F1technical.net

xpensive wrote:While the key to the 100 Hp advantage...

I can't believe you lot are still gushing over this fantasy 100hp claim

Tim.Wright wrote:

xpensive wrote:While the key to the 100 Hp advantage...

I can't believe you lot are still gushing over this fantasy 100hp claim

What if it becomes obvious at Melbourne Park that the W05's are both walking away with the race putting about as much effort in, as a casual stroll through the park would require?

Tim.Wright wrote:

xpensive wrote:While the key to the 100 Hp advantage...

I can't believe you lot are still gushing over this fantasy 100hp claim

According to an F1T stalwart, the 100 Hp figure was submitted by a journo from within the speciaist press, german at that.

Think about it.

xpensive wrote:@turbof1; There's a dedicated 2014 engine thread for you Mensa-members, this one's for us mediocre wannabees.

richard_leeds wrote:Yikes this thread is getting serious!

Noting that cannot be rectified with a bit of effort straight from the heart, is it Richard?

Imagine a total of 2000 mm fuel-line after the flow-limiter, is there a limit to the length in the rules anyway?

If the id has a nominal 12 mm, it would only take an xpansion to 12.6 (5%) to hide 23 cc, which would boost power with 90 Hp for more than four seconds when you floor it!

Think about it.

other teams will complain, FIA will look at the logs and say: at the pressure/temperature/injector pulsewidth using the injectors XYZ from the approved list the fuel flow was xxx kg/h, that exceeds the fuel flow flow limit and will be disqualified...

They can complain all they like and until their eyes bleed green, but as long as the flow metering device reports nothing more than the 27,8 g/sec, then what?

xpensive wrote:

Tim.Wright wrote:

xpensive wrote:While the key to the 100 Hp advantage...

I can't believe you lot are still gushing over this fantasy 100hp claim

According to an F1T stalwart, the 100 Hp figure was submitted by a journo from within the speciaist press, german at that.

Think about it.

Believe me I have thought about it, I invite you all to do the same. Not with handwaving BS like "what if they blitz everyone in Melbs" but some logical thinking and maybe a few numbers.

1. The prime BS factor here is this is a quote from a journo who has heard some numbers ending "Hp" and has decided its valid to do a comparison based on that. It doesn't matter --- about specialist press or german or whatever. He is just playing chinese whispers and forgetting that:
- Then engines still have 6 months or so more development time on them. What stage are his "comparison engines" at? July 2013? May 2013? are they in a final race-ready configuration?
- Is he talking peak Hp? is the engine connected to a transmission? Is ERS running? What loadcase was the dyno setup to do? Are they numbers from a durability run? A full load run? What brand of dyno? (don't laugh, you want an extra 20hp? use a different dyno).
- HP figures are jealosly guarded for obvious reasons. Anyone within the teams leaking this information will be doing so with a delibrately false value.

2. 100hp is a 12-15% difference which in a fuel flow regulated formula I find very hard to believe.

Think about it.

Gaawd I love this thread, thanx a whole heap rich!

Think about it.

X, I find this quite ironic.
First, in the "how should they police fuel?" times, we had:

xpensive wrote: I don't have a problem with the new 1.6 V6 turbo formula with fuel-flow limit, h*ll, I've been advocating that myself.

It actually went like this:

machin wrote:The only technical issue with a fuel flow limit is ensuring that clever manufacturers don't include some form of "buffer tank" (which could be part of the engine) after the flow restrictor.. i.e. on the straights the engine consumes more than the restrictor allows, so the level in the "buffer tank" goes down, and is topped up, through the restrictor, when engine load is low... i.e. in the corners.

xpensive wrote: This should be easy enough to police, but I can understand your suspicioness. When CART introduced their pop-off valve on the intake side, engine makers made sure there was a venturi right there.

An look now!

xpensive wrote:These kind of rules, such as mass-flow metering, are simply way too tempting to circumvent, quarter of a second of full
fuel-flow after lift-off, 9cc, will be enough to give a 75 Hp boost for two seconds when you are back on the throttle again.
Think about it.

