FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[timbo]

So, if true, what does it tell about the fuel system? If I understand the idea correctly, the fuel pump must produce pulses of pressure at a frequency somewhat higher than half the sample rate of the FFM, right?
Is it normal to have a pulsing fuel pump?
Or could it be that just below the 100 kg/hr the fuel line begins to operate like an organ pipe, providing high-frequency flow instability that could trick the system? Is it even possible to tune a system like that?
Also, what factors may prevent FIA from understanding how the system works or verifying whether such a system is indeed in place? It seems they should have a good idea of how it should work if they could provide specs for the new generation of the sensors.
Or it was a disclosure of the information by Ferrari, which is a part of a settlement?

[Capharol]

Guys pat your self on the back for proposing using a feedback loop from the sensor and metering pulses of fuel at a high frequency than the meter sample rate. "ailiasing trick". This was what was suspected by RedBull and seemed to what Ferrari was allegedly doing.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/03/16/how ... ing-trick/

so if this should be true .... they cheated, i mean really cheated, not just bending a rule...

[PlatinumZealot]

Guys pat your self on the back for proposing using a feedback loop from the sensor and metering pulses of fuel at a high frequency than the meter sample rate. "ailiasing trick". This was what was suspected by RedBull and seemed to what Ferrari was allegedly doing.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/03/16/how ... ing-trick/

so if this should be true .... they cheated, i mean really cheated, not just bending a rule...

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

[Capharol]

Guys pat your self on the back for proposing using a feedback loop from the sensor and metering pulses of fuel at a high frequency than the meter sample rate. "ailiasing trick". This was what was suspected by RedBull and seemed to what Ferrari was allegedly doing.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/03/16/how ... ing-trick/

so if this should be true .... they cheated, i mean really cheated, not just bending a rule...

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

true although its said numbers never lies

thatts why i said "if this should be true"

[izzy]

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

the thing is, isn't it, what would've happened if FIA had come out and said the obvious: "we had to get our sensor maker to come up with a hack-proof version, as Ferrari hacked it"? That's obviously what the situation was, and could FIA have said "it's not really cheating"?

They couldn't, realistically, either say that or give the proper punishment, so all they could say was... "well ... we're not sayin"

Anyway luckily they didn't win too much with it and by the sound of it John has smoothed it over with Ola and it won't happen again, quelle surprise they have all this drag and reliability now, so i think it's not a problem now personally

[timbo]

Guys pat your self on the back for proposing using a feedback loop from the sensor and metering pulses of fuel at a high frequency than the meter sample rate. "ailiasing trick". This was what was suspected by RedBull and seemed to what Ferrari was allegedly doing.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/03/16/how ... ing-trick/

so if this should be true .... they cheated, i mean really cheated, not just bending a rule...

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

As quoted many times in this thread, the rules forbid any "device, system or procedure" which results in the increase of the flow rate or storage of fuel. So I guess FIA was unable to verify if the flow rate was increased. Or maybe there is a debate about what constitutes "device, system or procedure".

[saviour stivala]

"metered fuel flow from tank to engine". ;- Controlled/measured fuel flow, in other words, transferring the proper amount of fuel to the air going to the engine. The FIA fuel flow meter does no such things. The new mandated fuel flow meter is the same one as used before and does the same exact job, with the difference of its readings being only known to the FIA. "One theory held that FERRARI had developed a system known as 'aliasing'. It is what it is exactly called:- (ONE THEORY OF MANY PUSHED-OUT).

[dans79]

"metered fuel flow from tank to engine". ;- Controlled/measured fuel flow, in other words, transferring the proper amount of fuel to the air going to the engine. The FIA fuel flow meter does no such things. The new mandated fuel flow meter is the same one as used before and does the same exact job, with the difference of its readings being only known to the FIA. "One theory held that FERRARI had developed a system known as 'aliasing'. It is what it is exactly called:- (ONE THEORY OF MANY PUSHED-OUT).

Are you trying to make a point with this post? It kind of reads like several random thoughts strung together in haste.

[saviour stivala]

The point that only the likes of Collantine and Rencken can come up with. visit and read including their printed fuel system.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

the thing is, isn't it, what would've happened if FIA had come out and said the obvious: "we had to get our sensor maker to come up with a hack-proof version, as Ferrari hacked it"? That's obviously what the situation was, and could FIA have said "it's not really cheating"?

They couldn't, realistically, either say that or give the proper punishment, so all they could say was... "well ... we're not sayin"

Anyway luckily they didn't win too much with it and by the sound of it John has smoothed it over with Ola and it won't happen again, quelle surprise they have all this drag and reliability now, so i think it's not a problem now personally

It's not hacking.

