RBR provided several charts and a detailed description/instruction on how to trick the sensor.Red Bulls Analyse beinhaltete fünf Charts und eine präzise Betriebsanleitung, wie man dem Durchflussmengen-Sensor vorgaukeln kann, es würde die erlaubte Benzinmenge die Messstelle passieren, während in Wirklichkeit mehr eingespritzt wird.
Where did you get FP3 from?GhostF1 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 07:02Article is referring to free practice sessions, with most of them being in FP3..which to be honest, that adds more questions.. because FP3 has the race/quali engine fitted and then guess what else happens a few hours post FP3...
That also comfortably answers why it is only Quali they have this significant advantage.
New user here...turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 13:57-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?
From what I gathered, RBR asked 3 questions in total. Only 1 was made public, the one about sending interference into the sensor.
Hello and welcome to the boards!hansdegit wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 14:54New user here...turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 13:57-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?
I'm wondering...Why not just disturb the sending of the samples? I read on forum.verstappen.nl that the device uses the CAN-bus protocol,which is easily jammed.
Being an IT-professional myself, I can imagine that there is no FIA logic in the car that actually checks that there are 2000 samples being received every second of the race. So if you jam the samples that reveil more than 100kg/hr flow rate, then the average still looks ok.
Does this sound silly?
That is unnecessary and not the point. Again, this is not a thread about morality or past naughty moments. This is a purely technical thread where we run hypotheses.saviour stivala wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 14:50Who from all those on the grid could show how to trick the fuel flow sensor better than RBR?.
thank you. I have lurked for almost a year now.
[media]https://www.gillsc.com/products/flow-se ... w-meter-2/[/media]I would not say silly for the theory. However, again we are not just speaking about jamming, but altering the readings. Jammed signals would have been picked up, because how many of those 2000 signals would you have to jam to get any meaningful performance out of that, that makes the risk of getting caught somewhat worthwhile? All the telemetry will have to pass through the FIA's standardized ECU and send to the pitwall and FIA's databanks. That would mean you'd have to put in fake signals throughout the standardized and probably sealed off ECU as well.
Very cool graphics. Thanks for sharing.Gilles27Kimi7 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 15:21Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
https://f1ingenerale.com/f1-power-unit- ... -qualcosa/
Gills does not produce the sensors anymore. The in 2015 formed company SentronicsTM Limited does.hansdegit wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 15:18thank you. I have lurked for almost a year now.
https://www.gillsc.com/products/flow-se ... w-meter-2/I would not say silly for the theory. However, again we are not just speaking about jamming, but altering the readings. Jammed signals would have been picked up, because how many of those 2000 signals would you have to jam to get any meaningful performance out of that, that makes the risk of getting caught somewhat worthwhile? All the telemetry will have to pass through the FIA's standardized ECU and send to the pitwall and FIA's databanks. That would mean you'd have to put in fake signals throughout the standardized and probably sealed off ECU as well.
According to this (outdated) spec sheet, the communication is encrypted which makes it practically impossible to insert fake readings. But I can imagine that jammed signals cannot be interpreted by the ECU and hence are never transmitted to the pitwall and immediately discarded instead.
As long as the number of dropped samples stays within reasonable limits, I see no reason for alarm.
It sounds very simple, and according to Binotto, you'ld have to be very stupid for not doing this
i'd rather assume that the FIA logging system logs actual readings (measured flow + timestamp) instead of an average value. So if you mess with the signal it'll be noted in the datalogs.
So yes, it does sound sillyAny 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.
No it doesn’t jamming (or modifying) a signal about the flow measurement is totally not included in above quoted rule. That is just about increasing the flow rate. They are not doing that, they use the normal system, they just obscure measurements about that. And likely with deniability. Electrical interference, just bad luck for us. If, in fact that is true of course,Tzk wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 15:32i'd rather assume that the FIA logging system logs actual readings (measured flow + timestamp) instead of an average value. So if you mess with the signal it'll be noted in the datalogs.
Also the technical regulations state that such a system is forbidden (article 5.10.5):
So yes, it does sound sillyAny 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.