Possible limits, tricks and cheats of the flow sensors?

[j.yank]

This is all split from the Honda PU topic, where it did not belong...


I am sorry if this will sounds unprofessional (I am not engineer), but regarding the new fuel for Honda, and what is the possible advantage of Ferrari: I read that the fuel flow sensor is using ultrasound along and against the fuel flow, and in this way measuring the Doppler effect in both directions, they can get the fuel flow rate. Well, this of course depends of the chemical properties of the fuel itself. So, is it possible Ferrari to have a fuel with different speed of sound in a way that it counts the legal limit of 100 kg/h but at the same time, the actual flow is greater than the limit? In this way, it is possible to have energy boost in one lap or at the beginning of the race but cannot use it constantly trough the race because you will run out of fuel.

[godlameroso]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor. The engine just works with the fuel, to me that is the big difference.

There are hundreds of combustion events per second(engine RPM), that world happens on a completely different time scale than ours. We cannot make sense of it directly. There are thousands of reactions that happen just at the spark gap, then again before the flame front even propagates there are thousands and thousands of reactions happening. Too many to name, to many to make sense of. So many in fact that the absorption lines from one set of reactions can look almost indistinguishable from another set of reactions, and when you think you finally understand something, validation experiments show you're way off.

When you do get things right(again this takes massive computational resources and equipment, which the manufacturers just don't have), then you increase the resolution of your combustion process. You know if you induce x current along the spark gap you get x amount of radicals when fuel temperature is y, then you can control those variables and improve combustion stability, or vice versa. Again this takes testing, and dyno testing helps, but cannot replicate real world running.

The whole process is very complex, and Ferrari's work with Shell, and the combustion engineers at their disposal are what have allowed Ferrari to take the step forward with engine power. It goes to show that teamwork extends to even technical partners, and is more than just the people at the pit stops and on the pit wall.

If you want to know more about the combustion process and chemistry involved on youtube search "CEFRC". There are tons of lectures from well known individuals in the science of combustion. It can get quite verbose, if you take it step by step it's certainly doable, and you will come away with a lot more knowledge and understanding regarding combustion.

[j.yank]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor.

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

[Big Tea]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor.

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

Unless specifically banned it is not cheating just... grey.
All teams are all ways looking for that kind of advantage, it would not be bad for Ferrari, they would all do it if they could.

[gruntguru]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor.

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

The sensor is not affected by sonic velocity of the fuel. In fact it measures it.

[subcritical71]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor.

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

Because altering the fuel without informing the FIA is against the rules. And the FIA monitor the fuel composition to ensure it conforms to their approved fuel several times a weekend.

See this article on the sensor itself. https://www.racecar-engineering.com/ar ... -meters/4/

[IvailoStefanovBG]

Think more basic, Ferrari isn't cheating any sensor.

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

Because altering the fuel without informing the FIA is against the rules. And the FIA monitor the fuel composition to ensure it conforms to their approved fuel several times a weekend.

See this article on the sensor itself. https://www.racecar-engineering.com/ar ... -meters/4/

Actually j.yank is right. Sensors measure the velocity of fuel flow in tube and thus calculate volume passed not the velocity of ultrasound in given medium. Calculation of volume also depends of the speed of signal (ultrasound) in given medium. If you change fluid properties the accuracy of measurement changes. So the idea of manipulating speed of ultrasound in fuel is not so crazy after all and alot cheaper that perfecting the combustion process....FIA regulates fuels but as far as I know there are possibilities...Let`s not forget that this engines will stay only to the end of 2020. What investment you have to make just to win 2020 WDC or WCC?
What bothers me most if Ferrari advantage in one lap - in race pace they are not so far ahead - and why this happens only in one lap? If they had so perfect hybrid systems this advantage must be quite obvious in race pace also. Monitoring Vettes dash board in Singapure I have to say that his battery depleted at the same rate as Honda...Actually at one stage Max finished laps with more energy left...

[wuzak]

How do you know this? If you can point a reason why the chemical properties of a fuel cannot to be altered in a way that allow changing the speed of propagation of the sound in it, I will be glad to listen. The combustion secrets are OK, and they are the ultimate Holy Grail of ICE, but does it exclude other ways to gain advantage?

Because altering the fuel without informing the FIA is against the rules. And the FIA monitor the fuel composition to ensure it conforms to their approved fuel several times a weekend.

See this article on the sensor itself. https://www.racecar-engineering.com/ar ... -meters/4/

Actually j.yank is right. Sensors measure the velocity of fuel flow in tube and thus calculate volume passed not the velocity of ultrasound in given medium. Calculation of volume also depends of the speed of signal (ultrasound) in given medium. If you change fluid properties the accuracy of measurement changes. So the idea of manipulating speed of ultrasound in fuel is not so crazy after all and alot cheaper that perfecting the combustion process....FIA regulates fuels but as far as I know there are possibilities...Let`s not forget that this engines will stay only to the end of 2020. What investment you have to make just to win 2020 WDC or WCC?
What bothers me most if Ferrari advantage in one lap - in race pace they are not so far ahead - and why this happens only in one lap? If they had so perfect hybrid systems this advantage must be quite obvious in race pace also. Monitoring Vettes dash board in Singapure I have to say that his battery depleted at the same rate as Honda...Actually at one stage Max finished laps with more energy left...

I believe that the fuel flow sensors are calibrated for each fuel.

Shell brings a new fuel mix then it has to be approved for its composition by the FIA before it can be used, and the fuel sensor calibrated to its properties, which includes the temperature variable.

[Stef]

I think they can't reproduce it in races simply because of the fuel tank limit.

