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

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
piast9
piast9
20
Joined: 16 Mar 2010, 00:39

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

jz11 wrote:you cannot quantify fuel flow without the time period
Yes you can. It's like speed which may be expressed for each moment in time. Yes, there is something like an average speed measured over certain period or disctance but it may be a momentary value too.

As I've said many times already - FIA changed the FILTER CUTOFF FREQUENCY from 10 Hz to 5 Hz, which averages momentary values of flow to decrease a noise and improve the precision of the measurement. Ultrasonic flow sensors measure momentary value of the flow.

the EDGE
the EDGE
67
Joined: 13 Feb 2012, 18:31
Location: Bedfordshire ENGLAND

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

jz11 wrote:maybe I wasn't clear enough, I understand the maximum is 100kg/h, and from this I conclude that the sample is the average of all 10 or 5Hz samples during that particular hour, English is my second language, but this is how I read the rule - 5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

you cannot quantify fuel flow without the time period, so you WILL have to average at some point, because if take a sample small enough, you will see that there is no actual fuel flow and then there is some gigantic number, and the reason is - your sample was too small, in fact so small, that you saw periods where all injectors were in closed state and then your got measurement of a an opened injector

now, if you wanted to be really clear about this - you specify fuel injector flow rate in the rules, but it is not there, there is only the 100kg PER HOUR - you are bound to work with some sort of average number even if you measure momentary flow in 5th of a second intervals, am I 100% clear now?

Honestly...


if you run a water tap at a rate of 100kg per hour then that flow is the maximum velocity the water can flow, you can turn the tap down, you can turn the tap off...but you must NEVER turn the tap past that initial flow of 100kg per hour, not even for 1 second or 1/100 of a second...even if the tap has been turned off for the other 59 minutes & 59 seconds...

is that clear?

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

This comment from f1fanatic summons very well the overall situation and the thinking behind red bull actions:
Actually, Red Bull have an excellent chance of success in their appeal. Forgive me for the long explanation, but some detail is required.

Why were Ricciardo and Red Bull excluded from the race? The steward’s decision says:-
Breach of article 3.2 of the FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical regulations
It’s important to read that carefully. If those articles weren’t breached, the decision will be overturned.

Article 3.2 of the sporting regulations provides that:-
Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race
In truth, this adds little to the alleged breach of Article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations, which says:-
Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
This is the critical issue. Note that this article of the technical regulation says nothing about how fuel mass flow is measured.

The sensors are referred to in articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the technical regulations:-
5.10.3 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.

5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.
Red Bull complied with these articles. The FIA fuel flow sensor was fitted to the car. Now, what articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 do not say is that the homologated FIA fuel flow sensor is to be the sole determinant of compliance with article 5.1.4. That might sound like a fine distinction, but it is an important one. The approved sensor was fitted to Ricciardo’s car, but Red Bull ignored the readings it was giving to determine their compliance with article 5.1.4. That is why the steward’s decision is not founded on a breach of article 5.10.3 or 5.10.4.

On 1 March 2014, a technical directive [01614] was issued in relation to the fuel flow sensors, which relevantly provided that “the homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 technical regulations”.

Now, my understanding is that technical directives do not have the force of technical regulations. They simply set out what the technical representative [Charlie Whiting] considers to be his interpretation of the technical regulations. Comply with the technical directive, and the stewards and technical representative will be satisfied that you are compliant with the technical regulation/s to which the directive relates. However, you can’t be excluded for a breach of a technical directive, which is why the basis for exclusion of Ricciardo’s car does not refer to a breach of the technical directive (although the steward’s underlying reasons do refer to it) but rather a breach of the technical regulations.

The fact that Red Bull ignored advice from Whiting during the race to reduce the fuel flow to a rate which brought it within the 100kg/hr measure, as determined by the FIA fuel flow sensor, is ultimately irrelevant (even though many say this “proves” Red Bull broke the rules). There is nothing in the technical or sporting regulations which requires Red Bull to comply with such a direction made during the course of a race.

Put simply, Red Bull have to comply with article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations, no more no less (the alleged breach of article 3.2 of the sporting regulations flows from any breach of article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations, and will rise or fall on the fuel flow issue).

If Red Bull can establish by convincing evidence that, irrespective of what the sensor showed, at no stage during the race did fuel flow mass exceed 100 kg/hr, then they should win the appeal.

