Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Polite]

The second sensor was on the car well past Canada.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... 0/3107583/
not really. sorry.. Fia put the new control system in Canada on Ferrari. Then for all other cars.
also this, https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... rrari-form

You know, those two articles contradict each other.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... 0/3107583/

Contrary to earlier reports, Whiting says no extra sensors were fitted to the Ferraris in Monaco, and instead the FIA had to pursue a more complicated process to check how the system was operating.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... rrari-form

The FIA duly added two sensors to the Ferraris to carefully monitor its energy usage, and was satisfied that the Italian outfit was fully compliant with regulations.

i dont think so.. no contradictions: Monaco gp comes before Canada
1)monaco: start of the software and telemetry checks
2)2 sensors and a new software on ferrari pu: Vettel won listening to the orders by fia to check the pu
3)then all other cars have the 2nd sensor and the new software

[Big Tea]

I recall reading of Ferrari using 'double anchor' fuel injector last year and wondered if there is any way to temporally store a small amount in each body between the 'high' stop and 'low' stop which can be added a particular point for more power at some essential part of the range? This would be fuel which is already passed the measurement point and will be gone by the time it is 'looked for'?

I do not have a downer on Ferrari, just love to see how things are done 'alternatively' by thinking outside the box

[PlatinumZealot]

I recall reading of Ferrari using 'double anchor' fuel injector last year and wondered if there is any way to temporally store a small amount in each body between the 'high' stop and 'low' stop which can be added a particular point for more power at some essential part of the range? This would be fuel which is already passed the measurement point and will be gone by the time it is 'looked for'?

I do not have a downer on Ferrari, just love to see how things are done 'alternatively' by thinking outside the box

Double anchor has been around since TJI days in 2015.

[Big Tea]

I recall reading of Ferrari using 'double anchor' fuel injector last year and wondered if there is any way to temporally store a small amount in each body between the 'high' stop and 'low' stop which can be added a particular point for more power at some essential part of the range? This would be fuel which is already passed the measurement point and will be gone by the time it is 'looked for'?

I do not have a downer on Ferrari, just love to see how things are done 'alternatively' by thinking outside the box

Double anchor has been around since TJI days in 2015.

So (ignorance alert here) does it actually mean there is a space in the injector or that the total volume is not used every time?

[PlatinumZealot]

I recall reading of Ferrari using 'double anchor' fuel injector last year and wondered if there is any way to temporally store a small amount in each body between the 'high' stop and 'low' stop which can be added a particular point for more power at some essential part of the range? This would be fuel which is already passed the measurement point and will be gone by the time it is 'looked for'?

I do not have a downer on Ferrari, just love to see how things are done 'alternatively' by thinking outside the box

Double anchor has been around since TJI days in 2015.

So (ignorance alert here) does it actually mean there is a space in the injector or that the total volume is not used every time?

Yes one could use additional storage chambers in the injectors, but that wouldn't be large enough to make the extra power last down the straight with the extremely limited size of the injectors. This is the thing, whatever accumulation device you can come up with has to last as long as you want that extra fuel for. Say, you need an extra 6kg/hour boost to get the 50hp more for 5 seconds you need about 12cc (2cc storage chamber per injector) of extra volume to store the fuel AND the pressure to push it out all while not increasing the flow in the main line. Maybe one way flow, spring loaded chamber of some sort. But If FIA were to find this chamber it would be a clear breach of the rules!

[saviour stivala]

