Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[nzjrs]

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..

There is a pretty good discussion on the sensor used, including details on its operation (from the manufacturer) and a discussion of the mechanisms of cheating it, assuming knowledge of its filtering and sampling strategy, about 15 pages back in this thread.

[ncx]

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..

Yes, they use time-of-flight, as well as temperature (I guess Doppler effect is unusable in this case because, tmk, it would need the presence of particulate within the liquid). And yes, the measurements are made at about 2.2kHz frequency, which has been at the basis of some conjectures in this forum not long ago. Here is a description of the FFM from racecar-engineering.com, in an interview with the director of Sentronics, the F1 supplier:

《Located at either end of a thin tube are two piezoelectric transducers. These are effectively ceramic discs, suspended in a fuel resistant housing, which convert electrical energy into ultrasound pulses. In principle, a pulse is sent from one transducer to the other, in the direction of flow. This is then followed by another pulse sent back to the original transducer in the opposite direction. With the distance between transducers known, the time of flight of both pulses is measured and then subtracted to determine the velocity. As the tube diameter is also known, the flow rate of the fuel can be easily calculated. [...] One problem with ultrasonic flow measurement is its fundamental principle is volumetric, this means to calculate mass flow accurately a density measurement is required. [...], the best option at present is to calculate density using a very accurate temperature measurement and calculate density based on fuel samples which have had the density properties very accurately measured under laboriatory conditions. [...] Once the temperature of the fuel has been identified, the necessary look-up is performed and mass flow rate is calculated, which is the final figure all the engineers are after. [...] Acoustic energy takes time to decay away, less time between measurements means you need techniques and algorithms to deal with any unwanted ultrasonic signals that have not had time to fully decay. Our patented technology allows us to achieve highly accurate time of flight measurements even with all these interfering signals being present.’》

[PlatinumZealot]

It definitely seems like they've lost something. They are still fast in a straight line, so clearly still have some horses, but they are not tenths up on a single straight like they were earlier in the season. You'd have expected them to smash everyone down the long straight(s) at Yas, but it's not really happened.

Actually.. They gained half a second on the straights but lost 6 tenths in the slow speed..

[holeindalip]

The fuel quantity issue could have been as simple as they normally drain the tank after parc ferme and add race load and maybe someone forgot to drain the tank and added the race load on top of it giving the odd 4.88kg

[dans79]

The fuel quantity issue could have been as simple as they normally drain the tank after parc ferme and add race load and maybe someone forgot to drain the tank and added the race load on top of it giving the odd 4.88kg

If they had 4.88kg left in the tank after qualifying, then someone screwed up and should be punished because that cost Charles lap time in qualifying. Charles was only 0.080s off Max, so that extra fuel could have easily cost Charles starting P2.

[wickedz50]

The fuel quantity issue could have been as simple as they normally drain the tank after parc ferme and add race load and maybe someone forgot to drain the tank and added the race load on top of it giving the odd 4.88kg

If they had 4.88kg left in the tank after qualifying, then someone screwed up and should be punished because that cost Charles lap time in qualifying. Charles was only 0.080s off Max, so that extra fuel could have easily cost Charles starting P2.

If I remember Charles could not do his second run in Q3 , so is it that the extra fuel was for his final run?

[zibby43]

Potential bombshell from Mark Hughes:

"The total fuel load allowed (110kg) was not breached. But the inference is that in deceiving the FIA into how much fuel is actually being used, they could have been disguising a telltale (ie greater fuel consumption) of a banned use of fuel flow meter since TD35 in Austin. So they could effectively be implying, 'Look, we still have the power advantage, so that fuel flow meter ruse couldn't have been what we were doing.' Rivals suspect that IS what they had been doing and since TD35 they have maintained the power advantage only through using more fuel than declared. That way that it doesn't look night/day different pre and post TD35. Not gaining an advantage per se, but just making their pre-TD35 power advantage look less suspicious (to the FIA and by extension to the other teams).

Each track will always have an optimum point of trade-off between the greater power you can use from getting closer to the 110kg maximum and the extra weight that imposes (5kg would theoretically impose an extra circa 4s over the race at an average track. If the extra power you could use from that extra 5kg is more than 4s-worth of extra power, then you'd use it). But if you were disguising how heavy your fuel consumption was, you'd accept a less than optimum trade-off between the power and the weight."