And I can only assume that Red Bull have a very good chance of proving that. As Gary Anderson said in a recent article:-
Red Bull, and I believe a few other teams in the pitlane, were struggling to get the FIA-supplied fuel-flow meter to match the very sophisticated onboard electronics that control the amount of fuel that’s fed through the injectors.

Years and years of research has gone into injector control for all forms of engines, and this has made a significant impact on improving the fuel economy for both racing and road-car engines.

I would have to say that using this as the fuel-flow and fuel-limit control would make more sense as huge resources have been put into its development over many years.
If Red Bull can show from their injector data, to the satisfaction of the International Court of Appeal, that they complied with article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations, the FIA is at real risk of ending up with egg on their faces.

basti313
basti313
28
Joined: 22 Feb 2014, 14:49

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

the EDGE wrote:
jz11 wrote:maybe I wasn't clear enough, I understand the maximum is 100kg/h, and from this I conclude that the sample is the average of all 10 or 5Hz samples during that particular hour, English is my second language, but this is how I read the rule - 5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

you cannot quantify fuel flow without the time period, so you WILL have to average at some point, because if take a sample small enough, you will see that there is no actual fuel flow and then there is some gigantic number, and the reason is - your sample was too small, in fact so small, that you saw periods where all injectors were in closed state and then your got measurement of a an opened injector

now, if you wanted to be really clear about this - you specify fuel injector flow rate in the rules, but it is not there, there is only the 100kg PER HOUR - you are bound to work with some sort of average number even if you measure momentary flow in 5th of a second intervals, am I 100% clear now?

Honestly...


if you run a water tap at a rate of 100kg per hour then that flow is the maximum velocity the water can flow, you can turn the tap down, you can turn the tap off...but you must NEVER turn the tap past that initial flow of 100kg per hour, not even for 1 second or 1/100 of a second...even if the tap has been turned off for the other 59 minutes & 59 seconds...

is that clear?
No, this is just wrong. Even in a water tap you will have flow rates exceeding the 100kk/h limit when quickly opening the tap due to pressure differences and flexible lines between closed tap and open tap.
When it comes to fuel this is completely wrong, as you have a pulsating pressure due to the pump and a more compressible fluid.
It is just not that easy...this is why there are so many problems with the sensor and working with the given limit. Maybe Renault/Merc even have to change the pumps to get a more stable flow to get closer to the allowed flow rate without peaks.
Don`t russel the hamster!

jz11
jz11
19
Joined: 14 Sep 2010, 21:32

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

exactly what I'm on about - the rule states your sample value that you are to work with - 100kg/h, you cannot then go and say - you know, we had trillion measurements done in that period of time on that pulsating and resonating fuel flow rail and there are 155 million samples that were way over the 100kg/h rule, so you consistently exceeded the allowed fuel flow! - that is FIA argument as far as we're aware of

if there is a pulsation and shock waves inside the fluid, you will have limit exceeding values if you go into high enough resolution, even if on average of 1 second the flow rate is 100kg/h, if you reduce that 1 second to 1/1000 of second, you will see some strange measurements - thus the need to "slow down" or average down what ever you call it, the sampling rate which FIA did

p.s. there is no such thing as momentary values for flow rates or speed, it is so absurd I cannot even explain, they in their essence are averages over some periods of time

p.s.s. even if you put a restrictor in that fuel rail and look with high enough resulution, you will have some "impossible" fluid flow measurements from time to time! thanks to that we can have IC engines with "impossible" volumetric efficiency - it's called - compressible fluid dynamics

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

jz11 wrote:p.s. there is no such thing as momentary values for flow rates or speed, it is so absurd I cannot even explain, they in their essence are averages over some periods of time
You perhaps need to look up what the definition of a differential is.

User avatar
Paul
11
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 19:33

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

Next on the agenda, should the 80 km/h speed limit in the pit lane be enforced by measuring average over one hour in the pit lane? Stay tuned...

jz11
jz11
19
Joined: 14 Sep 2010, 21:32

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

Paul wrote:Next on the agenda, should the 80 km/h speed limit in the pit lane be enforced by measuring average over one hour in the pit lane? Stay tuned...
very ironic to see this sort of ignorance

the comparison is - imagine if the car in that pit lane was oscillating back and forth few hundred times a second, that would just sort of coincide with the sample length of the wave impulse that is fired upon that car and then the reflected frequency measured and interpreted using doppler effect - you would get some samples of 5km/h and others of 552km/h - OMG!?! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!!! but when you average those hundreds of samples down to 1 second, you see that the car is actually traveling at 80km/h

everything is relative and depends on how you look at it!