By the way, I think you are quite right. If you cannot stop yourself from looking for ways around it... Think about it!

To add something: How much does a liquid going through a constriction cool down? Where is the temperature of said liquid going to be actually measured? Just one way on hundreds to try...

To the contrary of some esteemed members of this site, I have little problems with admitting to be at fault.

With the statements quoted above, yes, I was way to categorical about those things, I know far better now.

Mea culpa.

do teams have engine specification right now?
i mean, it is hard to design 2014 car without engine details, and could those data leak out to other teams?

xpensive wrote:They can complain all they like and until their eyes bleed green, but as long as the flow metering device reports nothing more than the 27,8 g/sec, then what?

the rules says here will be fuel flow metering at the tank and at the injectors I would assume exceeding the flow at either of them would be breaking the rules, why else would it be in the rules?

xpensive wrote:They can complain all they like and until their eyes bleed green, but as long as the flow metering device reports nothing more than the 27,8 g/sec, then what?

I think a cheating system would be quite easy to spot.

I also think that the system would have to be inspected and approved by the FIA.

The only measure of fuel flow I can find in the Reg's is determined by 5.10.4 and 5.10.5.

5.10.4 - Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

5.10.5 - Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.

So, this seemingly prohibits what is being proposed here.

That by having a fuel supply hose post fuel flow sensor that can significantly exceed the maximum 100kg/hr @500bar fuel flow limit, you can increase the volume of the fuel line post-fuel flow measuring device so that there exists a "reserve" within the post sensor fuel line that can be momentarily utilised to exceed the 100kg/hr @500bar fuel flow limit at the injector.

This is somewhat similar to the Smokey Yunick fuel line trick from NASCAR where he used 3m coils of 5cm fuel line to gain almost 20 litre's extra fuel capacity when they limited the fuel tank size.

Without a specified regulation for the sizing of the fuel supply line it would seem that to adhere to the 100kg/hr and 500bar maximum at the injector flow rate which is measured at the sensor, a fuel system could not use a supply line post sensor that constitutes a "device, system or procedure" (such as the fuel system) as determined by the FIA that allows you to breach 5.10.5 by flowing in excess of 100kg/hr @ 500bar at the injector.

So the question becomes, is a hose that can flow in excess of 100kg/hr @ 500bar maximum pressure constitute a "device, system or procedure" or create a fuel system that in totality breach's 5.10.5?

As Article 5.10 is listed as the "Fuel System", part thereof such as a hose post sensor that forms part of the fuel system that allows you to exceed the maximum fuel flow allowable would likely see the FIA deem that the entire "fuel system" would be illegal as per 5.10.5.

Also under 5.10.1 the regulations determine a list of "approved parts" as below:

5.10.1 - The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may not exceed 500bar. Only approved parts may be used and the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

The Appendix may specify exact diameter and construction specifications for the fuel hose to be used pre and post fuel flow sensor so as to remove the sizing issue of the ability for it to expand under pressure to achieve to same goal.

Perhaps the injector components are such that they cannot exceed the maximum fuel flow rate at the maximum pressure of 500 bar regardless of supply available.

Now, I just need to have a look at this Appendix...

radosav wrote:do teams have engine specification right now?
i mean, it is hard to design 2014 car without engine details, and could those data leak out to other teams?

Didn't the FIA specify mounting points, CofG, and so on to make it easier for the non-customer teams? Several teams are yet to publicly announce engine deals so they must be working against something.

langwadt wrote:

xpensive wrote:They can complain all they like and until their eyes bleed green, but as long as the flow metering device reports nothing more than the 27,8 g/sec, then what?

the rules says here will be fuel flow metering at the tank and at the injectors I would assume exceeding the flow at either of them would be breaking the rules, why else would it be in the rules?

Not at the injectors, supplied to the injectors.

5.10.4 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.