Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

.....the description is not a "blacklist", but rather a "white list" of compounds that are permitted. Only 1% of compounds outside of the list are permitted....

it's not a list of compounds that are permitted

it's a list of broad chemical classification 'family' names each of which covers typically hundreds of different compounds
just as road fuel contains worldwide c. 10000 different compounds most of which haven't been isolated and evaluated as fuels

eg isooctane and octane are regardable as chemically identical compounds but are wildly different as fuels
isooctane has an octane number of 100 but octane has an octane number of minus 6
similarly with isooctane and triptane - triptane's ON is off the clock

[timbo]

.....the description is not a "blacklist", but rather a "white list" of compounds that are permitted. Only 1% of compounds outside of the list are permitted....

it's not a list of compounds that are permitted

it's a list of broad chemical classification 'family' names each of which covers typically hundreds of different compounds
just as road fuel contains worldwide c. 10000 different compounds most of which haven't been isolated and evaluated as fuels

eg isooctane and octane are regardable as chemically identical compounds but are wildly different as fuels
isooctane has an octane number of 100 but octane has an octane number of minus 6
similarly with isooctane and triptane - triptane's ON is off the clock

Well, yes, it can be called a white list of groups of compounds, but the point is in the fuel, or blend of fuels which follow the description in the rules, there is (virtually) no possibility for "funny" chemistry.

By "funny" I mean chemical reactions between components of, say, fuel blend A and fuel blend B, which would produce new compounds (akin to how bi-component chemical weapons work).

The compound families described in the list are not very reactive, and there is very little space (only 5 mg/L of metals) for the inclusion of catalyst.

[xavier]

What if they had two fuels that don't mix (like oil and water don't mix), with a higher density fuel at the bottom of the tank. Since the density is higher, it tricks the FFM calibrated for the lighter fuel and it allows more mass flow. The heavier fuel gets burned first and the lighter fuel remains for inspection.

[timbo]

What if they had two fuels that don't mix (like oil and water don't mix), with a higher density fuel at the bottom of the tank. Since the density is higher, it tricks the FFM calibrated for the lighter fuel and it allows more mass flow. The heavier fuel gets burned first and the lighter fuel remains for inspection.

Pretty much impossible within the chemistry permitted by the rules. Out of liquids immiscible with petrol, only methanol makes any sense, but the amount of methanol one can add before exceeding the permitted oxygen content in the fuel is only about 7%.
Also, with all the sloshing happening in the tank, the fuel will be in the form of the fine emulsion on the fuel pump inlet.

[Mr.G]

What if they had two fuels that don't mix (like oil and water don't mix), with a higher density fuel at the bottom of the tank. Since the density is higher, it tricks the FFM calibrated for the lighter fuel and it allows more mass flow. The heavier fuel gets burned first and the lighter fuel remains for inspection.

Interesting idea, but this would only work for "static" application. During the race, it would mix together. Eventually, it would separate again but will need some time...

[PlatinumZealot]

So doing a tiny bitbif research on these flow meters and the speed of sound..

The FIA, if they hire the appropriate experts, should be able to measure the speeds of sound, possibly DENSITYin the declared fuels and mixtures of them as they flow through the meter. This is possible because the flow meters have that function. The accuracy of this function is of course something else to find out.

When mixing two fluids it is possible that density and speed of sound properties will change. This change can be tabulated. It is hoewer affected by inter molecule associations or molecule dissociations depending on temperature and pressure.

FIA can tabulate this.. But have they bothered to?


Fuel A - density of FIA lower limit
Fuel B - density of FIA upper limit

92% of Fuel A, 8% Fuel B.
New density if for example is 103% more dense than fuel A.

Fuel B was used in practice and qualifying.

Declare fuel A for the race.

Declare 95kg total fuel for the race.

Need 95kg for the race.

Ad 4% extra fuel A. (cheating volume)

Fuel tank..

10kg Fuel B, 94kg Fuel A.

The flow meter only registers at the the denser volume..


Counter point..
If FIA put the right personel in place they can measure the desnity of the fuel "in-situ."
They can measure the speed of spound too.

[timbo]

The FIA, if they hire the appropriate experts, should be able to measure the speeds of sound, possibly DENSITYin the declared fuels and mixtures of them as they flow through the meter. This is possible because the flow meters have that function. The accuracy of this function is of course something else to find out.

They can do all of this before the race using something like Anton Paar DMA 5000.

It is hoewer affected by inter molecule associations or molecule dissociations depending on temperature and pressure.

Once again, within the chemistry permitted by the regs (i.e., mostly hydrocarbon fuel, with only small amount of oxygen and nitrogen-containing compounds, and even less metals) the different fuel blends will behave close to an ideal solution, which means the properties of say 50/50 m/m mixture is right between the initial fuels.
So I don't know where to gain anything.

