2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[bhall]

Or that designing, testing, revising, finalizing, and manufacturing a competitive 1.6L turbo engine and the associated energy recovery systems is, you know, difficult.

Why having PURE poing the legwork could be useful

Especially in an era of "resource restrictions."

[langwadt]

The Gill sensor measures mass flow, but via speed an volume flow. According to the specification the accuracy is ok. I assume that they have a proper internal map of the temps and pressures as well as the individual fuels. So I find nothing wrong with it.

The volume of 100 kgs of fuel is alot more at 100° (race temperature) than it is at 15° (fueling temperature) wouldnt you say?

I dont know the exact volume and thermal expansion of race fuel.

But i see a problem if you are measuring volume flow and then calculate into mass flow. Because what temperature are we going to calculate with? Then the FIA needs to monitor the temperature at the exact same place as where the volume is measured. We can't have a standard temperature saying etc. 100°. Because then you could just add fuel coolers and then you have alot more than the 28g/s of mass flow.

The current spec. says fuel must between 720 and 775 kg/m3 @ 15'C that's quite a span, so I think they would need to measure and compensate every time they put fuel in the tank

But the FiA know the density for each homologated fuel. The 15°C comes from an assumption of 25°C ambient temperature -10°C that they are allowed to cool the fuel. But the flow is measured in the fuel tank together with the temperature and pressure. So the sensor can calculate the correct mass flow with a complete set of data with high accuracy every time the bus polls a digital read out for the data loggers. That would be several times per second. I doubt that 100°C will ever occur in the fuel tank btw.

The way I read the current rules a fuel can still be legal mixed with up to 10% of another homologated fuel and some evaporative loss is allowed. So sure temperature and pressure can be logged so you can go back and calculate the
actual mass flow, but only _after_ you measure a sample of what was in the tank.

[wuzak]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/18557

We have a very challenging plan to be ready in March. We can’t afford any hiccough today and I am confident that we will be ready. We have been working for some time to have this car ready but it’s a challenging task. Only at the first race next year will we see if we have done a good job.

That does not sound like they are comfortable in the time plan. In actual fact it sounds like they are stretched.

I think you are reading too much into it.

And besides, he is talking of the challenge of getting the car ready - not the engine/power unit.

[WhiteBlue]

The way I read the current rules a fuel can still be legal mixed with up to 10% of another homologated fuel and some evaporative loss is allowed. So sure temperature and pressure can be logged so you can go back and calculate the actual mass flow, but only _after_ you measure a sample of what was in the tank.

Then your interpretation of the rule is not correct. It is standing practise for many years that each competitor may homologate one fuel per season. The fuel supplier produces the batch and stores it somewhere. A quantity from the same fuel batch is then brought to every race of the season. This procedure is not going to change in the next year. So the fuel properties per team are known to the technical department of the FiA and can be programmed into the SECU, respectively into the intelligent mass flow sensor.
Evaporation loss is not an issue. Teams can fill as much as they like into the fuel tank. The only thing that is monitored by regulation is the amount of fuel flow between lights out and the chequered flag. That must not exceed 100 kg. If it is 1g more the driver gets disqualified under the new regulations. With modern computer control teams will have a permanent fuel curve which will be real time updated. The SECU will be programmed in such a way that you can't go over the fuel curve. The SECU will manage down the fuel flow to stay under the curve. Something has to go badly wrong with your programming to be caught out by the rules.

[langwadt]

The way I read the current rules a fuel can still be legal mixed with up to 10% of another homologated fuel and some evaporative loss is allowed. So sure temperature and pressure can be logged so you can go back and calculate the actual mass flow, but only _after_ you measure a sample of what was in the tank.

Then your interpretation of the rule is not correct. It is standing practise for many years that each competitor may homologate one fuel per season. The fuel supplier produces the batch and stores it somewhere. A quantity from the same fuel batch is then brought to every race of the season. This procedure is not going to change in the next year. So the fuel properties per team are known to the technical department of the FiA and can be programmed into the SECU, respectively into the intelligent mass flow sensor.
Evaporation loss is not an issue. Teams can fill as much as they like into the fuel tank. The only thing that is monitored by regulation is the amount of fuel flow between lights out and the chequered flag. That must not exceed 100 kg. If it is 1g more the driver gets disqualified under the new regulations. With modern computer control teams will have a permanent fuel curve which will be real time updated. The SECU will be programmed in such a way that you can't go over the fuel curve. The SECU will manage down the fuel flow to stay under the curve. Something has to go badly wrong with your programming to be caught out by the rules.

I recently say an interview with the Shell guy that works for Ferrari, he said they made and tested hundreds of fuels each years and basically brought a different one to each race tailored to that specific race.

by Evaporative loss I mean fuel changing composition and potentially getting heavier as the light components evaporate
when stored

[WhiteBlue]

19.7 Fuel approval :
19.7.1 Before any fuel may be used in an Event, two separate five litre samples, in suitable containers, must be submitted to the FIA for analysis and approval.
19.7.2 No fuel may be used in an Event without prior written approval of the FIA.
19.8 Sampling and testing at an Event:
19.8.1 All samples will be taken in accordance with the FIA Formula One fuel sampling procedure, a copy of which may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.
19.8.2 Fuel density will also be checked and must be within 0.25% of the figure noted during pre-approval analysis.
2014 F1 Technical Regulations 70/87 3 July 2013
© 2013 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
19.8.3 Fuel samples taken during an Event will be checked for conformity by using a gas chromatographic technique, which will compare the sample taken with an approved fuel. Samples which differ from the approved fuel in a manner consistent with evaporative loss, will be considered to conform. However, the FIA retains the right to subject the fuel sample to further testing at an FIA approved laboratory.
19.8.4 GC peak areas of the sample will be compared with those obtained from the reference fuel. Increases in any given peak area (relative to its adjacent peak areas) which are greater than 12%, or an absolute amount greater than 0.10% for compounds present at concentrations below 0.8%, will be deemed not to comply.
If a peak is detected in a fuel sample that was absent in the corresponding reference fuel, and its peak area represents more than 0.10% of the summed peak areas of the fuel, the fuel will be deemed not to comply.
If the deviations observed (above) by GC indicate that they are due to mixing with another Formula One fuel, which has been approved by the FIA for use by the team, the fuel sample will be deemed to comply, provided that the adulterant fuel is present at no more than 10% in the sample.