[j.yank]

Because altering the fuel without informing the FIA is against the rules. And the FIA monitor the fuel composition to ensure it conforms to their approved fuel several times a weekend.

See this article on the sensor itself. https://www.racecar-engineering.com/ar ... -meters/4/

Actually j.yank is right. Sensors measure the velocity of fuel flow in tube and thus calculate volume passed not the velocity of ultrasound in given medium. Calculation of volume also depends of the speed of signal (ultrasound) in given medium. If you change fluid properties the accuracy of measurement changes. So the idea of manipulating speed of ultrasound in fuel is not so crazy after all and alot cheaper that perfecting the combustion process....FIA regulates fuels but as far as I know there are possibilities...Let`s not forget that this engines will stay only to the end of 2020. What investment you have to make just to win 2020 WDC or WCC?
What bothers me most if Ferrari advantage in one lap - in race pace they are not so far ahead - and why this happens only in one lap? If they had so perfect hybrid systems this advantage must be quite obvious in race pace also. Monitoring Vettes dash board in Singapure I have to say that his battery depleted at the same rate as Honda...Actually at one stage Max finished laps with more energy left...

I believe that the fuel flow sensors are calibrated for each fuel.

Shell brings a new fuel mix then it has to be approved for its composition by the FIA before it can be used, and the fuel sensor calibrated to its properties, which includes the temperature variable.

Where in the technical regulations these procedures are described?

[Tommy Cookers]

Where in the technical regulations these procedures are described?

that's a good question

the velocity 'measured' is presumably influenced by the velocity profile across the tube
this would vary with viscosity and so with temperature
and with fuel composition
and with rate variation eg stop/start flow

the calibration seems unlikely to deal with all these variables
ok if on the basis 'it's the same for everybody'
(anyway there's more scope for brief fuel rate fiddling at the engine end)

what's the uncertainty (wrongly called accuracy) in the F1 mandated fuel rate at the tank end ?
mass certification is allowed to assume 'g' = 9.815 m/sec/sec - but 'g' significantly varies from venue to venue and to lab
and the fuel will tend to contain eg a rather variable amount of atmospheric and other gasses in solution

if the fuel rate uncertainty was translated into eg the length of 100m Olympic lanes it would be laughably conspicuous
(though the same could have been said of displacement limits)

btw fuel and oxidant rate uncertainty might seem to be crucial to space rocket users

[j.yank]

Where in the technical regulations these procedures are described?

that's a good question

the velocity 'measured' is presumably influenced by the velocity profile across the tube
this would vary with viscosity and so with temperature
and with fuel composition
and with rate variation eg stop/start flow

the calibration seems unlikely to deal with all these variables
ok if on the basis 'it's the same for everybody'
(anyway there's more scope for brief fuel rate fiddling at the engine end)

what's the uncertainty (wrongly called accuracy) in the F1 mandated fuel rate at the tank end ?
mass certification is allowed to assume 'g' = 9.815 m/sec/sec - but 'g' significantly varies from venue to venue and to lab
and the fuel will tend to contain eg a rather variable amount of atmospheric and other gasses in solution

if the fuel rate uncertainty was translated into eg the length of 100m Olympic lanes it would be laughably conspicuous
(though the same could have been said of displacement limits)

btw fuel and oxidant rate uncertainty might seem to be crucial to space rocket users

I found in the technical regulations, that the pressure, temperature, the mas and the chemical composition of the fuel are described in detailed manner, but there is not any mention of bulk modulus of the fuel that could influence the density, and in this way the flow rate for a short period. If the flow sensors are strictly calibrated to the generic petrol bulk module and they work based on defined speed of sound, it makes possible through decrease of the stiffness of the fuel to increase its density keeping the sound speed the same but allowing increased mass flow for a given time. I am not sure that this is possible at all (to decrease the stiffness) but this seems as a possible way to circumvent the temperature as a way of increasing the density. Of course, it would be illegal but until they catch the trick (if it actually exists) they could gain significant performance gain as we can see on the track.

[Rodak]

....mass certification is allowed to assume 'g' = 9.815 m/sec/sec - but 'g' significantly varies from venue to venue....

Mass is not dependent on 'g', weight is. I use and Anton-Paar densiometer in my work as a winemaker; it is amazingly accurate for density.

[Big Tea]

Where in the technical regulations these procedures are described?

that's a good question

the velocity 'measured' is presumably influenced by the velocity profile across the tube
this would vary with viscosity and so with temperature
and with fuel composition
and with rate variation eg stop/start flow

the calibration seems unlikely to deal with all these variables
ok if on the basis 'it's the same for everybody'
(anyway there's more scope for brief fuel rate fiddling at the engine end)

what's the uncertainty (wrongly called accuracy) in the F1 mandated fuel rate at the tank end ?
mass certification is allowed to assume 'g' = 9.815 m/sec/sec - but 'g' significantly varies from venue to venue and to lab
and the fuel will tend to contain eg a rather variable amount of atmospheric and other gasses in solution

if the fuel rate uncertainty was translated into eg the length of 100m Olympic lanes it would be laughably conspicuous
(though the same could have been said of displacement limits)

btw fuel and oxidant rate uncertainty might seem to be crucial to space rocket users

Remember though that teams have to provide a fuel sample to FIA before use and also have sufficient in the 'tank' to be tested at the end of the race.

[IvailoStefanovBG]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/wolf ... r/4551138/
Wolff stated that under current rules if you can gain under 1% combustion efficiency its a excelent result. If Ferrari is 54 HP better than others its 5,4 percent gain for less than a year on 1000hp basis which is unreal...