@NCX. There is no fuel pulses in the fuel passing through the fuel flow meter by the low pressure electrically driven fuel lift pumps as the fuel that passes through the fuel flow meter is fuel at a constant low pressured in the fuel pot. Pot capacity approx 2.5kg/3.0-3.5l.
The following might not concern you, but it might concern others. All fuel that passes through the fuel flow meter must end-up being combusted, which means that regardless of fuel system diagrams shown the F1 system have no excess fuel return to fuel tank (return-less fuel system). The fuel flow meter only measures fuel flow passing through it, it does not control the flow mass passing through it. The flow mass control is controlled by the fuel injection system. Regardless of “it is not true” what goes through the injectors (flow mass) regardless of the mille or Nano seconds and number of injections, including fuel pressure and temperature is logged in data logger.
The ability/capability of the FIA/race control to police the fuel flow as well as the race fuel weight used with the means and tools at their disposal is as near foolproof as could be.
There have been 4 fuel rules infringements that I know of since the start of the new power unit formula. 3 of these fuel flow infringements happened only once on just ‘one part’ of a lap of the whole race, yet they did not escape the FIA/race control monitoring of the fuel rules.
2014 RBR notified several times during the race that they were exceeding the fuel flow limits. RBR argued that according to their data logger their fuel flow through their injectors were within the rules and that they preferred to go by their data logger instead of the fuel flow meter reading. They ended disqualified.
2018 Force India disqualified from eight place in US GP, car was found to have breached fuel flow limit during one part of the opening lap.
2018 Haas disqualified from US GP, car was found to have used more fuel than that allowed (fuel load). The rule breach happened ‘only on the last lap’.
2019 RBR car exceed fuel flow limit in Baku qualifying 1 (over one lap) car was disqualified from qualifying.

Whilst I fully agree with what you are saying, what is to stop a team from inputting incorrect injector flow data (g/ms) in to the ECU? The Data may show compliance with the limit, but only based an a false constant.

"The possibility of inputting incorrect injector flow data (g/ms) in to the ECU?". "Software:-the programs and other operating information used by a computer". In use by formula one teams 'all software' have to be approved by the FIA.

[henry]

@NCX. There is no fuel pulses in the fuel passing through the fuel flow meter by the low pressure electrically driven fuel lift pumps as the fuel that passes through the fuel flow meter is fuel at a constant low pressured in the fuel pot. Pot capacity approx 2.5kg/3.0-3.5l.
.

In the 2021 regulations there is a schematic of the fuel system, §6.6.1.

The sequence is lift pump > collector pot > primer pump > fuel flow sensor. It is the primer pump that would generate any pulses.

So pressure in the collector is not the issue, constant or otherwise.

I cannot comment on what is going to be used in 2021 as I am not privy to the information you posted. These on here conversations/discussions are about the system that is being used at present, A system that have been used from at least the NA 2.4L V8 era, where the 'collector-pot (looks like a soda bottle upside down) is pressurized with fuel (low pressure) by the lift pumps, this low pressure fuel passes through the fuel sensor/meter on its way to the mechanical high pressure pump intake normally driven by an inlet camshaft. this system have no 'primer pump' between collector-pot and fuel flow sensor/meter so there is no pulses through the fuel flow sensor/meter. It is interesting to know that according to you in 2021 by the addition of a 'primer pump' into the system,in between the collector-pot and the fuel flow sensor/meter there is going to be generated pulses through the fuel flow sensor/meter.

The 2021 regs are here https://www.fia.com/file/105636/download/29731.

At a cursory look the PU specs have changed little, but one of the additions is the fuel system schematic. This diagram is necessary because it identifies pipework which is also now prescribed in the 2021 regulations.

My supposition is that this simply brings into the regs controls that are currently identified in TDs.

Can I ask why you think the system is currently as you describe?

[saviour stivala]

In the 2021 regulations there is a schematic of the fuel system, §6.6.1.

The sequence is lift pump > collector pot > primer pump > fuel flow sensor. It is the primer pump that would generate any pulses.

So pressure in the collector is not the issue, constant or otherwise.

I cannot comment on what is going to be used in 2021 as I am not privy to the information you posted. These on here conversations/discussions are about the system that is being used at present, A system that have been used from at least the NA 2.4L V8 era, where the 'collector-pot (looks like a soda bottle upside down) is pressurized with fuel (low pressure) by the lift pumps, this low pressure fuel passes through the fuel sensor/meter on its way to the mechanical high pressure pump intake normally driven by an inlet camshaft. this system have no 'primer pump' between collector-pot and fuel flow sensor/meter so there is no pulses through the fuel flow sensor/meter. It is interesting to know that according to you in 2021 by the addition of a 'primer pump' into the system,in between the collector-pot and the fuel flow sensor/meter there is going to be generated pulses through the fuel flow sensor/meter.

