Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[LM10]

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

I've told that from the beginning already. Ferrari was the slowest car at the last corner among the top teams, but it still had a massive speed advantage at the finish line (gained on just 120 meters).

[saviour stivala]

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

The only fuel that is stored between the high pressure mechanical pump and the injectors is what is allowed by the rules inside the fuel rails.

[Phil]

I gave it some more thought in light of an upcoming article.

The whole impression made by the community now, the one where it is claimed that Ferrari sends electronic interference into the fuel flow sensor, is frankly bollocks. I am sure this has been hit already, but can you imagine what that requires?

-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?

If that was the case, we would not be talking about Ferrari potentially cheating. We'd be talking about Ferrari signing their multi billion contract with the military for their new EMP stealth device that can be confused for accidental interference.

If something out of the Technical Directive did put a curve on Ferrari's performance, big if, it has to be in the other 2 questions RBR asked.

When the car is hobling, vibrating and cornering...? You mean under which the entire car and all its electronics already operate and have been since the last decade?

No disrespect Turbo, but what is your technical knowledge on what you call “bollocks”? Do you have any technical background on the sensors the FIA uses, how they are supposedly protected, in what kind of margins and tolerances they operate to know how such a device could be fooled and how difficult it would be within the context of F1 being a multi billion venture for most?

IMO, those details of the workings of the sensor would NOT be public knowledge - it would be daft to share it, as it would give a team basically a free invitation to try to cheat/manipulate the system.

Also, interference doesnt necessarily imply manipulation. Would a team be disqualified if the FIAs own supplied sensor failed throughout the race and they had no means to know if a car would be then exploiting that? No, because the team wouldnt know the sensor failed and would have to assume at all times that its working and to not risk disqualification. However, if someone were to be purposely interfere and causing more failed readings, but within margin, perhaps the FIA would assume all is correct and concentrate on the readings they have to draw conclusions from. Either way, we couldnt know, because i dont expect the FIA to come out and say “oh we have many failed readings”, let us take a look. They’ll just come and look...

[LM10]

Ferrari team chef Mattia Binotto just on his 50. birthday felt being pushed into the corner. He dismissed all allegations:

These comments are very disappointing and bad for the sport. One should be more careful with the statements. Seb narrowly missed the pole on Saturday and Charles had to miss the third session and drive with an older engine. The problems in race had nothing to do with the engine. We just could not find a grip. I think some people just drew the wrong conclusions.

Binotto asserted that Ferrari had not changed anything on the engine or the engine settings after the publication of the Technical Directive.

We did not even read the TD correctly. It had zero impact on our performance in the race.

Leclerc called Verstappens comments a joke:

Max has no idea. He is not part of this team so he can not know anything.

Vettel did not comment. Only a contemptuous gesture shows what he thought.

Source: Out of an article on AMuS.

[turbof1]

No disrespect Turbo...

But you are being disrespectful. If you want to question my technical knowledge, then let us close down this thread because 75% of the participants don't have a technical background. No? Good. Prove me wrong by all means, but don't make a scene about whether or not someone has the appropiate background. Especially given you are ill informed yourself:

Would a team be disqualified if the FIAs own supplied sensor failed throughout the race and they had no means to know if a car would be then exploiting that? No, because the team wouldnt know the sensor failed and would have to assume at all times that its working and to not risk disqualification.

This has been explained to death back in 2014. If and only if the official fuel sensor fails, there is a backup in place that makes use of the team's sensors. There is no DSQ involved should a sensor fail. Also, a team is never held responsible for instance being underweight if damage is unintentionally done to the car. You are just throwing a tangent on purpose to avoid discussing the content and trying to undermine my credibility. That is in my book HIGHLY disrespectful.

That will be the only thing I will have to say regarding technical knowledge. There will be no discussion on that further, not from me or you. I don't want to hear your retort, I don't want to hear any apology. You are refraining from this behaviour from now on. I hope I am abundantly clear on this.

Again, debate and disagree with the content all you want, no issue with that.

[RZS10]

Just from a logical standpoint ... if that solution would not be feasible at all - why would RBR have it clarified? If it was so far out of reach for an F1 team what would make RBR believe that Ferrari is doing it, thus trying to stop them from doing it via TD?

