Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[LM10]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

That actually seems conclusive. What it shows is that the pattern didn't really change. Better acceleration, higher topspeed.

People either forget or ignore that Ferrari's downforce levels increased. Yet, they still gained 3.5 tenths on Mercedes and 6 tenths on Redbull on the straights and in addition to that were on par with Mercedes in S3 in Austin.

Another thing which seems to by flying under the radar is that Mercedes actually put some major looking upgrades on the car in Japan. Bottas told that the car clearly felt faster/better. If Ferrari really lost some significant amount of power in Austin and still almost got pole, then it means they still really are in the mix even though Mercedes and RBR upgraded their cars as well.

[Sieper]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

That actually seems conclusive. What it shows is that the pattern didn't really change. Better acceleration, higher topspeed.

People either forget or ignore that Ferrari's downforce levels increased. Yet, they still gained 3.5 tenths on Mercedes and 6 tenths on Redbull on the straights and in addition to that were on par with Mercedes in S3 in Austin.

Another thing which seems to by flying under the radar is that Mercedes actually put some major looking upgrades on the car in Japan. Bottas told that the car clearly felt faster/better. If Ferrari really lost some significant amount of power in Austin and still almost got pole, then it means they still really are in the mix even though Mercedes and RBR upgraded their cars as well.

Why do you say that. Ferrari has been running the higher DF levels rear wing all season. They have ran, and are running most DF of all top teams. That didn't suddenly change.

When Charles Leclerc was asked (in the penn) post race he simply kept saying, no idea, must look in to it, nothing changed, we do not know. You can rewatch the ziggo broadcast to see him give those answers. If they suddenly were running even more DF (with the very same rearwing) then why wouldn't Charles mention that. It seems to me you thought this as plausible but there is no indication for it at all, in fact, it is the other way around. Ferrari say they don't know but you say you do.

[Polite]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

That actually seems conclusive. What it shows is that the pattern didn't really change. Better acceleration, higher topspeed.

People either forget or ignore that Ferrari's downforce levels increased. Yet, they still gained 3.5 tenths on Mercedes and 6 tenths on Redbull on the straights and in addition to that were on par with Mercedes in S3 in Austin.

Another thing which seems to by flying under the radar is that Mercedes actually put some major looking upgrades on the car in Japan. Bottas told that the car clearly felt faster/better. If Ferrari really lost some significant amount of power in Austin and still almost got pole, then it means they still really are in the mix even though Mercedes and RBR upgraded their cars as well.

this! and also in Q.. Vettel's Pu qualimode was the same as always..

[LM10]

Why do you say that. Ferrari has been running the higher DF levels rear wing all season. They have ran, and are running most DF of all top teams. That didn't suddenly change.

When Charles Leclerc was asked (in the penn) post race he simply kept saying, no idea, must look in to it, nothing changed, we do not know. You can rewatch the ziggo broadcast to see him give those answers. If they suddenly were running even more DF (with the very same rearwing) then why wouldn't Charles mention that. It seems to me you thought this as plausible but there is no indication for it at all, in fact, it is the other way around. Ferrari say they don't know but you say you do.

Charles was talking about the race pace. They didn’t know where the pace went to.

There is more into it than just looking at pictures of the rearwing on the Internet or TV and then conclude how much downforce a car runs.

Binotto: “In Austin we shifted the balance between efficiency and downforce to the latter to test how to gain time on the curve. In qualifying we were competitive. As for the race, we need to understand what happened. "

[Xwang]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

So where is this loss in delta speed in the straights in the USA GP?

[Tommy Cookers]

Also the technical regulations state that such a system is forbidden (article 5.10.5):

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work

the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr

the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm

[saviour stivala]

Who from all those on the grid could show how to trick the fuel flow sensor better than RBR?.

That is unnecessary and not the point. Again, this is not a thread about morality or past naughty moments. This is a purely technical thread where we run hypotheses.

I was responding to RZS10:- “RBR provided several charts and detailed description/instruction on how to ‘trick’ the sensor”. “That would imply that they managed to trick the sensor themselves”.
If you still think my answer was unnecessary and not the point. why was my post let to stand? but besides all that, I was surprised my post was let through.

[turbof1]

Who from all those on the grid could show how to trick the fuel flow sensor better than RBR?.

That is unnecessary and not the point. Again, this is not a thread about morality or past naughty moments. This is a purely technical thread where we run hypotheses.

I was responding to RZS10:- “RBR provided several charts and detailed description/instruction on how to ‘trick’ the sensor”. “That would imply that they managed to trick the sensor themselves”.
If you still think my answer was unnecessary and not the point. why was my post let to stand? but besides all that, I was surprised my post was let through.

Because it serves as a reminder to all of us. Sometimes leaving a post stand in order to make a reply on, is better than simply removing/dissaproving the post.
Emotions and passion about sport is understandable; however what RBR did is common practice in F1. Asking for clarifications in order to potentially undermine your competitors is something Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari all have done. The point of this thread is not nor will ever be to question the practice. We can have a separate topic about that, just not here. Please, let us leave it at that and discuss what is now frankly on the correct way.

[ncx]

It should be possible to alias the sensor measurement if they can somehow produce a high enough frequency pulsation.
The low pressure pumps are usually electrically driven gear pumps so they would produce pulses at tooth pass frequency. Given a high enough pump speed and number of teeth it could be achievable.

For example a gear with 13 teeth spinning at 10000 RPM would produce pulses close to the 2 kHz sampling frequency MM mentioned earlier.
The pump motor could be controlled to produce the desired frequency and phase angle such that the flow sensor never samples the flow peaks.

