teams are playing with what should be solid mounting points, to makem act as slides, hinges or levers. Do you remember in the 2010's when the front wing mounts could split apart to aid bendy wings? Think of this but on a much smaller scale.

We already know that Apline has a wobly wing, and RedBull has a rear wing endplates that are basicaly rudders... We have seen so many hints... The big one I think is the mounting in the floors. The floor skin is very shallow in certain places... And the metal bracket part has some sort of mechanism to it.... Well.. My suspiscions at least.

[organic]

RedBull has a rear wing endplates that are basicaly rudders

Are there any pics/ vids of that?

You say this as if it's an accepted fact like Alpine's and Ferrari's wobbly rear-wings this season (ferrari in preseason testing, alpine at canada) which were discussed/documented here and even in mainstream media.

But RB endplates? Haven't seen anything about that here or otherwise...

[vorticism]

But you cannot misintepret a mass flow. There is no bending or grey area in how many grams pass a certain point in one second.

If it's past the flow meter, it's a moot point; maybe only a "spirit of the rules" offense. I never heard a good explanation of the mechanism but a simple accumulator connected to the post meter piping should suffice. Burning gasoline and only gasoline in a GDI formula is black and white as well, yet no one was scrutinized for also burning oil.

For all we know Ferrari likely had solid fuel impregnated ablative pistons! No one knows.

...

We already know that Apline has a wobly wing, and RedBull has a rear wing endplates that are basicaly rudders... We have seen so many hints... The big one I think is the mounting in the floors. The floor skin is very shallow in certain places... And the metal bracket part has some sort of mechanism to it.... Well.. My suspiscions at least.

Piston metallurgy is prescribed and ruled out composites. Solid fuel of sufficient mass would make the piston heavy and would be dwarfed by fuel volume.

The floor supports were eventually copied by other teams including Merc. A roof needs rafters.

[ringo]

But you cannot misintepret a mass flow. There is no bending or grey area in how many grams pass a certain point in one second.

If it's past the flow meter, it's a moot point; maybe only a "spirit of the rules" offense. I never heard a good explanation of the mechanism but a simple accumulator connected to the post meter piping should suffice. Burning gasoline and only gasoline in a GDI formula is black and white as well, yet no one was scrutinized for also burning oil.

Yes i think this is what they did. The mass flow should have been specific to the combustion chamber by the wording and not limited to the flow meter. I dont know the exact wording but i suspect this as you say is what took place.
I imagine an expansion joint like chamber accumulator. The high fuel pressure stretches the accumulator like an accordian on low or off throttle. At high demand the pressure drops and the steel accordian collapses and sends this stored fuel and pressure energy into the fuel manifold and to the injectors.

[vorticism]

Yes i think this is what they did. The mass flow should have been specific to the combustion chamber by the wording and not limited to the flow meter. I dont know the exact wording but i suspect this as you say is what took place.
I imagine an expansion joint like chamber accumulator. The high fuel pressure stretches the accumulator like an accordian on low or off throttle. At high demand the pressure drops and the steel accordian collapses and sends this stored fuel and pressure energy into the fuel manifold and to the injectors.

I'd be more inclined to use a gas charged type; they might have already been in use (and may still be) as line shock absorbers, just upsized. Combine that with the fine control of duration and timing offered by the piezo injectors and peak fuel delivery per cycle coul be boosted beyond flow rate divided by ignition frequency (which was never regulated).

[AR3-GP]

There is no way to measure continuous fuel flow, and there is no such thing as a 28khz pump. Whatever Ferrari was doing it wasn’t violating the fuel flow. The rule wasn’t specifying how much fuel per injection or other things of that nature, there were rules about engine construction to avoid reservoirs post sensor and they placed multiple sensors (requiring at least a 56khz pump to sidestep) including investigating the ERS deployment due to the split battery approach from Ferrari, and having Ferrari fuel system with blueprints on a test bench, all of this without even a TD going on. When was the last time that this level of “investigation” happened to any other team in F1.

By comparison what came of oil burning? After a few years (2017-2018?) FIA eventually put a cap on oil capacity and added wording essentially saying "don't put oil injectors anywhere in the plenum."

You could still induce oil burning by way of cleverly designed piston rings and messing about with the crank case pressure so capping the oil capacity was the true way to stop the nonsense. The rest of the language is still full of loopholes.

[dans79]

It was Reported a few places that they figured out a way to alias the sensor, And thus they could pump more fuel than the censor was reporting.

[Stu]

This is all very interesting, though unrelated to the topic (*hint* - this appears at the top of the page…); it was discussed as nauseum at the time.

Get back to the topic, it comes into effect this weekend!!

[Cs98]

For all we know Ferrari likely had solid fuel impregnated ablative pistons! No one knows.

Anyway..

On the aero, Tombazis is saying that the teams are playing with what should be solid mounting points, to makem act as slides, hinges or levers. Do you remember in the 2010's when the front wing mounts could split apart to aid bendy wings? Think of this but on a much smaller scale.

We already know that Apline has a wobly wing, and RedBull has a rear wing endplates that are basicaly rudders... We have seen so many hints... The big one I think is the mounting in the floors. The floor skin is very shallow in certain places... And the metal bracket part has some sort of mechanism to it.... Well.. My suspiscions at least.

The rudder thing you just made up, no one has heard that before. As far as "metal bracket mechanisms". Yeah, the mechanism is called supporting the floor edge, copied by most teams.