You can find this statement from Hughes in the comments.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... rix-report

[dans79]

The fuel quantity issue could have been as simple as they normally drain the tank after parc ferme and add race load and maybe someone forgot to drain the tank and added the race load on top of it giving the odd 4.88kg

If they had 4.88kg left in the tank after qualifying, then someone screwed up and should be punished because that cost Charles lap time in qualifying. Charles was only 0.080s off Max, so that extra fuel could have easily cost Charles starting P2.

If I remember Charles could not do his second run in Q3 , so is it that the extra fuel was for his final run?

Some but not all. He did an out and in lap, but not a hot lap.

We know the fuel flow rate is limited to 100 kg/h above 10,500 RPM and we know Charles did a 1:35.219 on his first q3 lap. Thus with some simple math we can calculate the theoretical maximum amount of fuel he could use for a hot to be 2.64 kg.

4.88 - 2.64 = 2.24kg

In reality the fuel usage is most likely substantially below 2.64 kg, because the ICE is not above 10,500rpm for an entire lap, nor is the driver at full throttle for the entire lap.

[dans79]

This makes no sense to me.

Even if they under declared, the flow meter is still tracking how much fuel was actually used. Thus to actually use the extra fuel they didn't declare would still require them to trick the flow meter.

Potential bombshell from Mark Hughes:

"The total fuel load allowed (110kg) was not breached. But the inference is that in deceiving the FIA into how much fuel is actually being used, they could have been disguising a telltale (ie greater fuel consumption) of a banned use of fuel flow meter since TD35 in Austin. So they could effectively be implying, 'Look, we still have the power advantage, so that fuel flow meter ruse couldn't have been what we were doing.' Rivals suspect that IS what they had been doing and since TD35 they have maintained the power advantage only through using more fuel than declared. That way that it doesn't look night/day different pre and post TD35. Not gaining an advantage per se, but just making their pre-TD35 power advantage look less suspicious (to the FIA and by extension to the other teams).

Each track will always have an optimum point of trade-off between the greater power you can use from getting closer to the 110kg maximum and the extra weight that imposes (5kg would theoretically impose an extra circa 4s over the race at an average track. If the extra power you could use from that extra 5kg is more than 4s-worth of extra power, then you'd use it). But if you were disguising how heavy your fuel consumption was, you'd accept a less than optimum trade-off between the power and the weight."

You can find this statement from Hughes in the comments.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... rix-report

[Maplesoup]

This makes no sense to me.

Even if they under declared, the flow meter is still tracking how much fuel was actually used. Thus to actually use the extra fuel they didn't declare would still require them to trick the flow meter.

Fuel flow meters don't measure the overall amount of fuel being used. It measures the fuel flow every 100m/s or so to ensure they don't attempt to push more fuel from the tank to the engine than is allowed. They could compile this information to get an overall estimate but it would be just an estimate.

The new fuel flow meter is apparently going to consistently track the fuel flow in real time so this would be able to give a much more accurate figure for the amount used. If they could track it then they wouldn't of pumped all the fuel out of the car to check how much was left.

[Just_a_fan]

So to summarise the situation: Ferrari appear to have been caught cheating but no one quite knows how the cheat works, not even the FIA. And so they were wrist slapped for a minor offence and the FIA are working hard to stop them doing it in the future.

[zibby43]

This makes no sense to me.

Even if they under declared, the flow meter is still tracking how much fuel was actually used. Thus to actually use the extra fuel they didn't declare would still require them to trick the flow meter.

Fuel flow meters don't measure the overall amount of fuel being used. It measures the fuel flow every 100m/s or so to ensure they don't attempt to push more fuel from the tank to the engine than is allowed. They could compile this information to get an overall estimate but it would be just an estimate.

The new fuel flow meter is apparently going to consistently track the fuel flow in real time so this would be able to give a much more accurate figure for the amount used. If they could track it then they wouldn't of pumped all the fuel out of the car to check how much was left.