The flow meter only registers at the the denser volume..

The flow meters are ultrasonic, they should be able to determine the speed of sound and thus the density, so they should be immune to alterations of density.
If they aren't then I'm sure everybody will be doing this.

If FIA put the right personel in place they can measure the desnity of the fuel "in-situ."
They can measure the speed of spound too.

They take fuel samples after the race. The density and speed of sound measurement is a routine one.

Yeah, and I raised this point before -- if the "trick" involved something to do with the fuel, why the power advantage was only apparent during Q3 and the first lap of the race?

[etusch]

Hope this is not double post

[3jawchuck]

Hope this is not double post
https://youtu.be/LS47125tUzk

It is a multiple repost, but from quite a while ago. So whatever, it's a nice find.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I suppose this is how conspiracy’s are a self fulfilling notion.

Ferrari cheating flow sensor so “more” fuel gets past the flow meter in between measure points.

So they could burn 115kg of fuel but sensor only reads 110kg.

It would make sense though.

Not saying I agree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fuel sensor have nothing to do with this.

I’m saying when you look to tie the two issues together. Question marks over the fuel flow meter being tricked to allowing more flow between the measuring points.

That is going to put fuel consumption very high if Ferrari do this throughout the race so they could well be over fuelling the car for this very reason.

Talking out of my backside as a thought that’s all



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was long reported that Ferrari regularly burned 10kg and more of fuel per race than Merc, which was strange to me as fuel usage is a function of "time on throttle" and Ferrari were clearly down the straights faster than Merc. I chalked it up to less energy dense fuel, but cheating the fuel flow sensor makes much more sense.

Woah, didn't realize I was responding to such an old post.

[PlatinumZealot]

Spec 2 was to be released in Australia. 20hp gain on preseason engine. Still unknown if this spec 2 is more powerful than the 2019 engine though.

[erikejw]

A whistleblower? That is extremally unlikely. That is not how the world works, believe me

It's much more likely that Ferrari got their computer systems hacked. By a third party who vacuums up IP capital all over the world, selling to the highest bidder, darknet style. Who then sold the info to one interested team, that team then claimed an "anonymous" whistle blower who felt guilty sent them the data.

The shortlist of teams is, well, very short. Think engine manufacturers.

That means another McLaren saga, but 10x worse. I guess neither FIA nor the owners want to touch that nuke.

news from Italy.

According to Leo Turrini, and many others, there was a whristleblower in Ferrari giving tech spec to an other team. Then the team gave those infos (under patent..) to the FIA per the protest: if Ferrari would have been claimed guilty, Ferrari could have taken legal action and win just because those infos (under patent) were given to a competitor violating the patent rules and not to the FIA itself.

So the agreement is aimed at protecting Ferrari patents and possible damages to the FIA, for violation of the patents themselves (Ferrari can act legally against FIA, the whristleblower, the team which have contacts with the whristleblower)

2007 McLaren anyone?

[erikejw]

A whistleblower? That is extremally unlikely. That is not how the world works, believe me

It's much more likely that Ferrari got their computer systems hacked. By a third party who vacuums up IP capital all over the world, selling to the highest bidder, darknet style. Who then sold the info to one interested team, that team then claimed an "anonymous" whistle blower who felt guilty sent them the data.

The shortlist of teams is, well, very short. Think engine manufacturers.

That means another McLaren saga, but 10x worse. I guess neither FIA nor the owners want to touch that nuke.

news from Italy.

According to Leo Turrini, and many others, there was a whristleblower in Ferrari giving tech spec to an other team. Then the team gave those infos (under patent..) to the FIA per the protest: if Ferrari would have been claimed guilty, Ferrari could have taken legal action and win just because those infos (under patent) were given to a competitor violating the patent rules and not to the FIA itself.

So the agreement is aimed at protecting Ferrari patents and possible damages to the FIA, for violation of the patents themselves (Ferrari can act legally against FIA, the whristleblower, the team which have contacts with the whristleblower)

2007 McLaren anyone?

[rgava]

I think there is a big misunderstanding on some of the posters here about what a patent means.
To patent something you have to disclose the technical details about what you are patenting.
So there is no such a thing as one "spygate" case related to patents.
What i see a lot more probable is that the whole information leading to the FIA technical arguments to deem the engine illegal was stolen from Ferrari headquarters in some way and can lead to Ferrari counter suing the FIA.

[Just_a_fan]

How can Ferrari sue the FIA for actions that they didn't carry out? If someone steals something from you and gives it to the police, you don't sue the police, do you?