Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[RZS10]

very off topic but is it rude to comment/correct a very common mistake in idiom usage?

EDIT from Turbo: It is "to goad", not "to goat". Thanks for letting me know.

[gruntguru]

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

Assuming this is accurate:
The Ferrari is hooking-up earlier on corner exit. The power difference is small and contributing very little to the delta.

Is this what you would expect to see if the Ferrari has significantly more power with more DF dialled in? Perhaps.

[LM10]

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

Assuming this is accurate:
The Ferrari is hooking-up earlier on corner exit. The power difference is small and contributing very little to the delta.

Is this what you would expect to see if the Ferrari has significantly more power with more DF dialled in? Perhaps.

You mean it is earlier on throttle because of better traction?

[gruntguru]

Yes.

[wuzak]

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

Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?

[gruntguru]

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

Of course we are talking about a very small quantity of storage (accumulation) at moderately high frequency eg at 10,500 rpm (and assuming one injection pulse per intake event)
- Fuel qty/cylinder = 0.053g
- frequency of injection events = 525 Hz

A very small accumulator on the fuel rail or even the flexibilty of the lines and fuel would be sufficient to damp these fluctuations so they were invisible to the flow sensor. AFAIK the FIA has defined what constitutes acceptable accumulation for these purposes.

[dans79]

I already outlined my opinion on that in the post you quoted.

In my opinion what you outlined is very vague at best.

-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.

2kHz isn't exactly a high frequency or sampling rate. The average cell phone records audio at 48kHz, I have a small $400 consumer grade audio recorder in my closets that capable of 192kHz. If your using a desktop computer the vrms in it uses tiny little PWM controllers that operate at up to ~2MHz.

-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.

I don't even see why this is a point of contention. The car is a rolling computer with hundreds of sensors on it that are all susceptible to the same conditions. We never hear the teams complain that a sensor failed.

-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?

Your assuming that a team would try and hide what they are doing, and that the FIA has the technical know-how to discover what the team is doing.

Oil burning, cold and hot blowing, flexi wings, mass dampers, FRIC, etc pretty much proves the teams can regularly and fairly easily outsmart the FIA. If anything the teams do a far better job of keeping their opponents in-line with requests for rule clarifications, and the threat of protests.

Lets not forget the FIA didn't fit a secondary sensor to the Ferrari last year because it thought something was questionable. It did it, because the other teams started posing questions, stirring up the press, and applying political pressure.

Additionally, you didn't specify if you where referring to interfering with the actual sensor reading, or the transmission of the sensor reading back to the ECU.


and just for some reference to whats possible, here is an article and video about tricking a temperature sensor with an EM wave.
https://news.engin.umich.edu/2019/09/re ... -industry/

The research paper referenced. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.07110.pdf

Think about how this could be useful to say trick the FIA plenum temperature sensor.

If you read the paper you can see how the exploit could be used on almost any type of sensor.

[wuzak]

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

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

Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?

I just realised that feeding the fuel back to the inlet of the high pressure pump is not permitted ("recycling" of fuel).

So the fuel either has to be used or returned to the tank.

[wuzak]

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

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

Of course we are talking about a very small quantity of storage (accumulation) at moderately high frequency eg at 10,500 rpm (and assuming one injection pulse per intake event)
- Fuel qty/cylinder = 0.053g
- frequency of injection events = 525 Hz

A very small accumulator on the fuel rail or even the flexibilty of the lines and fuel would be sufficient to damp these fluctuations so they were invisible to the flow sensor. AFAIK the FIA has defined what constitutes acceptable accumulation for these purposes.

The FIA did put more constraints on the fuel system a couple of years ago, including the possible accumulation of fuel through line flexibility.

[saviour stivala]

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

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

Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?

There is no return of fuel to the fuel tank (return-less fuel injection system).

[saviour stivala]

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

Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?

I just realised that feeding the fuel back to the inlet of the high pressure pump is not permitted ("recycling" of fuel).

So the fuel either has to be used or returned to the tank.

"All fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through the homologated fuel sensor. and must all be delivered to the 'combustion chambers' by the injectors.

