Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[jumpingfish]

Will teams carry more than 110 kgs of fuel if only 110 kgs are allowed? I mean for 115kg they should create the fuel tank volume = 164.286litres (if 1 Litre equals ~0.7kg gasoline) instead of 157.143l for 110kg. Extra tank volume requires extra space in car and also extra weight will slow them down.

[henry]

Let us not confuse peak power with average power. Having 5kg more on board will not result in a performance gain in the highest engine mode; it will however allow to use the higher modes more often.

That’s not the issue. If all they were doing was carrying more fuel in order to run higher modes longer, who cares? There would be no need to declare it because, so long as they didn’t use more than 110kg in the race it’s perfectly allowable.

The issue is that the sum fuel_at_fill - fuel_after_race is checked against the FFS calculation of the same number. If you misdeclare the fuel_at_fill and you can run some extra fuel past the FFS undetected you can gain some extra power.

I don’t think that’s what was happening but it’s why the TD is there.

[henry]

Will teams carry more than 110 kgs of fuel if only 110 kgs are allowed? I mean for 115kg they should create the fuel tank volume = 164.286litres (if 1 Litre equals ~0.7kg gasoline) instead of 157.143l for 110kg. Extra tank volume requires extra space in car and also extra weight will slow them down.

The limit is not on fuel tank capacity it’s on fuel consumed in the race.

If they wanted to use 110kg in the race, any race, they would need to carry extra fuel for installation laps, lap to the grid and the formation lap plus the cool down lap and a mandated amount for FIA analysis.

The design decision is then based on an estimation of the maximum fuel likely to be used at any circuit plus an estimation of the fuel needed for the other procedures and flavoured by the actual density of the likely fuel formulations and the predicted ambient temperature at each circuit.

[turbof1]

Let us not confuse peak power with average power. Having 5kg more on board will not result in a performance gain in the highest engine mode; it will however allow to use the higher modes more often.

That’s not the issue. If all they were doing was carrying more fuel in order to run higher modes longer, who cares? There would be no need to declare it because, so long as they didn’t use more than 110kg in the race it’s perfectly allowable.

The issue is that the sum fuel_at_fill - fuel_after_race is checked against the FFS calculation of the same number. If you misdeclare the fuel_at_fill and you can run some extra fuel past the FFS undetected you can gain some extra power.

I don’t think that’s what was happening but it’s why the TD is there.

Isn't the car getting a (random) fuel check the same way by draining the whole fuel out of the car, after the race? Also, teams need to keep a 1l sample for after the race.

I mean in theory that is possible, but that would also require tricking the FFS. Knowing you can be selected for a random check, that seems for me taking too much risk for the reward. So yeah, I am agreeing with you that I neither think this is happening. Just Ferrari shooting themselves in the foot in a time that they really should avoid doing just that.

EDIT: just getting a bit deeper on the random scrutiny:
-Fuel has to be declared at the latest 2 hours before the race. However, the fuel is allowed to be entered at the latest 1 hour before the race.At that point chilling is no longer allowed.

-Cars get randomly selected for scrutiny after this. The procedure involves a specific weighted set of tyres. First the car with the fuel in the car will be weighted. Then, the car will drained of fuel. The fuel pump will be activated to make sure everything goes to the collector. An additional check will be made to be sure nothing is left in the car.

-The car will then be weighted for its dry weight. One last weighting is done afterwards with the fuel being put back in.

-Afterwards, the fuel hatch and QuicK Disconnect are being sealed off.

-This same whole procedure can be done AFTER the race as well. Not necessarily with the same car, although in Ferrari's case this will have been done.

So anything tampering with the FFS can be discovered this way.

[saviour stivala]

A technical directive is a notice to teams of how somethings has been interpreted by the FIA regarding the regulations. However, it is not a binding rule under the sporting or technical regulations. As a result FERRARI’s transgression was deemed a breach of FIA’S international sporting Gode. Namely article 12.1.1.I.
The amount of fuel put into FERRARI car 16 or any other car for that matter is not known because the amount (over and above or under the stipulated ‘110 kg’ race lights-out to flag used) put into a car being a free chose of the teams is irrelevant to the subject (is a free chose).
TD/014/19 require teams to declare the amount of fuel that they intend to put in the car for race before it leaves the garage. The maximum fuel flow, the maximum race fuel load and the fuel flow sensor has nothing to do with the above.