(That is ofc with the assumption that there was no misrepresentation of what actually was in the TD or what the hypothetical system RBR came up with would/could do)

[63l8qrrfy6]

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.

I think there's a more practical way of doing it (obviously I am arguing purely for the sake of it and because I find it interesting - I am in no way implying that any team does it).

One could simply "calibrate" the pumps by running the engine at a known operating point (let's say 95 kg/h) and then just slightly tune the phase angle. Adjusting the phase angle in one direction would cause an increase in FFM measurement (even though the operating point and hence real fuel flow is unchanged) while going the other way would cause the reading to decrease. Such calibration could probably be built into a closed loop control system that ensures the frequency and phase never drift too far.

This way all that is really required is that the real fuel flow rate is very well mapped for the entire range of engine operating conditions which isn't such an unlikely proposition.

There's also multiple ways of creating the 2kHz pulses - abrupt diameter changes, PRV flutter, etc but I proposed the electrical gear pump since it offers the simplest way of controlling the phase angle.

[james187]

I am wondering if it is technically possible to bypass the fuel flow measurement. Reading through fuel flow measurement specifications from my understanding if you introduce fuel pulses faster than 25Hz you will bypass the low pass Butterworth filter. I assume you could do this with a special fuel pump that applies pulses via an electric solenoid.

[turbof1]

Just from a logical standpoint ... if that solution would not be feasible at all - why would RBR have it clarified? If it was so far out of reach for an F1 team what would make RBR believe that Ferrari is doing it, thus trying to stop them from doing it via TD?

(That is ofc with the assumption that there was no misrepresentation of what actually was in the TD)

That is a good question. And RBR probably did suspect this was a possibility. In my opinion, it is far fetched and I feel this is more about RBR trying to systematic touch and feel several things to see if it impacts Ferrari. But I can be wrong on that. Me saying something bollocks is and remains just my personal opinion, nothing more.

[RZS10]

True ... they might be flinging sh!te at the wall trying to see what sticks

[63l8qrrfy6]

And another thing - generating high frequency signals at specific phase angles is the basis of active vibration control used successfully in helicopters, cars etc. This is most definitely not some bogus techno babble or some purely academic experiment that only worked in a lab.

[dans79]

I gave it some more thought in light of an upcoming article.

The whole impression made by the community now, the one where it is claimed that Ferrari sends electronic interference into the fuel flow sensor, is frankly bollocks. I am sure this has been hit already, but can you imagine what that requires?

-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?

If that was the case, we would not be talking about Ferrari potentially cheating. We'd be talking about Ferrari signing their multi billion contract with the military for their new EMP stealth device that can be confused for accidental interference.

If something out of the Technical Directive did put a curve on Ferrari's performance, big if, it has to be in the other 2 questions RBR asked.

So let me get this right, you think it would be difficult/impossible for any f1 team with hundreds of engineers on staff and for all intensive purposes unlimited budgets to develop a devise that generates EM interference at 2khz?

If that's what you are trying to say, then please share specifically what you think wold be overly difficult. Personally, I think if any team wanted to do so they could fairly easily, and I would be happy to debate how they might.

[turbof1]

Personally, I think if any team wanted to do so they could fairly easily, and I would be happy to debate how they might.

Then by all means debate? I am open to change my mind on that, provided a decent explanation. Again, a solution that is both working 100% consistent and can be passed as accdental interference. The sensor does have little to no shielding, being optimized for extremely low weight, so you do have that in favour of the theory.

[dans79]

Personally, I think if any team wanted to do so they could fairly easily, and I would be happy to debate how they might.

Then by all means debate? I am open to change my mind on that, provided a decent explanation

You are the one that said the concept is bollocks, what do you think is bollocks?

[turbof1]

Personally, I think if any team wanted to do so they could fairly easily, and I would be happy to debate how they might.

Then by all means debate? I am open to change my mind on that, provided a decent explanation

You are the one that said the concept is bollocks, what do you think is bollocks?

I already outlined my opinion on that in the post you quoted. If you want to debate, debate. But don't try to goad me purposely into a faulty statement . You'll have to work for that .