Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Mr.G]

Accumulation of fuel is explicitly banned. This would be slam dunk disqualification so you are suggesting that the accumulation device is there but it is disguised or cannot be easily checked when the car is at a stand still.
In this case it would be that FIA cannot prove that it is there. Otherwise it would be a slam-dunk DQ again.

For fuel accumulation they could use Memory Metal.

The other way of cheating the flow meter is using a variable property fuel.

What piqued my interest in the letter is the mention of "Alternative Fuels."

Was Ferrari using a sort of fuel that changes density? or a type of fuel that changes its composition? Hmm.. this could explain why less fuel was left in the tank than expected.

I know the rules, but it's not banned to have fuel line, you also need to have some control over the flow e.g. the control valve and you need also fuel pump. It's legal like DAS is. There is no rule that ban flexible fuel line and there is no restriction (new one is on the way - 2dl) how much fuel can be in the fuel line.

Ferrari will say "We have fuel pump with fixed flow (not exceeding the allowed amount) therefore we need controlling the amount of fuel for ICE with flow valve. To prevent the fuel line to fail/burst we have expendable fuel line."

[Mr.G]

Accumulation of fuel is explicitly banned. This would be slam dunk disqualification so you are suggesting that the accumulation device is there but it is disguised or cannot be easily checked when the car is at a stand still.
In this case it would be that FIA cannot prove that it is there. Otherwise it would be a slam-dunk DQ again.

For fuel accumulation they could use Memory Metal.

The other way of cheating the flow meter is using a variable property fuel.

What piqued my interest in the letter is the mention of "Alternative Fuels."

Was Ferrari using a sort of fuel that changes density? or a type of fuel that changes its composition? Hmm.. this could explain why less fuel was left in the tank than expected.

The only thing i can think of is maybe cooling the fuel using something on the car to give more thermal energy properties, a really cold fuel would be denser- you could push the same 'amount' of fuel but it would be more powerful 'for the same amount' of warm fuel. Maybe you could chargecool the fuel line, dropping its pressure and or even charge cool the pump itself for a gain.. other than that we are taking about chemical properties of the fuel itself and we need a chemist here to tell us about that stuff. Perhaps even introducing a magnetic field (really easy) around the fuel line to activate a property or something....can you pass electricity through fuel to charge ions in the fuel itself?? or can this be done by the maker beforehand..? hmmmmm

This would be fooling the sensor and they would need lay about fuel amount each time... also you need to cool it before fuel sensor so between fuel tank and sensor so very short distance...

[PlatinumZealot]

Now let's hope Mercedes don't find this as is freaking easy...
https://papermodelers.sk:443/download/i ... 88c0b75dfb

It's too trivial and so would have already been though of. Not to mention this sort of accumulation is explicitly not allowed and would presumably easy-ish to find. From the point of view of Ferrari's defense in the statement, I can't imagine valuable intellectual property in an expanding fuel line... (maybe memory metal is cool enough?).

From memory wasn't the first confiscation of Ferrari equipment the 'fuel system', around Austin, and then according to reports concerning this statement, further confiscations were made of more pieces up to and including a whole engine at or after the end of the season? To me this speaks to something quite integrated or more complex than this.

The best cheats or gimmicks in motorsport sometimes don't need to be complex, just subtle enough to be considered designs that exploit a rule... The double diffuser - which needed a hole to put the external starter of the car in the back- total co-incidence or design... its way more subtle than the good old days of filling up your roll cage with nitrous in Group B rallying.... ahhhh those were the days..

I get your point but that wasn't the how the double diffuser loophole worked though

They cut holes in the vertical surfaces of the step plane under the floor leading to a duct above the diffuser. Since the holes were in the vertical plane they were not visible from when looking vertically up from below the car since they would be seen "on edge". The duct on top was like a big cowl around the sides of the gearbox.

Soon the holes in floor evolved to massive gill-like structures with multiple slits for air to channel through. The Renault in particular had a disgustingly huge one. It was a really exciting pace of development in those days!

[Mr.G]

May it be possible to enrich the coolant with some chemical and "leek" it into the intake (in inter cooler) to mix with air-fuel mix?

[Chene_Mostert]

May it be possible to enrich the coolant with some chemical and "leek" it into the intake (in inter cooler) to mix with air-fuel mix?

there is no fuel in intercooler, only air. fuel gets injected at combustion chamber, else fuel metering will be almost impossible.
what could be happening is coolant is leeched into the air stream at interccoler forming an aerosol that can react with fuel inside combustion chamber?

[Mattchu]

The other way of cheating the flow meter is using a variable property fuel.

What piqued my interest in the letter is the mention of "Alternative Fuels."

Was Ferrari using a sort of fuel that changes density? or a type of fuel that changes its composition? Hmm.. this could explain why less fuel was left in the tank than expected.