That's surely a more interesting conjecture than the one on the invisible fuel cache or the one on the nearby electric cable that can alter the flow-meter function without causing noticeably anomalous readings.

In order to anti-synchronize the flow illegal peaks against the measurements, they would need to detect the ultrasound impulses and modulate the pump accordingly, using a sensor for the sensor (so to speak) which should pass unnoticed through scrutineering together with the relative electronics and software, and the whole secret system should work almost perfectly on a sub-millisecond time-scale. Even if the time intervals between measurements were always exactly equal (no drift, no thermal effects, etc) and that therefore the system would have to be fine-tuned only occasionally during the race, it is imo quite unlikely to be feasible, especially considering that the movement of mechanical parts is involved.

[saviour stivala]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

So where is this loss in delta speed in the straights in the USA GP?

In US GP FERRARI 0.4s faster than Mercedes on the straights, and 0.6s faster than RBR. And in corners was on par with those two cars.

[Xwang]

Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/

So where is this loss in delta speed in the straights in the USA GP?

In US GP FERRARI 0.4s faster than Mercedes on the straights, and 0.6s faster than RBR. And in corners was on par with those two cars.

So according to you (correct me if I am wrong, please) in US GP Ferrari was on par to Mercedes and RB in corners and faster on the straights? If it is so, it seems impossible that Ferrari did not take pole!!!

[MtthsMlw]

So where is this loss in delta speed in the straights in the USA GP?

In US GP FERRARI 0.4s faster than Mercedes on the straights, and 0.6s faster than RBR. And in corners was on par with those two cars.

So according to you (correct me if I am wrong, please) in US GP Ferrari was on par to Mercedes and RB in corners and faster on the straights? If so how it seems impossible that Ferrari did not take pole!!!

This obviously doesn't tell how much time was gained/lost.

I wonder if the TD didn't make it to the public, would we even have this discussion?

[hape]

From AMuS

Formel 1-Chef Ross Brawn zweifelte: „Ich glaube, Ferraris Gegner lesen in die Zahlen das rein, was sie reinlesen wollen.“
Formula 1 boss Ross Brawn doubted: "I think Ferrari's opponents read into the numbers what they want to read."

Die Top-Speeds auf der langen Geraden untermauerten die Zweifel der Verschwörungstheoretiker nicht. Leclerc landete mit 321,5 km/h zwar nur auf Platz 13, doch der Monegasse war wie Lewis Hamilton die meiste Zeit des Rennens alleine unterwegs. Hamilton war mit 317,6 km/h noch langsamer. Und Bottas und Verstappen mit 324,1 km/h respektive 323,6 km/h trotz Windschatten nicht viel schneller. Das Beschleunigungsduell von Kurve 20 bis zum Zielstrich gewann Leclerc immer noch mit 217,3 zu 213,1 km/h gegen Bottas. Verstappen schaffte da nur 211,1 km/h.

The top speeds on the long straights did not substantiate the doubts of the conspiracy theorists. Leclerc finished only 13th with 321.5 km/h, but the Monegasse was, like Lewis Hamilton, most of the time alone on the road. Hamilton was even slower with 317.6 km/h. And Bottas and Verstappen with 324.1 km/h respectively 323.6 km/h despite slipstreams not much faster. The acceleration duel from turn 20 to the finish line Leclerc still won with 217.3 to 213.1 km/h against Bottas. Verstappen managed only 211.1 km/h.

At Start/Finish line 6,2 km/h faster than Verstappen (with spec 2 engine) although corner speed onto the straight Ferrari is slower....

Acceleration is stil mighty then I guess.... so we wait for Brasil

[Tzk]

this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work

the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr

the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm

I'm sorry, but i fail to see why your point would interfere with the rule i mentioned. Of course you got some piping behind the sensor which is filled with fuel but (iirc) the allowed volume is limited and doesn't count as catchtank.

I also disagree on your point regarding the max flow. If the allowed maximum flow is 100kg/h, then you simply can't inject more fuel on a single injector. Well, technically you could if you somehow trick the sensor, but this would apply as a procedure or system to bypass the limit and is thus illegal. Of course this would mean that you can effectively raise the limit of the injected fuel per ignition by simply injecting longer.

No it doesn’t jamming (or modifying) a signal about the flow measurement is totally not included in above quoted rule. That is just about increasing the flow rate. They are not doing that, they use the normal system, they just obscure measurements about that. And likely with deniability. Electrical interference, just bad luck for us. If, in fact that is true of course,

So your point is that the "bad luck" of wrong readings (or simply no valid readings) is NOT a system or procedure to raise the fuel flow beyond the allowed limit? Also: don't you think that the FIA will get suspicious if this happens too often? I read about 2K measurements per second (2000Hz). If you need extra power on a long straight, you'll have to discard thousands of datapoints AND you'll see a difference on the speedtrace of the car. That's way too obvious...

Why do you say that. Ferrari has been running the higher DF levels rear wing all season. They have ran, and are running most DF of all top teams. That didn't suddenly change.

IF this is the case, why is Ferrari deas slow in slow and medium-fast corners and lightning-fast on straights? And exactly the opposite for merc, they're fast in corners and slow on the straights.

Conclusion: Ferrari runs less drag than Merc. Assuming that aero efficiency of these two is similar, Merc MUST run more downforce.

[saviour stivala]

So where is this loss in delta speed in the straights in the USA GP?

In US GP FERRARI 0.4s faster than Mercedes on the straights, and 0.6s faster than RBR. And in corners was on par with those two cars.

So according to you (correct me if I am wrong, please) in US GP Ferrari was on par to Mercedes and RB in corners and faster on the straights? If so how it seems impossible that Ferrari did not take pole!!!

By how much did FERRARI missed pole? yes FERRARI was on par.