- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Formula 1 teams may not have to use the controversial Gill Sensors fuel flow meter for the whole of the 2014 season. It has been revealed that an alternative solution is in the final stages of development and could be homologated by the end of the year.
Most of the original team behind the development of the ultrasonic fuel flow control technology introduced to the FIA Formula 1 World Championship and the FIA World Endurance Championship this season have reunited in a new company, SentronicsTM Limited, to produce a range of second-generation ultrasonic fuel flow sensors, branded FlowSonic, for motorsport and other markets around the world.
Sentronics is a partnership of three British companies, sensor producer Reventec, precision machining firm Mikina Engineering, and electronics specialists Polyhedrus Electronics, plus US-based Hyspeed LLC.
Hyspeed originated the concept of using an ultrasonic flow sensor in motorsport to limit fuel consumption, control peak power, and balance performance in 2009, initially pursuing its development in collaboration with Gill Sensors. The termination of that relationship in early 2013 left Hyspeed seeking other ways to achieve its objectives, eventually leading to formation of the new venture in late 2013.
The new consortium is headed by Managing Director Neville Meech, for 13 years Gill Sensors’ lead motorsport engineer. “Hyspeed approached me after I started Reventec with funding for a new sensor project. Being based at Mikina made it easy to bring them on board to handle manufacturing, and the final piece of the technical puzzle was put in place when we teamed up with Polyhedrus, who brought a cutting-edge approach to the electronics element.”
“We remain convinced that the ultrasonic time-of-flight principle is the best way of measuring fuel flow on board a race car, and with our second-generation sensor we’ve let the demands of the motorsport application have a greater influence over the design. As a result, the FlowSonic is a compact and robust unit with the minimum of materials and parts, and hence less to go wrong,” says Meech. The FlowSonic weighs in at around 250g, half the maximum permitted by the FIA, and the fuel and electrical connectors are also to FIA specification, making it a potential drop-in replacement for the sensor presently used in F1 and WEC.
If homologated by the FIA, Sentronics plans to offer the sensor for F1 and WEC use on very competitive terms and it is thought to be significantly lower cost that the rival product.
The FlowSonic will also be available to other series looking to implement fuel flow control, with capabilities tailored to their requirements and priced accordingly. “Our top-of-the-line sensor will meet the current FIA standard, while our mid-range product targets series like IndyCar, DTM, and Japanese Super GT. Our basic unit is designed for GTs, touring cars, and even one-make categories. We have also approached Calibra Technology, the FIA-homologated calibration service, about adjusting the level and cost of calibration to match the needs of individual championships,” says Meech.
“Reduced design and manufacturing costs, our three-tier product strategy, and accepting a longer-term return on our investment will allow us to expand into more motorsport markets,” says Daniel Partel, Chairman of SentronicsTM. “Neither V8 Supercars nor IMSA can justify F1-type prices for a fuel flow sensor, but they both face the challenge of balancing performance across a large number of engine suppliers. If we can deliver a performance balancing solution that promotes efficiency for less than it costs to decrease efficiency by adding air restrictors, ballast, or drag, then we will be able to serve markets down to F3 and GT3, even Formula 4.”
“We are confident that we have produced a next-generation ultrasonic fuel flow sensor that represents a major improvement in both performance and value. We are also committed to providing the kind of warranty, service, and support that motorsport customers expect. As racers ourselves, we know exactly what that involves,” says Partel. “Now that we are into the final development phase, which includes bench and track testing with OEMs, we will be presenting the FlowSonic to major sanctioning bodies and other stakeholders worldwide over the next few months with a view to adoption for 2015 and beyond.”
READ THE FULL STORY OF THE DESIGN AN DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW FUEL FLOW METER IN THE LATEST EDITION OF RACECAR ENGINEERING
Why would it need to taper the flow at low RPM all the FIA care about is max flow rate? Who cares if it doesn't temperature compensate if every body has the same one.gruntguru wrote:Such a device would set the upper limit but would need additional refinements to taper the flow at lower rpm and also to compensate for fuel temperature.
