F1technical.net

izzy wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2019, 22:33

[k]arl wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2019, 22:10

Reporting from Joe Saward: https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00577

...It seems that the system that Red Bull created, based on experiments it conducted, allowed pulses going from the fuel flow-metre, which samples what is going on, to be disrupted by external electrical “noise”.
This grey area has now been closed and it will be interesting to see if it has any impact on the different levels of performance of the different F1 teams.

jamming the FIA sensor signal isn't much of a grey area is it! lol. i think AMuS' version is more credible, tho it's pretty vague. Maybe a waveform of some kind? Pulsing the column of fuel in the pipe out of phase with the sensor or something???

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.

Wonder why you would need a new TD to make that clear.

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2019, 22:37

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.

Wonder why you would need a new TD to make that clear.

ah thanks, i knew there had to be an Article about it. Yes it's pretty clear isn't it, already. unless they could disguise it somehow, like with a pump that happens to vibrate? or any kind of pretext really, FIA would be looking for any excuse basically not to find Ferrari guilty of cheating a la infamous Toyota rally team

Karun saying he understands the issue was wires running near the fuel flow sensor. So if the Directive was a minimum clearance that could be an instant effect. Hypothetically

If we are talking about sensors..
The fuel flow sensors use the ultrasonic principle.

They would be cailbrated for a particular flow regime. If you wanted to cheat these sensors you could alter the flow regime of the fluid but it hard to do this in a controlled manner without cauzing a bad reading signal.

It should be possible to alias the sensor measurement if they can somehow produce a high enough frequency pulsation.
The low pressure pumps are usually electrically driven gear pumps so they would produce pulses at tooth pass frequency. Given a high enough pump speed and number of teeth it could be achievable.

For example a gear with 13 teeth spinning at 10000 RPM would produce pulses close to the 2 kHz sampling frequency MM mentioned earlier.
The pump motor could be controlled to produce the desired frequency and phase angle such that the flow sensor never samples the flow peaks.

And what additional quantity of fuel can be obtained this way? Would be nice to compare Russia and COTA Ferrari telemetry.

Hamilton: Ferrari have ‘lost power’ since FIA issued directive on engines
https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/03/ham ... on-engine/

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2019, 02:07

It should be possible to alias the sensor measurement if they can somehow produce a high enough frequency pulsation.
The low pressure pumps are usually electrically driven gear pumps so they would produce pulses at tooth pass frequency. Given a high enough pump speed and number of teeth it could be achievable.

For example a gear with 13 teeth spinning at 10000 RPM would produce pulses close to the 2 kHz sampling frequency MM mentioned earlier.
The pump motor could be controlled to produce the desired frequency and phase angle such that the flow sensor never samples the flow peaks.

So according to these latest goings on it means burning more fuel than that allowed by the rules will result in producing more power.

Would this system not produce suspiciously low readings though too?

Also... Maybe Ferrari have done what I said and are just pretending to now have lower power so they can use it properly when next season they are in the fight again

Busted

Charles on a very tired engine almost got pole. Vettel did not put in a good lap. He had 2 tenths in hand. Hamilton's assumption is as good as his attempt at humour.

Ferrari simply changed the set up adding more down force.
And i like to think that they did it with in mind the FIA directive, just to make RBR and Mercs think that they hit the target.

Binotto answering a question about Leclerc's qualifying:

“Charles è stato sfortunato questa mattina per colpa nostra. Ha perso l’intera sessione. Quando le qualifiche sono così ravvicinate anche l’esperienza del mattino è fondamentale. Abbiamo cambiato in modo significativo l’assetto rispetto al venerdì e non ha avuto modo di provarlo..."
"Charles has been unlucky this morning due to our fault. He has lost the whole section. When qualifying is so close it's fundamental to get a feeling for the car in the morning section. We significantly changed the set up of the car comparing to Friday and he didn't have a chance to try it..."

And about the race:

“La gara è lunga. Conterà il ritmo di gara e la gestione gomme. Noi siamo migliorati rispetto a ieri, ci siamo preparati per la corsa”.
"the race is long. What counts is the rhythm and tires management. We bettered ourselves since yesterday, we set up for the race".

> after the measurement point

Well, if they do it before the measuring point and between measuring increments that beats the rule.

loner wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2019, 09:22

Hamilton: Ferrari have ‘lost power’ since FIA issued directive on engines
https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/03/ham ... on-engine/

But facts show that both FERRARI cars in AUSTIN still accelerates faster and have higher top speeds on all straights than any other car.

Giblet wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2019, 11:20

> after the measurement point

Well, if they do it before the measuring point and between measuring increments that beats the rule.

Even if somebody would do that, how much can they actually gain?
Can anyone answer?

i read that the gain should be of about 2g ( two grams ) per second of fuel. How many horse power would that bring?