[richardn]

Also if you've got a way of getting more fuel in than seen by the ffs (ensuring samples are taken in troughs), you can also presumably get it to over read as well by ensuring the fuel peaks coincide with samples (obviously at lower throttle settings.)

My take is that if there was a trick being used, it was being used sparingly for qualification where they could hide any extra fuel use with the warm up and cool down laps. If you were systematically over using fuel and under reporting, you'd be caught out.

I wonder if they fuelled Vettel more heavily (older engine etc.) and accidentally put his values down against LeClerc's car. Would explain Vettel suddenly being told to save fuel.

EDIT: Scrub the last bit. Brain fade unless they filled LeClerc's car with the amount they intended to put into Vettel's car....

[turbof1]

A technical directive is a notice to teams of how somethings has been interpreted by the FIA regarding the regulations. However, it is not a binding rule under the sporting or technical regulations. As a result FERRARI’s transgression was deemed a breach of FIA’S international sporting Gode. Namely article 12.1.1.I.
The amount of fuel put into FERRARI car 16 or any other car for that matter is not known because the amount (over and above or under the stipulated ‘110 kg’ race lights-out to flag used) put into a car being a free chose of the teams is irrelevant to the subject (is a free chose).
TD/014/19 require teams to declare the amount of fuel that they intend to put in the car for race before it leaves the garage. The maximum fuel flow, the maximum race fuel load and the fuel flow sensor has nothing to do with the above.

I beg to differ on this. While yes, a technical directive reflects the opinion of the FIA, viewing it as none-binding is not smart. Red Bull already proved this in 2014, when they exceeded fuel flow because they argued the official FFS did not work properly and used their own calculations, stating too the technical directive was not binding. The reality is that the technical directive is reflected on a regulation and therefore not following the directive results is a breach of said regulation.

In this case no specific technical or sporting regulation was connected to the directive, but the sporting code 12.1.1.I. acts as a catch all rule.

Therefore trying to argue a Technical Directive is an opinion is a mood point, especially since it is the opinion of the regulator. That same regulator is never going to say "oh yeah, it's just an opinion. Don't mind us.".

[saviour stivala]

Also if you've got a way of getting more fuel in than seen by the ffs (ensuring samples are taken in troughs), you can also presumably get it to over read as well by ensuring the fuel peaks coincide with samples (obviously at lower throttle settings.)

My take is that if there was a trick being used, it was being used sparingly for qualification where they could hide any extra fuel use with the warm up and cool down laps. If you were systematically over using fuel and under reporting, you'd be caught out.

I wonder if they fuelled Vettel more heavily (older engine etc.) and accidentally put his values down against LeClerc's car. Would explain Vettel suddenly being told to save fuel.

EDIT: Scrub the last bit. Brain fade unless they filled LeClerc's car with the amount they intended to put into Vettel's car....

Telemetry data shows “fuel mass flow limit (100 kg/h) on each lap of the race as well as the maximum mass fuel load for the race used. Magnussen lost points at 2018 USGP for race fuel load use by using 0.1 kg too much on the last lap of the race. Ocon lost points at the same GP for using over the 100 kg/h fuel flow rate over only first lap of the race.

[saviour stivala]

@TURBU F1. After re-reading my post I noticed that it was incomplete. So here is what was intended to be posted.
The stewards said that FERRARI had breached a technical directive (TD/014/19) on Leclerc’s car. Which is a notice to teams of how somethings has been interpreted by the FIA regarding the regulations. However, “it is not a ‘binding’ rule under the sporting or technical regulations", as a result, FERRARI’S transgression was deemed a breach of the FIA’S international sporting Gode, namely, article 12.1.1.i which states “failure to follow the instructions of the relevant officials for the safe and orderly conduct of the event” this triggered a 50k Euro fine, but there is no sporting penalty.

[subcritical71]

5kg extra used used during WOT through the race would be in the ballpark of 40kW.

