2014 Engine yin yang

[marcush.]

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.

WB -you know the difference between measurement accuracy and sensor accuracy?

I work in an environment hunting for fluctuations in the range of 10mbars making a difference and i can tell you it´s a bitch to prove your measuring has any value at all.
In case of a formula 1 car -this is hardly a lab condition with the whole assembly essentially on a shaker rig and going through all modes plus sustained longitudinal and lateral gs as well..plus temperature ...ok the fuel should be always a constant but i honestly doubt the accuracy claims..

I might be in position to evaluate one of those Gill sensors in a few weeks time though...then more on this .

[WhiteBlue]

I'll be having an open mind for anything. But standard practice would be taking the manufacturer claims at face value as long as there is no contrary evidence. If they can guarantee an accuracy of 2 hp that would be good enough for me. If their claim is bogus it would be good to have some hard facts for it. At least that would be able to change my mind on it much faster than irrational suspicions.

[Richard]

It doesn't need to be honest or bogus.

The claimed accuracy of the sensor may be valid in isolation, but things get more complex when part of a system or in a different working environment.

[timbo]

At least that would be able to change my mind on it much faster than irrational suspicions.

I would never call what marcush said "irrational suspicions". In fact, they are very rational. In place of FIA I would actually run a test car with fuel flow sensor on it to verify its performance.

[WhiteBlue]

It doesn't need to be honest or bogus.

The claimed accuracy of the sensor may be valid in isolation, but things get more complex when part of a system or in a different working environment.

The sensor has been designed specifically for Motorsport applications, with materials selected for compatibility with multiple fuel types.

The purpose of the device is mass flow measurement in motor sport. So the general environmental conditions prevailing at this kind of environment should have been considered. But as I said I'm quite happy to reconsider as soon as substantial evidence of inaccuracy is posted. I just don't want to join the speculation.

[timbo]

But as I said I'm quite happy to reconsider as soon as substantial evidence of inaccuracy is posted. I just don't want to join the speculation.

Not joining speculation is not the same as openly dismissing arguments that does not fit your view.

[WhiteBlue]

dismissing speculation, such as thinking the manufacturer would not consider appropriate use cases
at least in my book that is speculation
if marcush. does his tests and presents stringent points I'm all open to call it fact

[timbo]

dismissing speculation, such as thinking the manufacturer would not consider appropriate use cases
at least in my book that is speculation

Do you know the difference between advertising prospect and actual performance?

Have you seen the small text?

Accuracy/Linearity Notes
Measured in series with reference UKAS approved flow meter for flow rates >200ml/min. Reference fuel used: Carless WRC250 @20ºC

[munudeges]

Relying on a fuel flow measure is just amateur hour. You don't have to do much thinking to see that there are a number of variables that can drive a coach and horses through the restrictions the powers-that-be think they are enforcing.

From the loopholes to the ridiculous cost these engines are just dead to me.

[WhiteBlue]

dismissing speculation, such as thinking the manufacturer would not consider appropriate use cases
at least in my book that is speculation

Do you know the difference between advertising prospect and actual performance?

Have you seen the small text?

Accuracy/Linearity Notes
Measured in series with reference UKAS approved flow meter for flow rates >200ml/min. Reference fuel used: Carless WRC250 @20ºC

So what is wrong with it? Fuel flow will always be much bigger than 3.5 ml/s. These engines are to idle at 4,000 rpm and will not substantially run under 8,000 rpm. Figure the fuel flow if you must.

[timbo]

So what is wrong with it?

Nothing wrong, just that the figure was obtained in the lab.

[Tommy Cookers]

the figure was obtained in a lab by reference to another flow meter that was certified for steady flow measurement at steady temperature and pressure
the UKAS accredits (certifies) calibration laboratories doing conventional calibrations
the UKAS does not design flow meters
there is no convention or standard for the calibration of meters for unsteady flow

will the FIA arrange that the meters are 'certified' by matching ??
(all 24 or whatever competitors thereby having meters that are equal)
now the cars seem to need only 1 meter, not 1 (tank) meter plus 6 (injector) meters ??

[timbo]

will the FIA arrange that the meters are 'certified' by matching ??
(all 24 or whatever competitors thereby having meters that are equal)

I think that would be the case. I don't doubt that teams would receive equally calibrated meters.
However, I think that real life performance of the meter would be worse in terms of accuracy than the lab measurements. With the nature of F1 competition I think it is likely that people would look into it searching for any advantage they can get.

[bonjon1979]

I may be looking at this far too simplistically but doesn't the overall restriction on the amount of fuel you're allowed for each race prevent too much abuse of the fuel flow issue. If you're only allowed 100kg for the entire race then that'll determine the rate of the fuel flow rather than anything else? A team may find a work around to get more fuel into the engine but that'll mean they run out of fuel quicker or need to go into fuel saving mode sooner.

[Holm86]

I may be looking at this far too simplistically but doesn't the overall restriction on the amount of fuel you're allowed for each race prevent too much abuse of the fuel flow issue. If you're only allowed 100kg for the entire race then that'll determine the rate of the fuel flow rather than anything else? A team may find a work around to get more fuel into the engine but that'll mean they run out of fuel quicker or need to go into fuel saving mode sooner.

You ARE looking at this too simplistic. The maximum fuel limit of 100kg applies for every track. At some fuel hungry tracks you will use allmost every kg of fuel. But some of the tracks where you typically doesn't use as much fuel you would have some fuel to spare to create more horsepower if you find a way to do so.