[kalinka]

-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?

New user here...

I'm wondering...Why not just disturb the sending of the samples? I read on forum.verstappen.nl that the device uses the CAN-bus protocol,which is easily jammed.
Being an IT-professional myself, I can imagine that there is no FIA logic in the car that actually checks that there are 2000 samples being received every second of the race. So if you jam the samples that reveil more than 100kg/hr flow rate, then the average still looks ok.

Does this sound silly?

CAN is NOT easily jammed. That's exactly why it is so successfull in automotive and industrial applications. I'm working on CAN based systems as a developer for a few years now, and I can say CAN is super robust. You can jam it - very hard without cutting cables -but that doesn't mean that you can insert any data that wasn't there. It will just drop the false data and wait for the next one..but even these errors are recorded and can not pass unnoticed on long term.

[One and Only]

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)

AFAIK Red Bull asked more than one question. It looks to me it was more of a brainstorming session than anything else. As someone pointed out they were probably throwing s..t against the wall to see if something sticks.

[Polite]

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)

AFAIK Red Bull asked more than one question. It looks to me it was more of a brainstorming session than anything else. As someone pointed out they were probably throwing s..t against the wall to see if something sticks.

maybe.. or Mercedes gives them informations on the Ferrari PU (Sassi and Allison... for years now did that, but Mercedes doesnt want to be the one protesting to fia)

rumors from motorsport.it: Honda involved in a spy story, their ICE is a copy of the Ferrari one.. also they tried to cheat on the fuel flow this season, several times, till the RaceDirection asked em to stop (noone here remember the story of the pressure of the injection system? was against Honda.. but everyone here thinking it was for Ferrari )..

[Phil]

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.

Most (many?) of us here are here to learn - me included. I wasn't questioning your technical knowledge, I was asking. I have a lot of respect of you (not because you are a mod, btw) as well as your knowledge and many members of this forum, especially the ones who have been posting in this topic, hence why I was asking it.

My question was directed at your suggestion, that what is claimed that Ferrari have done (built an interference device) would require "military grade" technology and thus this being "bollocks". This made me assume, you have some knowledge in what constitutes military grade sensors and their tolerances and I would have been happy to take your word for it. So no, I wasn't in any way trying to undermine you or your credibility.

Unfortunately, we're all a bunch of people in this topic with a large variation of expertise and knowledge speculating over various topics. Some members post in a tone that suggest more authority and hence, it's easy to assume there's a level of professional expertise or insider know-how behind it. Sometimes, it's obvious speculation. To know or to ask where ones level of expertise is, helps to determine how much weight is behind the suggestion being voiced.


Anyway - as for the sensors: It would be great to know to what tolerances these sensors operate in and how secretive the FIA are about things. Is it a sensor that has a spec, is manufactured by a specific company, perhaps even off-the-shelf where any competitor could gain knowledge on the tolerances, know-how on how it's being measured that then could be used to be exploit? Or are these sensors under top-level-secrecy and the teams can only assume?

Given that RedBull seems to suggest such a device could be built and could be in use by Ferrari makes me think the former, perhaps even to a degree that the sensors are perhaps just not that good in order to prevent manipulation on that level. That's just my take though. It's a very lucrative market and you can never be surprised to what lengths a fierce competitor might be willing to go to exploit the maximum out of the grey areas of the rules.

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if they could be exploiting something like this or not. I just think we can not exclude Ferrari trying things to exploit advantages that may be going against the ethics of the rules.

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.

I wasn't necessarily talking about a fuel sensor failing during the entire period. I was more thinking along the lines of failed reading at the interval point. E.g. there's data there, but the data is wrong. A wrong reading could be logged as a failed reading. Where would the threshold be at which the FIA says, ok, we've had N number of failed readings, something is up? Or would they put it down to what you suggested, e.g. normal activity due to hobling, vibrating car on a bumpy track? I quite frankly have no idea how precise these sensors are, therefore my question regarding the tolerances involved. And when we are talking sensors and electrical appliances, there are always tolerances involved (see the Vettel jump start sensor topic).