Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Australian GP

[jz11]

Simple BB, F1 has been using electronic fuel injection since the 80's, the industry experience behind EFI system is simply mammoth and fuel metering has been brought to a very precise science.

Maybe, but there are 2 things going on here. How close were RB pushing it? Were they running at exactly 100Kg/h (by their measure)? 99.9, 99.5? If so can they be sure the engine is taking every variable into account? Fuel varies in viscosity naturally, and by temperature, this will effect how much is injected at a fixed pressure and temperature. Do they take that into account? If they do is their temperature monitoring system calibrated (with documentation to back it up). No? Then they cant rely on it either practically or legally, its that simple.

yes, you're right, they have COUPLE HUNDRED sensors on those cars and forgot to put one in for the fuel temperature...

I can't believe how low you think of the people working in those teams...

I'm little bit astonished: 36 pages of 3d and apparently nobody linked the flowgate with the fact that one of the major issue with renault engines is knocking: the simplest way to avoid knocking is to throw more fuel into your cilinders...

simplest way is to delay spark if that is the source of knock, if not, and your fuel is very precious, you reduce air by allowing some exhaust gasses escape past the turbocharger, or in F1 case - you increase the generator load on the turbocharger shaft, thus reducing boost levels - which will cool the engine down if you've been running too lean and cylinders overheated, there really is no simple fix or it would have been used, or you think renault are just a bunch of amateurs?

[jz11]

Are you saying that every single time the injector opens it injects the exactly correct amount of fuel? To within 0.25%? Sorry im not buying it. The error is usually a lot more than that, but does tend to average out over time. Car engines can operator seemly fine with even significantly more error than that, especially under load.

Lets also remember that RB dont make the engine, Renault do, a company that couldn't even get the Alternator right for number of years.

here I'm thinking about arguing on the interwebs with someone that based his argument on comparison of an F1 car with his daily bmw on-board fuel consumption gage...

[ChrisM40]

yes, you're right, they have COUPLE HUNDRED sensors on those cars and forgot to put one in for the fuel temperature...

I can't believe how low you think of the people working in those teams...

I didnt say they didn't have a sensor I questioned whether it was accurate (certainly any more accurate than the FIA sensor), and remember errors on these sensors will compound each other. This means the little errors in lots of sensors could all add up to a pretty big error, especially when the ECU is taking reading from those sensors and making assumptions about the operation of other unmonitored parts.

[SiLo]

Why didn't the FIA just mandate that the teams had to use the ECU to control the flow rate (as they already do) and that they have to provide that data to them so that they can check that the flow is within the allowed limits?

It seems the way they did it is silly when there were already methods in place that are very accurate to measure this sort of thing.

[ChrisM40]

Are you saying that every single time the injector opens it injects the exactly correct amount of fuel? To within 0.25%? Sorry im not buying it. The error is usually a lot more than that, but does tend to average out over time. Car engines can operator seemly fine with even significantly more error than that, especially under load.

Lets also remember that RB dont make the engine, Renault do, a company that couldn't even get the Alternator right for number of years.

here I'm thinking about arguing on the interwebs with someone that based his argument on comparison of an F1 car with his daily bmw on-board fuel consumption gage...

Im not basing my argument on that, im basing it on experience in other race engines. My point about road car engines is that the sensors on those lead to an error (or more accurately a variance) of as much as 25% even when recalibrated, let alone 0.25% and yet the driver wouldnt notice. When I was working on touring cars the errors were much, much more than 0.25% in such systems when viewed on an instantaneous usage basis, as the FIA are mandating. Fine, touring cars arent F1 cars, but they still have fuel rules to work to.

[dans79]

I am 1000000000% confident that they ran all sorts of sims and tests for those high pressure injectors and weighted amount of fuel that went through them at any and all imaginable duty cycles, now this info together with the actual duty cycles and fuel rail pressure during the race IS THE ACCURATE INFO that is available to the team, the info from FFM, as I remember, IS NOT!

basically the team does this homework before the race, that is how they get to that 100kg/h limit in the first place, and then FIA steps in, introduces it's sort-of-working solution to monitor fuel flow and says - based on our data you run your engine too high, tune it down by this or that amount! that is it! now you have 1 car that got screwed up by following this directive, would you screw the other up as well?

and ECU doesn't give a rats ass about some ultrasonic flow meter, it doesn't care nor should it (because that FFM is there for the FIA, not a source of info for the ECU), it assumes the pressure is constant and works the injectors according to preset maps, that is it!

You seem to be ignore the fact the sensor is more accurate than the stupid calculations that RBR and all it's fans demand are better. The FIA chose this technology for a reason......

