2014 Engine yin yang

[dren]

Right, but all teams run on the high side (or best side) of the error margin with most parts, right? You don't trick the meter.

[wuzak]

Could you just run always at +0.25% fuel flow?

That's not something the teams have control over.

They're just as likely to get one at -0.25% as one at +0.25%. Statistically speaking I would suggest only a small number would be at the limits, the bulk being around the nominal flow rate.

That said, it may be that the FIA hand out several to teams, who then test the ones they have and use the best.= (highest actual flow rate).

[WhiteBlue]

Cheating the basic formula of a racing series is usually punished by a temporary ban of the competitor of at least one year.

Oh, I remember a ban RedBull got for using flexible bodywork which is clearly against the rules.
Or do I?

Something can be banned only if it is detected. If teams use something which is within tolerances of the measuring equipment and it is left undetected it can't be banned unless the measuring procedure is altered.

PS time between upshifts at the first 3-4 gears is within 1-1,5 seconds.

Oh, the classic apple/banana comparison. How cleverly thought out and yet so inapplicable.

A formula cheat in an air regulated formula is falsifying the cubic capacity or the boost or the rpm limit or the air box restrictor. Flexible wings definitely are not cheating the formula. They are a non compliance with the regulations which has to be evaluated for gravity.

An accumulator cheat even if it is undetectable by the measuring equipment - which it isn't in my opinion - is per se illegal and will be heavily punished on detection. Detection is always possible if the engineers of the perpetrating team become whistle blowers.

[xpensive]

...
Oh, the classic apple/banana comparison. How cleverly thought out and yet so inapplicable.

A formula cheat in an air regulated formula is falsifying the cubic capacity or the boost or the rpm limit or the air box restrictor. Flexible wings definitely are not cheating the formula. They are a non compliance with the regulations which has to be evaluated for gravity.
...

Depends a bit on the nationality on the driver doesn't it, that's where the real apples and vettels are?

[timbo]

An accumulator cheat even if it is undetectable by the measuring equipment - which it isn't in my opinion - is per se illegal and will be heavily punished on detection. Detection is always possible if the engineers of the perpetrating team become whistle blowers.

Depends on how it works and how clever people are.
As I said the time engine spends in 2nd to 4th/5th gear is within seconds range. So there's only 27-28 grams to play between 10,500 and whatever rev they shift up.
Considering that the fuel is far from incompressible, the pressure of injection, the volume of the piping the flow would likely be far from static.
No need in "accumulator". They need to tune the flow.

[Richard]

A formula cheat in an air regulated formula is falsifying the cubic capacity or the boost or the rpm limit or the air box restrictor. Flexible wings definitely are not cheating the formula. They are a non compliance with the regulations which has to be evaluated for gravity.

An accumulator cheat even if it is undetectable by the measuring equipment - which it isn't in my opinion - is per se illegal and will be heavily punished on detection. Detection is always possible if the engineers of the perpetrating team become whistle blowers.

Surely cheating is only detected if it can be measured? The flexi wing wasn't detected because it couldn't be measured.

The only obligation is for the cars to have all the parts required by the rules in the right place with the right performance characteristics.

So just like the teams designed flexi wings to meet the test criteria, the teams will design fuel system to meet the metering criteria.

[wuzak]

So just like the teams designed flexi wings to meet the test criteria, the teams will design fuel system to meet the metering criteria.

Which is to flow all fuel through the FIA supplied meter, which will have been calibrated.

So to get more flow requires either a) modifying the flow meter - which is a big no-no or b) installing another fuel line - which would be obviously illegal.

It is different to flexi wings because those had tests for deflection which could be passed while still keeping the desired result. I can't see how you can cheat the fuel system without it obviously being illegal.

[timbo]

Which is to flow all fuel through the FIA supplied meter, which will have been calibrated.

So to get more flow requires either a) modifying the flow meter - which is a big no-no or b) installing another fuel line - which would be obviously illegal.

Nope the idea is to get the right amount of fuel at the right time.
All the flow can go through the meter and it will show values within the rules but the actual mixture in cylinders might somewhat differ -- for example a bit less than 27.8g/s at 10500 a bit more at 12500. And as I said previously it doesn't have to be "accumulator" -- just some tuning of the piping.

