Assuming this is accurate:Gilles27Kimi7 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 15:21Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
You mean it is earlier on throttle because of better traction?gruntguru wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 01:37Assuming this is accurate:Gilles27Kimi7 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 15:21Meanwhile, while by no any means conclusive, we have some data:
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97413
https://f1ingenerale.com/?attachment_id=97412
The Ferrari is hooking-up earlier on corner exit. The power difference is small and contributing very little to the delta.
Is this what you would expect to see if the Ferrari has significantly more power with more DF dialled in? Perhaps.
Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
Of course we are talking about a very small quantity of storage (accumulation) at moderately high frequency eg at 10,500 rpm (and assuming one injection pulse per intake event)Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
In my opinion what you outlined is very vague at best.
2kHz isn't exactly a high frequency or sampling rate. The average cell phone records audio at 48kHz, I have a small $400 consumer grade audio recorder in my closets that capable of 192kHz. If your using a desktop computer the vrms in it uses tiny little PWM controllers that operate at up to ~2MHz.
I don't even see why this is a point of contention. The car is a rolling computer with hundreds of sensors on it that are all susceptible to the same conditions. We never hear the teams complain that a sensor failed.
Your assuming that a team would try and hide what they are doing, and that the FIA has the technical know-how to discover what the team is doing.
I just realised that feeding the fuel back to the inlet of the high pressure pump is not permitted ("recycling" of fuel).wuzak wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 02:17Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?
The FIA did put more constraints on the fuel system a couple of years ago, including the possible accumulation of fuel through line flexibility.gruntguru wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 02:18Of course we are talking about a very small quantity of storage (accumulation) at moderately high frequency eg at 10,500 rpm (and assuming one injection pulse per intake event)Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
- Fuel qty/cylinder = 0.053g
- frequency of injection events = 525 Hz
A very small accumulator on the fuel rail or even the flexibilty of the lines and fuel would be sufficient to damp these fluctuations so they were invisible to the flow sensor. AFAIK the FIA has defined what constitutes acceptable accumulation for these purposes.
wuzak wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 02:17Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?
"All fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through the homologated fuel sensor. and must all be delivered to the 'combustion chambers' by the injectors.wuzak wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 05:20I just realised that feeding the fuel back to the inlet of the high pressure pump is not permitted ("recycling" of fuel).wuzak wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 02:17Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 17:28
this is the rule which isn't ever obeyed - or the cars wouldn't work
the fuel flow rate into the ICE must never exceed 100 kg/hr
unless fuel is injected continuously at this rate some fuel must be (temporarily) stored after the measurement point
unless fuel is injected continuously into each cylinder for at least 1/3 of a revolution the flow rate will exceed 100 kg/hr
the rule book fails to say that rule only applies for periods of time longer than the ICE cycle time for each rpm
Wouldn't they just feed the excess fuel back to tank or back to the input side of the high pressure pump?
So the fuel either has to be used or returned to the tank.
CAN is NOT easily jammed. That's exactly why it is so successfull in automotive and industrial applications. I'm working on CAN based systems as a developer for a few years now, and I can say CAN is super robust. You can jam it - very hard without cutting cables -but that doesn't mean that you can insert any data that wasn't there. It will just drop the false data and wait for the next one..but even these errors are recorded and can not pass unnoticed on long term.hansdegit wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 14:54New user here...turbof1 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2019, 13:57-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?
I'm wondering...Why not just disturb the sending of the samples? I read on forum.verstappen.nl that the device uses the CAN-bus protocol,which is easily jammed.
Being an IT-professional myself, I can imagine that there is no FIA logic in the car that actually checks that there are 2000 samples being received every second of the race. So if you jam the samples that reveil more than 100kg/hr flow rate, then the average still looks ok.
Does this sound silly?
AFAIK Red Bull asked more than one question. It looks to me it was more of a brainstorming session than anything else. As someone pointed out they were probably throwing s..t against the wall to see if something sticks.RZS10 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 00:18Just from a logical standpoint ... if that solution would not be feasible at all - why would RBR have it clarified? If it was so far out of reach for an F1 team what would make RBR believe that Ferrari is doing it, thus trying to stop them from doing it via TD?
(That is ofc with the assumption that there was no misrepresentation of what actually was in the TD or what the hypothetical system RBR came up with would/could do)
maybe.. or Mercedes gives them informations on the Ferrari PU (Sassi and Allison... for years now did that, but Mercedes doesnt want to be the one protesting to fia)One and Only wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 12:03AFAIK Red Bull asked more than one question. It looks to me it was more of a brainstorming session than anything else. As someone pointed out they were probably throwing s..t against the wall to see if something sticks.RZS10 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 00:18Just from a logical standpoint ... if that solution would not be feasible at all - why would RBR have it clarified? If it was so far out of reach for an F1 team what would make RBR believe that Ferrari is doing it, thus trying to stop them from doing it via TD?
(That is ofc with the assumption that there was no misrepresentation of what actually was in the TD or what the hypothetical system RBR came up with would/could do)
Most (many?) of us here are here to learn - me included. I wasn't questioning your technical knowledge, I was asking. I have a lot of respect of you (not because you are a mod, btw) as well as your knowledge and many members of this forum, especially the ones who have been posting in this topic, hence why I was asking it.turbof1 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019, 00:00But you are being disrespectful. If you want to question my technical knowledge, then let us close down this thread because 75% of the participants don't have a technical background. No? Good. Prove me wrong by all means, but don't make a scene about whether or not someone has the appropiate background.
I wasn't necessarily talking about a fuel sensor failing during the entire period. I was more thinking along the lines of failed reading at the interval point. E.g. there's data there, but the data is wrong. A wrong reading could be logged as a failed reading. Where would the threshold be at which the FIA says, ok, we've had N number of failed readings, something is up? Or would they put it down to what you suggested, e.g. normal activity due to hobling, vibrating car on a bumpy track? I quite frankly have no idea how precise these sensors are, therefore my question regarding the tolerances involved. And when we are talking sensors and electrical appliances, there are always tolerances involved (see the Vettel jump start sensor topic).This has been explained to death back in 2014. If and only if the official fuel sensor fails, there is a backup in place that makes use of the team's sensors.