Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[NL_Fer]

I have a question that hopefully one of the resident engine gurus could answer (GG, Mudflap, wuzak, dans, etc)

With all the furore surrounding the recent TD and the possible affects it had on the Ferrari PU and specifically on the measurement of fuel flow, what would likely be the maximum/optimum fuel flow in the ICE`s that Formula 1 is using at the moment?
Obviously as the engine is limited to 1.6 litres, the rpm is also limited and the amount of fuel allowed to be used per race is limited there must be a theoretical cut off point [efficiency accounted for]. Why do we have a need for the fuel flow sensor/meter. Couldn`t they just say, you have x amount of fuel for the race [with x litres left at the end for testing], use that how you see fit...

Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?

Cheers,

p.s. I don`t think this is how Ferrari have a better PU, I still think they have a better MGUH system than anyone else!

Without A fuel flow limit, teams could increase the turbopressure to double or tripple boost and increase the flow accordingly. Easy power.

[Phil]

As I also explained to Phill, I have no doubt you can design a device capable of sending out the pulses and get that part exactly right. What I am doubting is the interference will go down exactly as planned. Because you don't want readings above 100kg/h. You don't want suspiciously low readings either. The reading have to correspond with where you are on the track. The fuel flow sensor is not developed for outside EM control (again, the other side is that the shielding will not be exactly great either).

I fear i am finally making sense of our misunderstanding Turbo:

If i (now) understand you correctly, you are suggesting an interference device that manipulates the readings in a way it can hit an exact range, that is very specific, not too high, not too low and thus argued that that required level of precision is far fetched.

I completely agree.

But i dont think this would be necessary. If *i* were to build such a device, i’d simply find away to make the readings produce an error result.

E.g. disturb so high, that the sensor will not get a reading for that specific instance/interval. Think of it of a sensor that can only measure up to a certain specified threshold. Everything above and the reading fails.

In a whole batch of millions of readings, this might not actually be all that suspicious if the data is smoothed and across the smoothing period is within the limits that the FIA confine. In fact, they might not even see it in their logs.

Think of it as a temperature sensor that can measure between -20 deg and +60. Below and above, the sensor will just produce a NULL value (or NaN or whatever). A program developed to make sense of this data will simply ignore that gap and smooth it out. To some degree, i’d expect a fuel sensor or any other sensor to do the same. The last thing you’d want, is to be alarmed by a small percentage of erroneous readings/gaps if it’s absolutely normal.

Obviously, if you’d do it often enough (e.g. throughout the season, on slow laps as well as fast ones), it might just be shrugged off as a regularity. Well, right until then when a competitor comes out with a proof-of-concept of a method/device that does exactly that.

[Gatecrasher]

If the sensors are indeed Ultrasonic adding an ultrasonic transducer close by would not be too difficult and could influence the measurements. If caught it would be hard to explain.

[saviour stivala]

Further to “the part of the fuel system called all in the fuel tank”,

Do you think there is no way to modulate significantly the fuel flow into the FFM by means of devices that are inconspicuous enough to pass scrutiny?

"The part of the fuel system called all in the fuel tank" explains how that part of the fuel system works. "The part of the fuel system called all on the engine" explains how that part of that fuel system works. As to what I think, which of course will only be my personal opinion. If a formula one team of the caliber, capability and experience of RBR says that the fuel flow sensor/meter can be made to show a false reading other than the actual fuel flow that passes through it. Only a fool will not believe RBR. I also 'think', which of course is only my personal opinion. that if the fuel flow sensor/meter is made to show a false reading other than the actual fuel flow that passes through it. only a fool will believe that the FIA will not be able to notice that with all the controlling means they have.

[nzjrs]

If the sensors are indeed Ultrasonic adding an ultrasonic transducer close by would not be too difficult and could influence the measurements. If caught it would be hard to explain.

The data sheet of the homologated sensor and a discussion of noise sources is a couple of pages back.

[saviour stivala]

Ones again, it is my personal opinion that. Regardless if the fuel flow sensor/meter is reading the actual real fuel flow passing through it or not. All fuel supplied to the injectors including its pressure and temperature, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger. Which means the FIA with the tools at her disposal cannot miss any excess fuel being used over and above what it stipulates in its rules.

[nzjrs]

Ones again, it is my personal opinion that. Regardless if the fuel flow sensor/meter is reading the actual real fuel flow passing through it or not. All fuel supplied to the injectors including its pressure and temperature, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger. Which means the FIA with the tools at her disposal cannot miss any excess fuel being used over and above what it stipulates in its rules.

Maybe, but if 'cheating' is fractions of a percent and you are going to make or evaluate a claim, then you will primarily trust the homologated sensor. Its all and always about the tolerances.

[saviour stivala]

Agree that it’s all about tolerances as everything have a tolerance, so it will all be down if one is within specified tolerances or not.
But let’s keep to the ability or lack of it the FIA being able to police their stipulated fuel flow rules with the tools and means at their disposal.
I mentioned that all fuel flow through the injectors the final point of the flow system including the fuel pressure and temperature goes through the FIA data logger.
In 2014 at the very first race the RBR car was disqualified for using more fuel flow than stipulated. The argument that ensued: the FIA was saying that their homologated fuel flow meter reading showed the car used more fuel flow than what is permitted. While RBR was saying that their data logging of fuel flow through the injectors showed they were within the limits permitted. All this verifies what I said, that final fuel flow through the injectors can finally be logged and verified. At that time RBR lost the plot completely after it transpired that the RBR fuel flow meter was actually tempered by RBR.

[KeiKo403]

It is cheating. The rules state that you can't use a procedure/system/device to raise the actual fuel flow above the stated limit of 100kg/h. If you use a system to jam the sensors signal, then you clearly violate that rule.

