FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[izzy]

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.

well for example malwarebytes defines hacking as "Hacking refers to activities that seek to compromise digital devices, such as computers," so it depends! It was very clever, and alright not actually breaking into the sensor. But we still have my main point which is that FIA didn't wanna come out and say what Ferrari were doing even tho they obviously knew

so I'm not throwing "cheating" around but it was off limits i think, to a point where FIA didn't want to admit to it or that they weren't taking it too seriously, and beyond finding a loophole like DAS or double diffuser or something. It was naughty and secret

[dans79]

so I'm not throwing "cheating" around but it was off limits i think, to a point where FIA didn't want to admit to it or that they weren't taking it too seriously, and beyond finding a loophole like DAS or double diffuser or something. It was naughty and secret

It's not a loop hole, using a system that does this would be a slam dunk cheating conviction as it violates this rule clearly.

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.

The only way Ferrari could escape being penalized, would be if the FIA couldn't prove the system was actually used. This is shades of Benetton 94. The FIA announced that within Beneton's software where illegal systems, but it couldn't prove that the systems had been used, just that they existed and could be activated at any time.

[saviour stivala]

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.

Do you mean that injecting a ‘tiny’ bit more fuel than what is actually allowed will gain a power advantage? And those that don’t will have a power disadvantage? I was under the impression that power will still increase over and above the maximum fuel flow allowed!.

[izzy]

It's not a loop hole, using a system that does this would be a slam dunk cheating conviction as it violates this rule clearly.

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.

The only way Ferrari could escape being penalized, would be if the FIA couldn't prove the system was actually used. This is shades of Benetton 94. The FIA announced that within Beneton's software where illegal systems, but it couldn't prove that the systems had been used, just that they existed and could be activated at any time.

oh, yes that's the article i was vaguely remembering. Yes it would be pretty slam dunk wouldn't it, i don't think a colon to make it all mean only after the sensor would save them, normally. It had to be something that was too bad to catch Ferrari doing, basically, so they didn't, as you say, with it being all tooooo complicated!!

[jumpingfish]

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.

Do you mean that Ferrari in the qualifications supplied fuel in the range from 95kg/h to 100kg/h, but at the same time not exceeding the limit of 100kg/h and the sensor showed a value of 95kg/h? Then what is the point if the rest of the teams can absolutely legally burn 99.99kg without using any equipment?
Or are you talking about calibrating their tool to safely determine the correct frequency of fuel supply so that the sensor does not detect an excess of 100 kg?

[PlatinumZealot]

Yes calibrate it unnoticed at a "safe flow" before turning the wick up.

[bluechris]

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/

Another clickbait article. Great news really.

"The new, second fuel flow meter the FIA has added to Formula 1 cars this year is designed to prevent a trick Ferrari is believed to have used last season."

Who are the people that believes that with what proof? And where is the FIA in this?. FIA said we are suspicious but we didn't find something but media are certain and another round of endless discussion starts.

[Xwang]

I'm wondering if this hypothetical system (we have no proof that it exists at the moment, only rumors) is just to be able to reduce the margin that F1 teams have to keep to be sure that they do not go over the fuel flow limit.
I mean let's say that to be sure that they do not go over the limit, F1 teams set their fuel flow to 99.5 kg/h so that to be sure that in the worst scenario they never go over the 100 kg/h.
Maybe Ferrari's system with the feedback and anti alias permits them to be on average at 99.9 kg/h, because they go at 99.5 at measure time and at 99.95 between them.
In such a case, would it still be a "cheat" as any of you are saying?
I remember something similar, but I was just 13 at that time so I can be wrong, that in 1989 honda managed to more precisely control their turbo pressure just below 2.5 bar so that to avoid the opening of the FIA wastegate valve which had a slower closing speed, obtaining a performance gain.

[SiLo]

I'm pretty sure the cheat is to allow over 100kg/h fuel flow rate. Don't forget, the cars are underfueled quite a lot these days, so putting in up to the 100kg limit might give them 15kg to burn extra above the fuel flow rate for more power for an extended period of time.

[PlatinumZealot]

The cheat also allows them to use power for longer since they can under report the amount of fuel used.

[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/

Another clickbait article. Great news really.

"The new, second fuel flow meter the FIA has added to Formula 1 cars this year is designed to prevent a trick Ferrari is believed to have used last season."

Who are the people that believes that with what proof? And where is the FIA in this?. FIA said we are suspicious but we didn't find something but media are certain and another round of endless discussion starts.

you are pretty selective in your reading right???? you read what you want to read..... its clearly says

"believed to have used last season.

so they aren't saying they have proof, and racefans.net isn't definitly a click & bait site
and the discussion is thanks to FIA because they don't tell the other teams what is business ...

[TAG]

Is it okay to call it a cheat now?

[subcritical71]

Is it okay to call it a cheat now?

Maybe we can just call it the 'suspicious Ferrari PU', as the FIA says.

[bluechris]

No its a cheat because the cousin of the sister of a friend said so to the courier that passed a letter to an old lady.

[toraabe]

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.

As i said a couple of mohnts ago. Pulses out of phase relative to metering pulses