F1technical.net

xpensive wrote:

GitanesBlondes wrote: ...
2014's formula is going to be duller than anyone realizes, once it becomes obvious that there is little to set apart any of the engine manufacturers barring some significant advantage found in a loophole.

A pity as the formula could have been so much better than what it has turned into already.

Don't you worry GB, the off-track action action will be more hysterical than ever, magic fuels and hidden fuel-line buffers,
not to mention innuendos about miss-calibrated metering-units and even tampering of the same, CW will be busy!

That's a good point.

I imagine Charlie will be flipping a coin in the air to decide what passes inspection or not.

I wonder if Total or Shell plan on issuing press releases to discuss the new fuels they've created for teams?

GitanesBlondes wrote: I imagine Charlie will be flipping a coin in the air to decide what passes inspection or not.

Well that's the way they already decide on who should be penalized and what penalty.

dren wrote:Looks like they may operate at 500hz? It'd be interesting to see the calibration curve and if it's linear over the full range.

conventionally % accuracy is presented as a % of the full scale value (because this gives the best ie lowest value)
so eg a 1 mph error at 30 mph in a 100 mph speedometer is presented as 1% (although it is over 3% of 30 mph)
Gills '.3% accuracy' could mean +- .3% of full scale
full scale appears to be 6.5 litre/min (108.3 cc/sec) that is about 3 times our fuel rate for 2014

so '.3% accuracy' could easily mean eg +-.5% or +-.6% of our fuel rate or quantity
and disqualification would only happen when the meter indicated consumption over 100.5 kg (or the rate equivalent)
to be fair to cars with 'unlucky' meters (because only then would we be sure that the 100 kg limit had been broken)
this would mean that cars with 'lucky' meters could actually use over 101 kg without disqualification

btw ISO 9001 Quality Assurance of course demands use of the term 'uncertainty' not 'accuracy'

IMO Gill are being careful in their accuracy claims (presumably they have considered their possible position in law)

My xperiece of these kinds of ultrasonic measurements is that they can be very uncertain, the consultants I hired spoke of +/-5% for compressed air, I hope they work better with gasoline, but what's wrong with a conventional displacement-motor?

I have recently learned that the FIA is planning to introduce a new recovery system labelled WERS, any knowledege anyone?

xpensive wrote:I have recently learned that the FIA is planning to introduce a new recovery system labelled WERS, any knowledege anyone?

Quite clearly it is Wind Energy Recovery System.

As in harvesting the aerodynamically lost Wind energy, like when the car is travelling through the surrounding air?

xpensive wrote:As in harvesting the aerodynamically lost Wind energy, like when the car is travelling through the surrounding air?

No, they recover winds that engineering team produces. 1000% true.

http://www.gillsensors.com/content/data ... 00-040.pdf

I think this is the item FIA has selected for flow measurements...funnily the product specs have disappeared from their site recently and are awaiting updating ..maybe the acuracy claims where a bit too ambitious?

"Maximum operational liquid pressure 20 Bar"? What with the 500 Bar injector idea?

@timbo;

Inside sources from the specialist press claims that WERS means "Whatever makes a headline Energy Recovering System"

marcush. wrote:http://www.gillsensors.com/content/data ... 00-040.pdf

I think this is the item FIA has selected for flow measurements...funnily the product specs have disappeared from their site recently and are awaiting updating ..maybe the acuracy claims where a bit too ambitious?

But the error is there. It is less than 0.25%. So it is 1% of 800 hp roughly. 2 hp if I'm not mistaken badly.

And the pressure is enough as it will sit in the low pressure line at the fuel bladder before the high pressure pump.

I belivele that a measurement accuracy of 0.25% is optimistic for anyone with an engineerish background.

xpensive wrote:I belivele that a measurement accuracy of 0.25% is optimistic for anyone with an engineerish background.

So you know more about sensor accuracy than the good folks a Gill, you reckon? Fill us in then! I don't want to die stupid.

I don't believe that I hinted at questioning the good engineers anywhere, but as people like you and I know WB, it can at times be an abyss between said engineers and certain sales/marketing people.The kind of "If I don' sell, you don't have a job" attitude.

While in all honesty, I doubt that even if you, MrE, CW, MrT and myself would together do a tecnical due diligence of Gill,
I doubt if we would find any reason for questioning anything at all, or would you suggest something different?

I wonder how difficult it would be to disturb this thing from the outside anyway?