I don't follow you? Your variable flow is done at the injectors not the sensor. If you are limited to 100Kg or what ever flow rate you get through an orifice at a pressure you are still limited. The difference is one its much cheaper and more reliable.alexx_88 wrote:Right now, we'are seeing >10.5k RPM because that's the point when the maximum flow of 100kg/h is permitted. If you'd put just a mechanical restrictor, you won't be able to create a variable flow limit and the engines will use the 100kg/h much earlier and won't rev as high.
Thanks for the clarification.Scootin159 wrote:The fuel flow rule isn't really "100kg/hr", it's actually a tapered restriction that increases with RPM, finally capping at 100kg/hr at 10.5k rpm. It does make it much more complex to calculate, since the fuel flow limit must take RPM into consideration - but it has the net effect of pushing the engine builders to using more RPM's (otherwise they aren't using the full 100kg/hr allowed).
The other reason a simple popoff isn't used is that a fuel flow meter also allows them to specify the maximum of 100kg fuel used in a race. Obviously this could in theory be enforced by just limiting how much fuel the teams put into their cars - but in practice that would be pretty hard to police (how do we know the car is "empty" before?).
It can't be that hard. They do basically this (measure fuel in and subtract fuel remaining at the end to get fuel used) for dozens of cars a weekend at FSAE events.Scootin159 wrote:Obviously this could in theory be enforced by just limiting how much fuel the teams put into their cars - but in practice that would be pretty hard to police (how do we know the car is "empty" before?).
This method is still good for measuring volumetric flow (limiting pressure through a given orifice), but doesn't take into account temperature. If a team were to implement a fuel cooler, they could get more mass of fuel through the orifice at the same pressure. You could certainly write a rule that prohibits actively cooling the fuel with a refrigerant, but you couldn't prevent the teams from passively cooling the fuel (which they'd be silly not to since it would be so closely tied to horsepower).flynfrog wrote:Instead of spelling out a complicated fuel flow limit simply state a FIA standard orifice must be place XX Cm from the injector rail with no other path to the injectors. Every one has the same orifice. They can be easily checked. They don't require dodgy calibration and offsets. This would have been a much cheaper option than the current methods. Basically the same as an air limited series call out a hole size and be done with it.
Answering my own question:Scootin159 wrote: Does anyone know how the rules prohibit a team from implementing a collector on the post-meter side of the fuel rail? If a team had a fuel rail with 1 liter of volume, they could effectively get around the entire 100 l/h flow limit and use as much peak fuel flow as they want.
I suspect that having a fuel pressure regulator after the fuel flow meter would violate this rule.5.10.5 wrote:Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.
mm... I would think not as long as it's mounted in series.Scootin159 wrote:I suspect that having a fuel pressure regulator after the fuel flow meter would violate this rule.5.10.5 wrote:Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.
Scootin159 wrote:This method is still good for measuring volumetric flow (limiting pressure through a given orifice), but doesn't take into account temperature. If a team were to implement a fuel cooler, they could get more mass of fuel through the orifice at the same pressure. You could certainly write a rule that prohibits actively cooling the fuel with a refrigerant, but you couldn't prevent the teams from passively cooling the fuel (which they'd be silly not to since it would be so closely tied to horsepower).flynfrog wrote:Instead of spelling out a complicated fuel flow limit simply state a FIA standard orifice must be place XX Cm from the injector rail with no other path to the injectors. Every one has the same orifice. They can be easily checked. They don't require dodgy calibration and offsets. This would have been a much cheaper option than the current methods. Basically the same as an air limited series call out a hole size and be done with it.
I still feel a simpler method of metering the fuel is a good idea, but a simple orifice "valve" isn't enough. Maybe if the valve had a pop-off pressure regulator that was temperature compensated? You'd also need to have a max fuel pressure limit (which is reasonably above the pop-off pressure) to prevent teams from just overloading the pressure regulator by hitting it with massive amounts of fuel pressure - although that would be easy to do.
----------------------------
Does anyone know how the rules prohibit a team from implementing a collector on the post-meter side of the fuel rail? If a team had a fuel rail with 1 liter of volume, they could effectively get around the entire 100 l/h flow limit and use as much peak fuel flow as they want.