[Richard]

Unfortunately homolgated sensors at the injectors will exclude gains from tuned pipework.

There might be something to exploit in the sampling rate and averaging of the data? For example changing gear would create a dip in fuel use for a fraction of second which might be compensated by a burst of extra fuel in the next fraction.

[timbo]

Unfortunately homolgated sensors at the injectors will exclude gains from tuned pipework.

But are they at the injectors? I thought they're not. That would be quite a contraption to fit a meter right before injector.

There might be something to exploit in the sampling rate and averaging of the data? For example changing gear would create a dip in fuel use for a fraction of second which might be compensated by a burst of extra fuel in the next fraction.

Can be. If they take only a few measurements in a second there's plenty of room for maneuver, there would be around 90 firings at each cylinder if I didn't mess my math, and a second is a time spent between upshifts.
Still there is ECU, whatever smart things they might use it should not be too obvious in the code and ECU must have a way to use it.

Oops, I did forget to divide by 6, so it's about 15 instead.
Less play possible, but still the question remains.

[Richard]

Unfortunately homolgated sensors at the injectors will exclude gains from tuned pipework.

But are they at the injectors? I thought they're not. That would be quite a contraption to fit a meter right before injector.

I bet the homolgation specifies the max pipe distance to the injector. Also the injector has to be from an approved list, so it'll be no surprise that pipe is also specified as part of the injector spec.

I also imagine the teams can only use the sensors in a batch (like the tyres) so no chance to pick out the sensors at the upper end of the calibration.

Anyway, eve if all our regulation wriggling was possible, I still can't see how it eeks out an extra 100bhp. Neither can I see how teams know the hp for each engine supplier. It'll be like Red Bull seeming to be in the pack in winter testing, same in FP1 & FP2 in Australia, pick up a bit of pace in FP3 , but then storm to pole in Q3.

[dren]

5.10.4 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.5 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.
5.10.6 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.

They directly measure the pressure, temperature and flow supplied to the injectors, but this could be immediately after the in tank sensor just outside of the fuel tank, right? I don't see specifics for location. Thinking it's in a different spec?

And as far as the flex wing vs accumulation arguement goes...the flex wings were movable aero devices, which were banned, but they couldn't prove they moved under the test requirements. An accumulation device will be in the exact same boat if by looking at it and the sensor's numbers it doesn't appear to be accumulating fuel.

[bonjon1979]

Unfortunately homolgated sensors at the injectors will exclude gains from tuned pipework.

But are they at the injectors? I thought they're not. That would be quite a contraption to fit a meter right before injector.

I bet the homolgation specifies the max pipe distance to the injector. Also the injector has to be from an approved list, so it'll be no surprise that pipe is also specified as part of the injector spec.

I also imagine the teams can only use the sensors in a batch (like the tyres) so no chance to pick out the sensors at the upper end of the calibration.

Anyway, eve if all our regulation wriggling was possible, I still can't see how it eeks out an extra 100bhp. Neither can I see how teams know the hp for each engine supplier. It'll be like Red Bull seeming to be in the pack in winter testing, same in FP1 & FP2 in Australia, pick up a bit of pace in FP3 , but then storm to pole in Q3.

This may be too simplistic, but surely engine manufacturers who are trying to get customer teams have to reveal their engines spec to entice them to sign up to their engine? You wouldn't expect any team to sign on the dotted line without having solid information to base their decision on. These deals are worth millions and will hugely influence the teams performance moving forwards. The more people know, the more likely that rumors and information are going to be spread. How many people work at Merc HPE for example who might know the numbers? I'm sure that as we get closer to 2014 more and more is going to leak out. i find the 100hp hard to believe as well but I doubt that these rumors have just appeared out of thin air.

[dren]

Do customer teams run supplier ECU code, or is the ECU code an individual team component? I'm guessing you get a base map as a customer with your purchase of a power unit, but nothing fancy.

[timbo]

Anyway, eve if all our regulation wriggling was possible, I still can't see how it eeks out an extra 100bhp.

I agree. 100hp seems too much. Surely that's a combined ERS+Engine figure?
What are "other ancillaries" in the energy flow graph? Can they save much energy there? Is water pump and hydraulic units considered engine ancillaries>