edit: just remembered about this video, this is what is happening to the fluid in the rail, sort of, because water is a bit harder to compress that the fuel they are using, now imagine you are measuring the flow in a plane that is like a meter below the speaker and horizontal, what would you see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENITui5_jU (never mind the shutter effect of the camera frame rate, the water is actually moving back and forth)

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

Peter Windsor on the debacle:



I also want to take note on the f1fanatic comment
Now, my understanding is that technical directives do not have the force of technical regulations. They simply set out what the technical representative [Charlie Whiting] considers to be his interpretation of the technical regulations. Comply with the technical directive, and the stewards and technical representative will be satisfied that you are compliant with the technical regulation/s to which the directive relates. However, you can’t be excluded for a breach of a technical directive, which is why the basis for exclusion of Ricciardo’s car does not refer to a breach of the technical directive (although the steward’s underlying reasons do refer to it) but rather a breach of the technical regulations.
As long as I can remember, no team actually officially broke a technical directive. There is therefore no precedent on the legality and force of a technical directive. It's true that they aren't officially written down, but teams ussually do follow them (red bull does have a tendency to try to go against technical directives).

The outcome of the appeal will be very important, as it will determine the value of not just this particular directive, but all directives.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

jz11 wrote:just remembered about this video, this is what is happening to the fluid in the rail, sort of, because water is a bit harder to compress that the fuel they are using, now imagine you are measuring the flow in a plane that is like a meter below the speaker and horizontal, what would you see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENITui5_jU (never mind the shutter effect of the camera frame rate, the water is actually moving back and forth)
And this is why the fuel meter is placed in the tank, away from the fuel rails and (presumably) on the low pressure side.
Not the engineer at Force India

jz11
jz11
19
Joined: 14 Sep 2010, 21:32

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

edited:
I think it is measuring high pressure side, because of the whole overflow situation, but it is just my guess

edited again:
apparently not, since the datasheet states operating pressure up to 20 bar

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

I don't think its possible to be on the high pressure side because the flowrate measured would include that used by the engine and also the send/return flow used to pressurise the system. Otherwise you would need 2 flow sensors, one on the send and one on the receive side and measure the difference in their flow. But the Gill sensor only has one pair of measuring ports.

I guess the sensor is plumbed like this:

fuel_tank ► FFM_sensor ► junction_node ► pump ► fuel_rail ► regulator ► junction_node again (feedback)

There might be another lifter pump in there between the tank and the sensor, but the main pump for the high pressure injection can't really be before the sensor for the reasons given above.
Not the engineer at Force India

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

Paul wrote:Next on the agenda, should the 80 km/h speed limit in the pit lane be enforced by measuring average over one hour in the pit lane? Stay tuned...
No no, it should be measured by the teams knowing how much fuel they're injecting, and calculating what force that exerts, how many RPM it will cause, and hence how fast the wheels are turning. That's much much more accurate than the sensor the FIA use.

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

jz11 wrote:
Paul wrote:Next on the agenda, should the 80 km/h speed limit in the pit lane be enforced by measuring average over one hour in the pit lane? Stay tuned...
very ironic to see this sort of ignorance

the comparison is - imagine if the car in that pit lane was oscillating back and forth few hundred times a second, that would just sort of coincide with the sample length of the wave impulse that is fired upon that car and then the reflected frequency measured and interpreted using doppler effect - you would get some samples of 5km/h and others of 552km/h - OMG!?! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!!! but when you average those hundreds of samples down to 1 second, you see that the car is actually traveling at 80km/h
No, this is not possible. You completely misunderstand how sampling, and wave forms work. It is impossible to get a sample that records higher than the peak of the wave form. Given that it's the height of the peak that we're interested in, it's completely impossible to ever sample above the value we care about.

jz11
jz11
19
Joined: 14 Sep 2010, 21:32

Re: Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Austra

Post

well, I will stay by my point since I'm well enough educated to understand physics behind it, how sampling works, how ultrasonic flow measurement works and how interference caused by any and all sources in that volume may create false readings if your sample length is short enough and what changes to logic inside the sampler device and mathematical methods may used to try and find out averages and avoid errors in a system like this, and I said - may be used to try - because I will not be convinced that such a device should be used to monitor and impose the rule of fuel flow, even less to disqualify someone from the race.

I'm out of this, going to wait for more information about the appeal.