Which is on par for the after summer power boost that was seen.

Indeed. However it does rather require the opportunity to burn the fuel at the increased and undetectable rate. If, for instance there were a safety car or two, reducing the overall WOT time, there would be more fuel left at the end and a discrepancy between it and the FFS based sum.

I think finger trouble is a more likely cause than conspiracy.

I also think it was some sort of human error in the measuring or reporting. Too many variables to get just right to consistently skirt the rules.

[Capharol]

Which is on par for the after summer power boost that was seen.

Indeed. However it does rather require the opportunity to burn the fuel at the increased and undetectable rate. If, for instance there were a safety car or two, reducing the overall WOT time, there would be more fuel left at the end and a discrepancy between it and the FFS based sum.

I think finger trouble is a more likely cause than conspiracy.

I also think it was some sort of human error in the measuring or reporting. Too many variables to get just right to consistently skirt the rules.

then tell me ho can it be human error by the numbers that was dectected (if i am correct 4,88Kg) this number is strange if it was a solid number like 5kg or 7kg i could understand it but 4,88....it's a odd number

[siskue2005]

Indeed. However it does rather require the opportunity to burn the fuel at the increased and undetectable rate. If, for instance there were a safety car or two, reducing the overall WOT time, there would be more fuel left at the end and a discrepancy between it and the FFS based sum.

I think finger trouble is a more likely cause than conspiracy.

I also think it was some sort of human error in the measuring or reporting. Too many variables to get just right to consistently skirt the rules.

then tell me ho can it be human error by the numbers that was dectected (if i am correct 4,88Kg) this number is strange if it was a solid number like 5kg or 7kg i could understand it but 4,88....it's a odd number

Yup, that number seems odd

[nzjrs]

then tell me ho can it be human error by the numbers that was dectected (if i am correct 4,88Kg) this number is strange if it was a solid number like 5kg or 7kg i could understand it but 4,88....it's a odd number

Yup, that number seems odd

This is silly evidence in both directions. However, to take the most charitable interpretation of this point, the 4.88 was the error. If you believe this was a lazy human, such a human could write 105 "a nice human value", which would yield a "non human" 4.88 error if the true weight was 109.88. But the 'humanness' of a number is still silly evidence.

[subcritical71]

I also think it was some sort of human error in the measuring or reporting. Too many variables to get just right to consistently skirt the rules.

then tell me ho can it be human error by the numbers that was dectected (if i am correct 4,88Kg) this number is strange if it was a solid number like 5kg or 7kg i could understand it but 4,88....it's a odd number

Yup, that number seems odd

You are looking at the final number and not what process/procedure was used to get to the final number. What if the error was the wrong density for the fuel, for example, using the density in the engineers notes for the previous spec fuel

[richardn]

Also if you've got a way of getting more fuel in than seen by the ffs (ensuring samples are taken in troughs), you can also presumably get it to over read as well by ensuring the fuel peaks coincide with samples (obviously at lower throttle settings.)

My take is that if there was a trick being used, it was being used sparingly for qualification where they could hide any extra fuel use with the warm up and cool down laps. If you were systematically over using fuel and under reporting, you'd be caught out.

I wonder if they fuelled Vettel more heavily (older engine etc.) and accidentally put his values down against LeClerc's car. Would explain Vettel suddenly being told to save fuel.

EDIT: Scrub the last bit. Brain fade unless they filled LeClerc's car with the amount they intended to put into Vettel's car....

Telemetry data shows “fuel mass flow limit (100 kg/h) on each lap of the race as well as the maximum mass fuel load for the race used. Magnussen lost points at 2018 USGP for race fuel load use by using 0.1 kg too much on the last lap of the race. Ocon lost points at the same GP for using over the 100 kg/h fuel flow rate over only first lap of the race.

Except that the telemetry data is actually showing a series of discrete fuel flow measurement samples which are being extrapolated to show the fuel flow rate per lap.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ultr ... d_495.html

My understanding is that they use time of flight fuel flow metering rather than doppler effect which could measure continuously but would need to be calibrated to the precise properties of the fuel..