F1technical.net

turbof1 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 19:46

I'm not jumping automatically to conclusions here, but circumventing the fuel flow sensor can very much be considered illegal:

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.

That's pretty much covering all aspects of increasing fuel flow above what is allowed.

I think the flexible wings told us different. Everything fuel line is a storage, so one needs to define flexibility and tests for every single part.

Furthermore...who says it is about fuel flow? I thought the ERS was a much hotter bet, only Merc/RB brought fuel flow into the game.

basti313 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 20:14

If you take this is the starting point for the interpretation then:
- No smoking gun. FIA could not nail the cheat. If they could, they would communicate it to save their own ass.

Likewise, if they could show that no cheating had occurred, they'd be screaming from the rooftops that Ferrari hadn't cheated.

So the obvious conclusion is that the FIA are sure that Ferrari have cheated, but they can't be sure how they've done it. So they take the approach that they have and "reach a private agreement" with Ferrari.

basti313 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 20:18

Furthermore...who says it is about fuel flow?

Where did I do that? I mentioned explicitly I am not jumping to conclusions, nor do I encourage anyone to do so. Doesn't mean we can't hypothesize and discuss hypotheses.

I think the flexible wings told us different. Everything fuel line is a storage, so one needs to define flexibility and tests for every single part.

Not necessarily so. This is not a case where you need to give leniency due to an otherwise practical impossibility. You can't go beyond a certain fuel flow; any variance around that has to be below the maximum allowed flow. There's no terminal reason why this cannot be achieved. 5.10.5. is extremely clear to the point there is no ambiguity, and during the US GP the FIA explicitly repeated that. Which you can argue is just an opinion of a puny technical director, but I think in front of a FIA tribunal, if anything ever comes to do that, I think the safe bet is that that opinion would stand.

Again, we are talking in terms of hypotheses, not in terms of assumptions or conclusions.

I still believe ferrari managed to gain some advantage on the battery or mgus. Not necessarily through plain cheating, bit by using a grey area.

I also believe the fia knows that something is going on or even what exactly whats going on, but they can‘t prove it. That may be an issue of the sensors and logging hardware.

This is the only conclusion i can imagine. Why else should ferrari assist the fia in the future?

Ps
The rules regarding fuel flow bypassing are very clear. Imagine that ferrari could bypass the fuel flow. They‘d still have issues with the amount of used fuel during the race if they use this feature a lot.

Doing it this way also means 'others' do not learn what the trick was, so can not hide in an office working in it and possibly coming back with a 'legal' version down the line. Once you know something exists its far easier to make it than if you have never seen or heard of it. Cover their own future.

Tzk wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 22:24

Ps
The rules regarding fuel flow bypassing are very clear. Imagine that Ferrari could bypass the fuel flow. They‘d still have issues with the amount of used fuel during the race if they use this feature a lot.

And this is probably why they were found with more fuel in the car than they had claimed at Abu Dhabi. That was probably the icing on the cake in terms of suspicion around fuel flow cheating.

dont Buy the doom and gloom regarding Ferrari PU performance this year.

Still think regardless of happened last year, Maranello will produce a very competitive engine this year.

Suppose will take a few races to get a picture of power unit pecking order. They are all converging together now I feel.

f1jcw wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 14:54

aleks_ader wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 13:12

Guys leave the politics. I think Ferrari exploided loopholes in FF monitoring. I m tehnical guy and i m even more interested how they achieve that?

1. Mechanical pulsing. That would be really impressive.
2. Some kind interference pattering. Via cables or whatnot...

Both things would be mindbogglingly difficult to achieve under harsh race conditions.

A full bypass of the rules isn’t a loophole, it is full blown cheat

Yes.... Verstappens words........

djones wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 17:33

I read somewhere about manipulating the sensor with temperature.

Can anybody explain how such a thing would work as I'm struggling to visualise this?

I am wondering the same thing!! Was thinking about it today and come up with following idea. I only done basic fluid dynamics for years ago and have no knowledge about fuel chemistry, so whoever more comfortable in these fields should comment on this. I also didn't check whether this would be ok within regulations.

So my basic understanding is that the flow sensor is a device measuring the fuel flow at some point by Measuring velocity and with a known area of the intersection one will get flow in volume, then by a inversion you get the kg/minute or flow in weight.

Why is it in weight? I guess that the temperature of the fuel does effect density and thus energy/volume but not energy/weight. But then one would need to calibrate the sensor to temperature as well as engine manufacturer, if i remember correctly they do use different fuels.

Is this varying temperature actually taken into account? I don't know.
If yes, where is this temperature measurement taken? I don't know.

If there is no measurement but temperature effects density, sending in cooler fuel will make the flow sensor measure less flow then actual. If the measurement is taken way before, one could put some of it through a acooling system and gain the same effect.

An other way to trick it could be changing the viscosity of the fuel. If temperature change also induces a viscosity change, the same cooling/heating system could lead to the boundary later decreasing and giving a higher flow for same velocity.