I read it that they are taking the raw flow meter signal which they were allowed to access it seems, and feeding that signal into their control device. The control device pulses the flow of the fuel at an increased frequency a tiny bit, within a small window, when the flow is in a safe margin for example a flow of 95kg/hr, then checks the signal from the flow meter, and adjusts the frequncy and phase of pulses just right until it knows a portion of the pulse is in the "blind spot" of the flow meter, or "in between the steps" of the readings. It then knows it is now safe to increase the amplitude of the pulses and thus inject a tiny extra amount of fuel.

Notice here that they don't have to go over 100kg/hr to consume more fuel than is indicated. This is good because it won't set off any alarms.

I think this is not breaking the rules, it is taking advtantage that is not in the spirit of the rules.

[PlatinumZealot]

As quoted many times in this thread, the rules forbid any "device, system or procedure" which results in the increase of the flow rate or storage of fuel. So I guess FIA was unable to verify if the flow rate was increased. Or maybe there is a debate about what constitutes "device, system or procedure".

I take it as, i have a radar detector, or a friend up the road, to find where the police are waiting to measure the speed of my car. I break the speed limits, until I detect the police coming up and I slow down before they get to measure my speed. The police have no submissible proof that I broke the law.

[3jawchuck]

Why would this do this if they were staying within the fuel flow limits?

[holeindalip]

It's not really cheating though.. Your measurement is only as accurate as the ruler you use... hehe

And let's not forget we don't know for sure I Ferrari had been doing this.

the thing is, isn't it, what would've happened if FIA had come out and said the obvious: "we had to get our sensor maker to come up with a hack-proof version, as Ferrari hacked it"? That's obviously what the situation was, and could FIA have said "it's not really cheating"?

They couldn't, realistically, either say that or give the proper punishment, so all they could say was... "well ... we're not sayin"

Anyway luckily they didn't win too much with it and by the sound of it John has smoothed it over with Ola and it won't happen again, quelle surprise they have all this drag and reliability now, so i think it's not a problem now personally

It's not hacking.

I read it that they are taking the raw flow meter signal which they were allowed to access it seems, and feeding that signal into their control device. The control device pulses the flow of the fuel at an increased frequency a tiny bit, within a small window, when the flow is in a safe margin for example a flow of 95kg/hr, then checks the signal from the flow meter, and adjusts the frequncy and phase of pulses just right until it knows a portion of the pulse is in the "blind spot" of the flow meter, or "in between the steps" of the readings. It then knows it is now safe to increase the amplitude of the pulses and thus inject a tiny extra amount of fuel.

Notice here that they don't have to go over 100kg/hr to consume more fuel than is indicated. This is good because it won't set off any alarms.

I think this is not breaking the rules, it is taking advtantage that is not in the spirit of the rules.

Actually feel quite sad for Ferrari, injecting more fuel than is allowed and never really slapped Mercedes around. If they race this year I see the pink Mercedes hounding then all year imo...

[dans79]

It's not hacking.

I read it that they are taking the raw flow meter signal which they were allowed to access it seems, and feeding that signal into their control device. The control device pulses the flow of the fuel at an increased frequency a tiny bit, within a small window, when the flow is in a safe margin for example a flow of 95kg/hr, then checks the signal from the flow meter, and adjusts the frequncy and phase of pulses just right until it knows a portion of the pulse is in the "blind spot" of the flow meter, or "in between the steps" of the readings. It then knows it is now safe to increase the amplitude of the pulses and thus inject a tiny extra amount of fuel.

Notice here that they don't have to go over 100kg/hr to consume more fuel than is indicated. This is good because it won't set off any alarms.

I think this is not breaking the rules, it is taking advtantage that is not in the spirit of the rules.

Call it whatever you like, but if that is what they are doing, then that is definitely against the rules.

[timbo]

As quoted many times in this thread, the rules forbid any "device, system or procedure" which results in the increase of the flow rate or storage of fuel. So I guess FIA was unable to verify if the flow rate was increased. Or maybe there is a debate about what constitutes "device, system or procedure".

I take it as, i have a radar detector, or a friend up the road, to find where the police are waiting to measure the speed of my car. I break the speed limits, until I detect the police coming up and I slow down before they get to measure my speed. The police have no submissible proof that I broke the law.

This would be the situation if there would not be that particular rule. The way I read it -- having a radar detector is illegal. This is a different situation to the flexible bodywork situation, which was closer to way you describe.