This is also what I`m leaning towards PZ, I may have to have a word with my guy at Shell to see if he has any titbits of info I still think back to Monza last year when Hamilton was behind Leclerc with DRS wide open and still couldn`t get close!
Also the fact Horner said the Ferrari fuel smelt different, like grapefruit

[PowerandtheGlory]

May it be possible to enrich the coolant with some chemical and "leek" it into the intake (in inter cooler) to mix with air-fuel mix?

there is no fuel in intercooler, only air. fuel gets injected at combustion chamber, else fuel metering will be almost impossible.
what could be happening is coolant is leeched into the air stream at interccoler forming an aerosol that can react with fuel inside combustion chamber?

I think merc and ferrari use chargecooler- so water to air. You could leak water for water injection.. that would be possible

[MtthsMlw]

May it be possible to enrich the coolant with some chemical and "leek" it into the intake (in inter cooler) to mix with air-fuel mix?

there is no fuel in intercooler, only air. fuel gets injected at combustion chamber, else fuel metering will be almost impossible.
what could be happening is coolant is leeched into the air stream at interccoler forming an aerosol that can react with fuel inside combustion chamber?

I think merc and ferrari use chargecooler- so water to air. You could leak water for water injection.. that would be possible

The intercooler uses oil so they say. One theory was that it could 'leak' that.

[Espresso]

.....

What piqued my interest in the letter is the mention of "Alternative Fuels."

Was Ferrari using a sort of fuel that changes density? or a type of fuel that changes its composition? Hmm.. this could explain why less fuel was left in the tank than expected.

Fuel = regulated
Oil = regulated
Cooling Fluid = NOT regulated

[PlatinumZealot]

Alcohol injection?

[Chene_Mostert]

.....

What piqued my interest in the letter is the mention of "Alternative Fuels."

Was Ferrari using a sort of fuel that changes density? or a type of fuel that changes its composition? Hmm.. this could explain why less fuel was left in the tank than expected.

Fuel = regulated
Oil = regulated
Cooling Fluid = NOT regulated

I understand fuel is regulated, but the regulation does not cover "change in properties" of fuel. Only the chemical composition.
The regulation states that a portion of must be "synthetic" what if Shell developed a fuel that contains "natural" proteins that denatured at higher temperatures, like oval albumin or pectin?
This can increase the density of fuel after the FF meter, thus allowing a greater mass of fuel to be stored for a given volume after the FF meter and still comply with the FF rule of 100Kg/h.
There is no cheating the FF meter, and there is no regulation covering this.

[Just_a_fan]

This can increase the density of fuel after the FF meter, thus allowing a greater mass of fuel to be stored for a given volume after the FF meter and still comply with the FF rule of 100Kg/h.
There is no cheating the FF meter, and there is no regulation covering this.

Incorrect. The fuel flow rate is limited to 100kg/hr everywhere in the system. If they store fuel after the FF meter, and then flow more than that rate through the injectors (why else do it?), they are breaking the flow rate limit rule.

If the fuel changes properties in order to change the mass flow rate through the fuel system, then it is also in contravention of the following rule as it is a procedure (and indeed a system):

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.

Basically, anything you do to move more than 100kg/hr through the fuel system is illegal.

[Chene_Mostert]

This can increase the density of fuel after the FF meter, thus allowing a greater mass of fuel to be stored for a given volume after the FF meter and still comply with the FF rule of 100Kg/h.
There is no cheating the FF meter, and there is no regulation covering this.

Incorrect. The fuel flow rate is limited to 100kg/hr everywhere in the system. If they store fuel after the FF meter, and then flow more than that rate through the injectors (why else do it?), they are breaking the flow rate limit rule.

If the fuel changes properties in order to change the mass flow rate through the fuel system, then it is also in contravention of the following rule as it is a procedure (and indeed a system):

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.

Basically, anything you do to move more than 100kg/hr through the fuel system is illegal.

No
FF meter is the only measuring control, injector pulse timing is outside of the FF rate control.
The regulation is written as such.

Max 100Kg/hour @10000rpm. No limit to running 100KG/ hour @8000rpm.
There will always be fuel stored in the rail.
It's just packing more into the same volume by shrinking the space between molecules after the FF meter. 100KG/hour @ FFm will never have to be exceeded.
Regulation acknowledges that there will always be some fuel stored after FF meter.
That's why they stipulate 2dm max volume. But they don't stipulate what mass can be stored in this volume.
It's a simple P1. V1/T1 = P2. V2/T2 equation.

[dren]

Then you run into the issue of the fuel discrepancy in the tank after the race. Whether you accumulate flow after the meter or not, it still at some point saw that mass flow pass thru. A fuel discrepancy leads one to believe the meter was tricked or bypassed.

[Just_a_fan]

Max 100Kg/hour @10000rpm.

No. The 100kg/hr is always the limit.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

No limit to running 100KG/ hour @8000rpm.

Below 10500rpm, a lower limit applies - 77.5kg/hr at 8000rpm

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

If at any time there is more fuel flowing than these limits then the system is illegal. Having fuels that increase density between the fuel flow meter and the injectors (beyond those that must naturally occur due to temperature changes) is illegal as it means that the mass flow is above the limits set by the regulations.