[dans79]

It seems the way they did it is silly when there were already methods in place that are very accurate to measure this sort of thing.

The sensor is more accurate, than the ECU.

[ChrisM40]

I am 1000000000% confident that they ran all sorts of sims and tests for those high pressure injectors and weighted amount of fuel that went through them at any and all imaginable duty cycles, now this info together with the actual duty cycles and fuel rail pressure during the race IS THE ACCURATE INFO that is available to the team, the info from FFM, as I remember, IS NOT!

basically the team does this homework before the race, that is how they get to that 100kg/h limit in the first place, and then FIA steps in, introduces it's sort-of-working solution to monitor fuel flow and says - based on our data you run your engine too high, tune it down by this or that amount! that is it! now you have 1 car that got screwed up by following this directive, would you screw the other up as well?

and ECU doesn't give a rats ass about some ultrasonic flow meter, it doesn't care nor should it (because that FFM is there for the FIA, not a source of info for the ECU), it assumes the pressure is constant and works the injectors according to preset maps, that is it!

You seem to be ignore the fact the sensor is more accurate than the stupid calculations that RBR and all it's fans demand are better. The FIA chose this technology for a reason......

Exactly, there is only 1 variance, the FFM variance, RBs system has many, and has many assumptions.

If RB and its supporters really believe that all those errors and assumptions are better than 99.75% accurate 100% of the time, they are deluding themselves. If they dont think that then they have no case because the FIA are saying the FFM is that accurate and therefore if RB were running at more than 99.75 Kg/h its their own stupid fault.

[djos]

The other teams are also questioning the accuracy of the FFM off and on record!

Frankly if anyone here believes that Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari are not using fully calibrated and matched sets of injectors in the most advanced and most efficient F1 racing engines ever built, then they are insane!

To not use calibrated and matched sets of injectors (and fuel pumps etc too) in such a heavily restricted fuel formula would be suicide!

[ChrisM40]

The other teams are also questioning the accuracy of the FFM off and on record!

Frankly if anyone here believes that Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari are not using fully calibrated and matched sets of injectors in the most advanced and most efficient F1 racing engines ever built, then they are insane!

To not use calibrated and matched sets of injectors in such a heavily restricted fuel formula would be suicide!

That alone is not enough. A matched set of injectors only means the engine runs smoothly with the fuel its given. Calibration is not done with every tank of fuel, which does vary. Even matched injectors can be quite a bit out relative to each other before its a problem, even in a race engine.

The other teams are also basing there questioning of the FFM on their own assumptions.

[jz11]

You seem to be ignore the fact the sensor is more accurate than the stupid calculations that RBR and all it's fans demand are better. The FIA chose this technology for a reason......

what FACT are you talking about? THERE IS NO SUCH FACT!

the only reason why you apparently think it is fact is because FIA chose to homologate it, so they have some mechanism to look at what is happening during the race, THAT IS IT!

for those who don't understand - HOMOLOGATION DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOMETHING IS PRECISE, best or good even, there are criteria - if the thing meets criteria - it is homologated, and criteria can be something other than the precision of the measurement, which pretty much ALL teams are complaining about, criteria can also be - we need the bloody thing and this will have to do, sort other stuff out later

now answer my question, why the rules say - ONLY ONE fuel flow meter on the car, and only FIA is allowed to see its data?

[beelsebob]

Why didn't the FIA just mandate that the teams had to use the ECU to control the flow rate (as they already do) and that they have to provide that data to them so that they can check that the flow is within the allowed limits?

It seems the way they did it is silly when there were already methods in place that are very accurate to measure this sort of thing.

Because that allows for different engine manufacturers to deliberately design their injectors to "accidentally" inject more fuel than the ECU thought it was letting in.

[dans79]

what FACT are you talking about? THERE IS NO SUCH FACT!

the only reason why you apparently think it is fact is because FIA chose to homologate it, so they have some mechanism to look at what is happening during the race, THAT IS IT!

I was reading up on it MONTHS ago, long before any RBR fan cared about it......

now answer my question, why the rules say - ONLY ONE fuel flow meter on the car, and only FIA is allowed to see its data?

Lol....

[Pup]

Remarkable how no one can say anything in this thread without the fanboys reaching for their caps lock key. Meanwhile, over at Autosport, they're managing to have an actual technical discussion about the issue.

Embarrassing. If I were Stephen, I think I'd delete this entire thread.

[djos]

So post technical info if you have it and quit whining!

Ps, most folk here haven't been abusing capslock to make their points.