Exactly. The former issue was dealing with the permitted rate between intervals - as opposed to the precise total amount used.

If Ferrari were tricking the fuel rate sensor before the TD, rivals are now suggesting that Ferrari are trying to obscure any power lost as a result of not exceeding the rate by legally using more fuel (but still under the maximum of 110kg). And rivals aren't saying that now, post-TD, that Ferrari are using more than allowed, but more than they usually would run. It's an elaborate smokescreen to try to imply that their power advantage hasn't completely disappeared and they were never in violation of the fuel flow rate regulations in the first place.

[MtthsMlw]

This makes no sense to me.

Even if they under declared, the flow meter is still tracking how much fuel was actually used. Thus to actually use the extra fuel they didn't declare would still require them to trick the flow meter.

Fuel flow meters don't measure the overall amount of fuel being used. It measures the fuel flow every 100m/s or so to ensure they don't attempt to push more fuel from the tank to the engine than is allowed. They could compile this information to get an overall estimate but it would be just an estimate.

The new fuel flow meter is apparently going to consistently track the fuel flow in real time so this would be able to give a much more accurate figure for the amount used. If they could track it then they wouldn't of pumped all the fuel out of the car to check how much was left.

Exactly. The former issue was dealing with the permitted rate between intervals - as opposed to the precise total amount used.

If Ferrari were tricking the fuel rate sensor before the TD, rivals are now suggesting that Ferrari are trying to obscure any power lost as a result of not exceeding the rate by legally using more fuel (but still under the maximum of 110kg).

This would surely help in the race but in Qualifying? AFAIK the power boost was only seen there, advantage in the race is mostly due to less drag.

[zibby43]

Fuel flow meters don't measure the overall amount of fuel being used. It measures the fuel flow every 100m/s or so to ensure they don't attempt to push more fuel from the tank to the engine than is allowed. They could compile this information to get an overall estimate but it would be just an estimate.

The new fuel flow meter is apparently going to consistently track the fuel flow in real time so this would be able to give a much more accurate figure for the amount used. If they could track it then they wouldn't of pumped all the fuel out of the car to check how much was left.

Exactly. The former issue was dealing with the permitted rate between intervals - as opposed to the precise total amount used.

If Ferrari were tricking the fuel rate sensor before the TD, rivals are now suggesting that Ferrari are trying to obscure any power lost as a result of not exceeding the rate by legally using more fuel (but still under the maximum of 110kg).

This would surely help in the race but in Qualifying? AFAIK the power boost was only seen there, advantage in the race is mostly due to less drag.

There was still a pretty good power advantage on display during the races, pre-TD. Some impressive defending at Spa, Monza, and impressive pace at Sochi as well. I mean, there were occasions where Hamilton was in DRS range and powerless to do anything with it. That was pretty mighty prowess.

The following is one of the better explanations I've seen (via u/AP):

Take, for example, 2 sea level tracks. Singapore and Abu Dhabi. Pre-TD and post-TD.

Sector times, Q3 Singapore: https://i.imgur.com/uvaCpXs.png

Ferrari; 2 tenths quicker on the sectors with the straights and equaling RB's and Merc's slow speed sector times.

Sector times Q3, Abu Dhabi: https://i.imgur.com/rOKQEL7.jpg

Only 1 tenth faster then RB and Merc on the INSANELY long straights, and a whopping 8 tenths slower on the slow corner sectors.

The Abu Dhabi performance looks like Ferrari took off the massive additional amounts of downforce they had been running so it didn't look as fishy being 0.5 seconds slower with the same downforce package.

[henry]

This makes no sense to me.

Even if they under declared, the flow meter is still tracking how much fuel was actually used. Thus to actually use the extra fuel they didn't declare would still require them to trick the flow meter.

Fuel flow meters don't measure the overall amount of fuel being used. It measures the fuel flow every 100m/s or so to ensure they don't attempt to push more fuel from the tank to the engine than is allowed. They could compile this information to get an overall estimate but it would be just an estimate.

How do you think they monitor the 110kg limit?

My understanding is that they have always integrated the FFS readings over the course of the race . The TD at the beginning of the year allows them to validate the FFS estimate using the pre-race declared fuel weight and post race weighing.