Note that while the flow uses an hour as base you can't assume that you can use 90kg in 1min and the rest of the 100kg/h in the remaining 59mins. You could even convert the number to grams per second (it's ~28g/s). It doesn't work this way and any engineer you ask should agree on this.

yes i see what you mean but it could be a legendary grey area, a bit. they only have 105kg so over 1.5 hours their rate has to be less than 100kg/hr, on average. A rate is always an average, it's a mass over a period of time which is not infinitely small. However small you slice there's a period and the regs don't say what it is. if it's 1/2000s then they needed to say so.

it does depend what they've done, if anything, and it's probably illegal, but there might be enough of a defence to save them from it being a flat cheat. I don't know. it does seem to be rather clever

I had previously mulled this one over in my head. The conclusion I came to was it can't be a grey area otherwise cars would speed in the pit lane, surely?

They're stationary for a couple of seconds and also don't travel 60km in there nor do they spend 1hr in there during the race.

Happy to be corrected if that isn't how it works.

[izzy]

I had previously mulled this one over in my head. The conclusion I came to was it can't be a grey area otherwise cars would speed in the pit lane, surely?

They're stationary for a couple of seconds and also don't travel 60km in there nor do they spend 1hr in there during the race.

Happy to be corrected if that isn't how it works.

i suppose on speed they all have a consensus about a sensible timebase, whereas on this fuel flow it's relatively new. Tho yes the grey would be a fairly dark, charcoal grey at best . but it might've been enough to avoid being DQ'd, before, whereas now with the TD there's no way out

so now we're all watching to see if there's a difference, and then if there is we can each see it as naughty or terrible, as usual. Personally i like the cleverness of it so much i'm inclined to see it as naughty

[MtthsMlw]

It is cheating. The rules state that you can't use a procedure/system/device to raise the actual fuel flow above the stated limit of 100kg/h. If you use a system to jam the sensors signal, then you clearly violate that rule.

Note that while the flow uses an hour as base you can't assume that you can use 90kg in 1min and the rest of the 100kg/h in the remaining 59mins. You could even convert the number to grams per second (it's ~28g/s). It doesn't work this way and any engineer you ask should agree on this.

yes i see what you mean but it could be a legendary grey area, a bit. they only have 105kg so over 1.5 hours their rate has to be less than 100kg/hr, on average. A rate is always an average, it's a mass over a period of time which is not infinitely small. However small you slice there's a period and the regs don't say what it is. if it's 1/2000s then they needed to say so.

it does depend what they've done, if anything, and it's probably illegal, but there might be enough of a defence to save them from it being a flat cheat. I don't know. it does seem to be rather clever

The 100kg/h fuel flow is instantaneous, not really an average. Meaning you can't compensate for going over it and then staying below it for some time. If you meant that.
The 1/2000s was for the measurement intervalls, time between each is not measured.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... all fuel flow through the injectors the final point of the flow system including the fuel pressure and temperature goes through the FIA data logger.
.... final fuel flow through the injectors can finally be logged and verified....

this is not true

the final fuel flow can be estimated this way
this isn't fuel flow unless the actual injectors actual flow in response to the actual signals is actually measured
measured with what ? ...
an FIA-calibrated ultrasonic fuel flow meter - every car should have one !!

or should the FIA own a stock of injectors and issue them to the teams for each event ?
and mandate the signals given to the injectors to assist control ?
(5 injection episodes per cylinder per cycle are currently allowed afaik)


and with thanks ...
timebase is the right word
the timebase must be at least 1 ICE cycle (2 revs)
within lesser timebases the fuel rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
so fuel accumulation is allowed - but only within this timebase ?

[Phil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for doing such a high interval is to get a more exact reading of the interval that you want to be checking and enforcing. I find it hard to believe that a "spike" (especially if that spike is way over or under the allowed and could be a false reading) that happens once in a 1/2000th would be deemed punishable.

So lets say the enforcement interval is every 10th of a second, I'd still want to get a reading at a much higher interval to smooth out and prevent any normal spikes from delivering a wrong average.

A large interval also increases the resolution and the precision of the data, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's being enforced at that level of frequency that the sensor can read?

Is it public knowledge over what period the FIA enforces the fuel flow limit?

[izzy]

The 100kg/h fuel flow is instantaneous, not really an average. Meaning you can't compensate for going over it and then staying below it for some time. If you meant that.
The 1/2000s was for the measurement intervalls, time between each is not measured.

well yes but if they were somehow fixing the measurement to be 1/4 cycle out, that misses the top and bottom of the reading doesn't it. Like a sampling frequency basically, and instead of recording the full waveform it's taking its samples at part way values. Still at 2kHz, but offset

so if they'd been caught, before the TD, they could've said something, feeble but perhaps enough to get off the DQ hook, about using <100kg/hr with some timebase, as whatever the frequency sampling means averaging, fundamentally

[turbof1]

I am locking down the topic for a moment to get some cleaning going on. I stated multiple times this is not moral thread. We had a very great, technical discussion going without any assumption, accusations, bias or emotional riffraff going towards Ferrari. I am seeing that now some people like to pull that focus away and towards a mud throwing contest.

Anything coming from the media going into this topic has to be TECHNICAL. It has to contain details about software, hardware, procedures, whatever. It cannot be baseless accusations quoted from F1 people.

EDIT: reopened. Please keep discussion down to hypotheses and conjecture based on the hardware and regulations (and how to possibly break and/or circumventthe regulations). Media spatouts from team personel are controversal juicy bits, but for any tech savvy out here, the juicy bits are the technical debates!