Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[enri_the_red]

...
Is this varying temperature actually taken into account? I don't know.
If yes, where is this temperature measurement taken? I don't know.
...

The FFM has two temperature sensors with an accuracy better than 0.15 °C; the temperature is then used to get the fuel density from a lookup table or a temperature-density equation. The lookup table (or temperature density equation) and other calibration parameters are loaded into the sensor by a third party calibration company (Calibra Technology).

[Mrdobolina]

...
Is this varying temperature actually taken into account? I don't know.
If yes, where is this temperature measurement taken? I don't know.
...

The FFM has two temperature sensors with an accuracy better than 0.15 °C; the temperature is then used to get the fuel density from a lookup table or a temperature-density equation. The lookup table (or temperature density equation) and other calibration parameters are loaded into the sensor by a third party calibration company (Calibra Technology).

Interesting. Do you know where the temperature sensors are located? Right before the flow sensor?

[Mr.G]

...
Is this varying temperature actually taken into account? I don't know.
If yes, where is this temperature measurement taken? I don't know.
...

The FFM has two temperature sensors with an accuracy better than 0.15 °C; the temperature is then used to get the fuel density from a lookup table or a temperature-density equation. The lookup table (or temperature density equation) and other calibration parameters are loaded into the sensor by a third party calibration company (Calibra Technology).

Interesting. Do you know where the temperature sensors are located? Right before the flow sensor?

I would said inside...

[enri_the_red]

I don't know the exact location of the temperature sensors in the flow meters that are currently used (Sentronics FS-100-02), but in the old ones (Gill 4142) they where at the fuel inlet and outlet.

[f1jcw]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14850 ... nst-rivals

Really

Really

They’re using the ‘reliability’ work excuse

[LM10]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14850 ... nst-rivals

Really

Really

They’re using the ‘reliability’ work excuse

There is no reason for any excuses yet. Only testing happened. Let's wait for real races.

[dxpetrov]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14850 ... nst-rivals

Really

Really

They’re using the ‘reliability’ work excuse

There is no reason for any excuses yet. Only testing happened. Let's wait for real races.

No, it just means they have to follow the Book this year and make it legal.

[JordanMugen]

No, it just means they have to follow the Book this year and make it legal.

There is no suggestion the previous power unit had any "illegal" items though.

Mattia Binotto says:

I think in terms of overall performance on the power and the engine, we are not as strong as we were last year. We were somehow focused on our reliability and that is somehow compromising eventually the performance.

https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... g/4705943/

It's very curious that Ferrari's power unit development has led them down a path where their new power unit is less powerful than their old power unit! How odd!?

Unless Binotto is using deliberate misdirection, and the 2020 power unit brings the usual year-on-year increases in performance.

[toraabe]

They had to. Their old power unit was certainly even less powerful than the new one Now all the power units are delivering around the same amount of power. Fair

[Owen.C93]

Maybe being excluded from race results counts as a reliability failure.

[LM10]

Excerpt:

Ferrari did not redo the engine with a new project from scratch, but it evolved the unit criticized last year: the 065 will be in Melbourne with fifteen more horses thanks to a more pushed hybrid strategy that should lead to savings in gasoline and with a view to the future in a reduction of emissions.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... i/4706362/

[63l8qrrfy6]

Maybe this can shed a bit of light:


The way I see it FIA is to blame for multiple reasons.
First off, they are the ones who have to decide if something is legal or not. It can't be 50/50. Whether it goes against Ferrari or not, they need to call it.

Secondly, the way this was handled is just poor - trying to bury the press release late on Friday and issuing a muddled, incoherent statement. This lack of transparency is what is causing accusations to fly their way.

Lastly, and this might be slightly controversial, I believe the FIA has been deliberately doing a bit of subtle, behind the scenes BOP (I am fairly certain they do this in other series so there isn't really any reason why they wouldn't do it in F1). It is possible that FIA left a few doors ajar for whichever teams might have needed to do a bit better, however Ferrari went a bit overboard. Now they can't be punished since they were given the nod so all they get is a slap on the wrist.

[gruntguru]

There is room for the FIA to rule a system as illegal but not a deliberate infringement of the existing rules - ie a "loophole". The FIA can then block further use of the system and modify the rules to close the loophole. I assume Ferrari were able to negotiate to get the FIA to take this stance rather than declare a deliberate violation with the usual penalties and embarrassment.

[OO7]

There is room for the FIA to rule a system as illegal but not a deliberate infringement of the existing rules - ie a "loophole". The FIA can then block further use of the system and modify the rules to close the loophole. I assume Ferrari were able to negotiate to get the FIA to take this stance rather than declare a deliberate violation with the usual penalties and embarrassment.

Are teams ever punished under such circumstances though?

[63l8qrrfy6]

I agree, but then one would expect a new and very specific rule (rather than the recent "tricking the FFM is prohibited") which hasn't surfaced yet.