The 2021 regs are here https://www.fia.com/file/105636/download/29731.

At a cursory look the PU specs have changed little, but one of the additions is the fuel system schematic. This diagram is necessary because it identifies pipework which is also now prescribed in the 2021 regulations.

My supposition is that this simply brings into the regs controls that are currently identified in TDs.

Can I ask why you think the system is currently as you describe?

Thanks for the link (2021 regulations) I will have to go through it when I find the time.
The fuel system I described is the system I know that is in use since at least the NA 2.4-litre V8 era. this system does not use any pumps between the collector-pot and the high pressure pump. I also know that since the new hybrid era start Renault was the only manufacturer to have used two high pressure mechanical fuel pumps at least up to 2015/16, each driven by an inlet camshaft and each serving their respective cylinder bank fuel rail. The low pressure fuel pressurized collector-pot system bleeds and eliminates any aeration in the fuel when the fuel in the tank is sloshing about and one or more of the lift-pumps pumping into the collector-pot starts pumping only air.

[zibby43]

According to Red Bull consultant Helmut Marko (76) his team used research largely collected by Mercedes. Dr. Marko to F1-Insider.com: “Mercedes had researched this area, but we had the courage to hand in an official request to the FIA.”

https://f1-insider.com/en/formula1/red- ... des-intel/

[RZS10]

I'm always a bit sceptical when it comes to such articles, especially when no one else reports on it, the only quote is that one single sentence which says "Mercedes researched the area, but we had the courage to ask for clarification" (the original quote was in german, article written by Ralf Bach, the english version is just a translation) - the remainder of the article (that RBR based their formal request on research done by Mercedes) could just as well be their interpretation of that quote, because if they had more than just that one sentence they would put that in quotes, no?

If "Mercedes did a lot of good research in that area and we based our request on their results" would be the quote it would be a very different thing, it would really just leave the question of the credibility of the site it was published on.

But assuming that it is indeed true it would put some of Wolff's quotes into a different light.

[zibby43]

I'm always a bit sceptical when it comes to such articles, especially when no one else reports on it, the only quote is that one single sentence which says "Mercedes researched the area, but we had the courage to ask for clarification" (the original quote was in german, article written by Ralf Bach, the english version is just a translation) - the remainder of the article (that RBR based their formal request on research done by Mercedes) could just as well be their interpretation of that quote, because if they had more than just that one sentence they would put that in quotes, no?

If "Mercedes did a lot of good research in that area and we based our request on their results" would be the quote it would be a very different thing, it would really just leave the question of the credibility of the site it was published on.

But assuming that it is indeed true it would put some of Wolff's quotes into a different light.

I'm skeptical of it because I'm weary of anything that comes out of Helmut Marko's mouth.

I posted it here because I had not seen that information posted anywhere else, which is what made the information interesting. Thought it would make for decent discussion.

All that said, circling back to Marko's quote, a few months ago, Toto Wolff himself said something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "We can replicate what Ferrari is doing from a power output perspective, but not legally."

[NL_Fer]

I remember back in Mexico, there were rumours about Mercedes knowing how the trick is done. But were in doubt to file a request or exploit the area for their own benefit.

[MtthsMlw]

Why did Ferrari vote in favor of the 2021 rules knowing a lot of the fuel system has been standardized, potentially minimizing their chances to play with it?

Also Mark Hughes article on the matter
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ally-going

[loner]

Why did Ferrari vote in favor of the 2021 rules knowing a lot of the fuel system has been standardized, potentially minimizing their chances to play with it?

Also Mark Hughes article on the matter
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ally-going

I’m betting they’re going to be dynamite through sector three at Interlagos.

Mark said it very well and if they indeed will still be explosive in s3 the fuel flow saga will put to an end.
and hide and seek saga will continue

[loner]

this just came out of nowhere
Ferrari: in Brazil Leclerc brings the 2020 engine to debut
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... 0/4594696/