Let me know what comments you have, and point out where I am wrong on the reasoning!

Putting aside the corporate liability speak in the statement, one engineering interpretation is clear to me.

FIA detected a dynamic (possible) exploit observed under static conditions.

Very interesting analysis of the current situation around FIA and Ferrari's PU. It claims that the agreement actually was a clever move by Camilleri and Binotto and a win for Ferrari.

An excerpt:

For the first time, Ferrari has adopted the same tactic on the engine that James Allison played for the approval of the DAS. The Cavallino technicians wrote a series of letters to Nicholas Tombazis on the use of the power unit and the intercooler in which all the doubts regarding the interpretations of the gray areas of the regulation were clarified and obtaining all the authorizations to start a season without the continuous ballet of controversy that characterized the last world championship.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... o/4703563/

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 21:19

basti313 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 20:14

If you take this is the starting point for the interpretation then:
- No smoking gun. FIA could not nail the cheat. If they could, they would communicate it to save their own ass.

Likewise, if they could show that no cheating had occurred, they'd be screaming from the rooftops that Ferrari hadn't cheated.

So the obvious conclusion is that the FIA are sure that Ferrari have cheated, but they can't be sure how they've done it. So they take the approach that they have and "reach a private agreement" with Ferrari.

???? What a logic...FIA can not prove that they cheated, nor can FIA prove that they did not cheat...so they cheated for sure?

turbof1 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 21:39

basti313 wrote: ↑

29 Feb 2020, 20:18

Furthermore...who says it is about fuel flow?

Where did I do that? I mentioned explicitly I am not jumping to conclusions, nor do I encourage anyone to do so. Doesn't mean we can't hypothesize and discuss hypotheses.

I think the flexible wings told us different. Everything fuel line is a storage, so one needs to define flexibility and tests for every single part.

Not necessarily so. This is not a case where you need to give leniency due to an otherwise practical impossibility. You can't go beyond a certain fuel flow; any variance around that has to be below the maximum allowed flow. There's no terminal reason why this cannot be achieved. 5.10.5. is extremely clear to the point there is no ambiguity, and during the US GP the FIA explicitly repeated that. Which you can argue is just an opinion of a puny technical director, but I think in front of a FIA tribunal, if anything ever comes to do that, I think the safe bet is that that opinion would stand.

Again, we are talking in terms of hypotheses, not in terms of assumptions or conclusions.

Part 1: You refer to fuel flow rules...and in part 2 again...

Part 2: I do not see a practical impossibility in the wording of the rule that wings are not allowed to move. Every rule has technical boundaries and according checks. Fuel flow has a fuel flow sensor.

basti313 wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2020, 02:10

Part 1: You refer to fuel flow rules...and in part 2 again...

This was your original argument:

Furthermore...who says it is about fuel flow? I thought the ERS was a much hotter bet, only Merc/RB brought fuel flow into the game.

My answer was in the context of not assuming it is fuel flow, but hypothesizing on it. You are trying to reinterpret it as something else. Please don't do that; I was abundantly clear.

Part 2: I do not see a practical impossibility in the wording of the rule that wings are not allowed to move. Every rule has technical boundaries and according checks. Fuel flow has a fuel flow sensor.

The practical impossibity I was referring to is that no surface can be infinitely rigid without breaking. Under aero load some things have to flex else it will risk breaking off and becoming a hazard. Hence why there is leniency and an aero load test. This is for obvious reasons not needed for fuel flow, which makes any plea for leniency redundant. again, the regulations are extremely clear on that front. You are wrong to look for any leniency in there, because there is none. You are purposely ignoring the quoted rule which explicitly says circumventing the fuel flow sensor is not allowed, and your only argument up to now was we are assuming things, which is false too.

Again, just to be clear: there is no leniency. I think that was VERY clear with Red Bull, Renault and Force India in the past. Renault especially, who hit a bump which gives for a very small fraction of a second a higher fuel flow reading. They got disqualified for that. When Sauber ran a couple of mm too heigh of a rear wing due a manufacturing error, they got disqualified. The leniency you are referring to is a very specific exception to deal with the aforementioned practical impossibility, and even that is very specifically put in rules. Therefore it is not applicable for fuel flow. 5.10.5. closes that off and the TD of the US GP made it extra clear there's no exception allowed whatsoever. Not for leniency, not for gravititational devices, not for grandma's cookies.

And again, this is a hypothesis. This is not an assumption that Ferrari effectively broke this rule or any rule, or even tried to circumvent any rule.

The fact that FIA said anything and opened this whole can of worms again says to me they were quite cross

Then the settlement was they'd say it now and with no details

Anyway it was clever and naughty and FIA stopped it, so it's all F1 afaic and hopefully Charles will be a factor this year, nice and legal

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... g/4705941/

Ferrari engine worse than last year. If it’s true. You’d imagine Ferrari would be bottom of the pile in engine power this year. All the others have taken steps forward I’m sure