You are right. Ferrari could actually homologate a different fuel for every race. I doubt that it will be done by many teams, but it is possible. Nevertheless the FiA will always have the properties. It is the responsibility of the competitor that the properties are matched. If they cannot manage that due to evaporating losses they will be in trouble. I have no clue how the FiA will deal withg specific weight changes due to evaporation. Perhaps they will compare the values from the fuel sample with the values of the homologated fuel. A comparison should reveal quickly if a team artificially lets components of the fuel evaporate to generate heavier fuel than allowed. I do not even know if such a cheating strategy would be feasible. If it is I'm confident that something will be done to stop it.

[Pingguest]

AMuS reported before about homologation process. Here is the official ANNUAL F1 POWER UNIT HOMOLOGATION from 2014 F1 Technical Regulations - Published on 08.07.2013

http://i.imgur.com/C8xVrZv.jpg

An rulebook of eighty-seven pages with technical regulations only does not look very healthy to me. With Formula One being that tightly regulated, one cannot assert the series is the pinnacle of motor sport.

[WhiteBlue]

An rulebook of eighty-seven pages with technical regulations only does not look very healthy to me. With Formula One being that tightly regulated, one cannot assert the series is the pinnacle of motor sport.

I cannot follow that logic. What has the rule book length to do with the question of a motor racing series claiming the top position from all series? There is no question about it. F1 is the top sport in motor racing. Simply by providing the most desirable drives. If you ask young drivers around the world what they dream of, the overwhelming majority will tell you F1. They do not care what rules the engineers have to follow. They simply want to drive the hottest cars and in the biggest championship if you ask me. F1 is still the brand that is going to deliver that. Eighty pages rules or ten. Makes no difference.

One can bemoan that change happens but then it should be done by making the right points.

[spmat]

Brawn talks via AMuS about 2014 'A season like 1994' ...

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 36564.html

... engines with more than 800 BHP and 600 Nm in qualification

[ringo]

then why is it saying that the aerodynamics must live with reduced output?
That article is conflicting to itself. That line about qualifying is from their imagination. The quotes are more accurate.

[Blanchimont]

Although it's offtopic in this thread, i have to quote this part from the AMuS article above.

"Wir erwarten 2014 die gleichen Abtriebswerte wie 2012. Deshalb werden wir mit den Reifen kein Risiko eingehen. Sie werden Reifen erleben, die kaum abbauen", verspricht Pirelli-Sportchef Paul Hembery.

"We expect the same downforce levels for 2014 as in 2012. Because of that we'll take no risk regarding the tyres. You'll get tyres that won't degrade very much", promises Paul Hembery.

[WhiteBlue]

then why is it saying that the aerodynamics must live with reduced output?
That article is conflicting to itself. That line about qualifying is from their imagination. The quotes are more accurate.

There is no conflict in my view. The downforce cut is discussed in great detail in the 2014 design thread. There should be no question that downforce initially will be cut until designers can perhaps claw it back over some years.
The qualifying is also justified. You can fully deplete the energy storage in qualifying because in your in lap you don't need the extra 160 bhp from the MGU-K and you don't even need to spool up your turbo. Those are all things that you need in a race for the next lap, it follows that you can tweak your energy management to take advantage of a higher average electrical power in qualifying.

[rjsa]

Parc fermè rules will be over? Or there will be a third SECU accelerator map mode: Dry, Wet and Qual?

Code: Select all

5.5.4 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry‐weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet‐weather tyres.

Because as I understand the rules are developed just to avoid qualifying specific ANYTHING.

[WhiteBlue]

Parc fermè rules will be over? Or there will be a third SECU accelerator map mode: Dry, Wet and Qual?

Code: Select all

5.5.4 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry‐weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet‐weather tyres.

Because as I understand the rules are developed just to avoid qualifying specific ANYTHING.

That is not unusual. The rules always make certain allowances for particular weather conditions. For instance the ride height is automatically increased by 1 mm by having the wets and inters diameter bigger. This different maps can be pre set and triggered like the DRS which is also a change of conditions that can be controlled by the FiA. It is not a general violation of parc ferme, because the car is not altered. Only a restricted mode is selected at the authority of the FiA.

[rjsa]

Parc fermè rules will be over? Or there will be a third SECU accelerator map mode: Dry, Wet and Qual?

Code: Select all

5.5.4 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry‐weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet‐weather tyres.

Because as I understand the rules are developed just to avoid qualifying specific ANYTHING.

That is not unusual. The rules always make certain allowances for particular weather conditions. For instance the ride height is automatically increased by 1 mm by having the wets and inters diameter bigger. This different maps can be pre set and triggered like the DRS which is also a change of conditions that can be controlled by the FiA. It is not a general violation of parc ferme.

So you mean there will be a SECU setting allowing for Qualifying specific engine map?