Ferrari International Assistance alive & well

[SturdyHSV]

TheDeuce said:

McLaren Racing Limited
Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited
Racing Point UK Limited
Red Bull Racing Limited
Renault Sport Racing Limited
Scuderia Alpha Tauri S.p.A.
Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited

Maybe they should all leave instead

That scenario would really test Ferrari's ability to fk up a race win, but I'm confident they'd still manage it 50% of the time

[Sandpit Steve]

Paul_M3 said:

The deflection test was specific in the rules. If it complied with the test it was legal. It did not say the deflection must not be more than 'x', it said it must not be more than 'x' with a specific load at a specific place.

The fuel rule is not like that. It simply says "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h".

It also says "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".

I'm not sure how the rules could be any more watertight than that?

If that’s the 2019 regulation as written, then it’s a slam dunk penalty.

What must have happened then, is that the FIA have made a deal with Ferrari to pay a fine in exchange for telling them how it was done, so that the governing body can clamp down on others trying similar trickery. Red Bull should be rightly aggrieved, I can see this ending up at the CAS.

[TheDeuce]

Paul_M3 said:

The deflection test was specific in the rules. If it complied with the test it was legal. It did not say the deflection must not be more than 'x', it said it must not be more than 'x' with a specific load at a specific place.

The fuel rule is not like that. It simply says "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h".

It also says "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".

I'm not sure how the rules could be any more watertight than that?

Completely watertight. This bit alone is enough "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h". If they ran more than that then they broke the rules. The method is not important.

More than Ferrari supposedly breaking the rules, the FIA have failed to act in a way that is deserving of the power and influence they have, by acting in a totally opaque manner that can only assist Ferrari, at the expense of confusing the other teams about what is to be judged right and wrong, and what the penalty is for breaking such a fundamental rule.

Give it a few days and a few more pundits wagging their fingers at this apparent scandal and I expect both the FIA and Ferrari will have found scapegoats to blame for the bullst 'settlement' idea and throw said scapegoats under a bus, ahead of starting an actual investigation from scratch as to whatever Ferrari were (prove-ably) doing.

[anonymous-user]

Paul_M3 said:

The deflection test was specific in the rules. If it complied with the test it was legal. It did not say the deflection must not be more than 'x', it said it must not be more than 'x' with a specific load at a specific place.

The fuel rule is not like that. It simply says "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h".

It also says "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".

I'm not sure how the rules could be any more watertight than that?

Thinking somewhat outside the box, I don't recall the regulations specifying the angle at which the sensor sits when referencing the outlet pipe of the fuel tank. Ordinarily it would be 90 degrees to the pipe it was reading from; if it was on an ever so slight skew, over the course of an hour, a sensor that's told a pipe cross sectional area is 'x' would be recording a mass flow rate that was travelling a further distance, so would it appear to be flowing faster or slower?

It could make no difference at all. I'm not brilliant with fluid mechanics, and luckily the technical regulations for Funny Cars limit fuel flow in a different way (rpm and gallons per minute).

[SturdyHSV]

TheDeuce said:

Give it a few days and a few more pundits wagging their fingers at this apparent scandal and I expect both the FIA and Ferrari will have found scapegoats to blame for the bullst 'settlement' idea and throw said scapegoats under a bus, ahead of starting an actual investigation from scratch as to whatever Ferrari were (prove-ably) doing.

"William Storey was able to gain control of our e-mail address and distribute the scandalous nonsense you are doubtless all familiar with. The investigation will now recommence, and hopefully it'll be dragged on long enough that everyone will forget about it."

[Paul_M3]

NFC 85 Vette said:

Paul_M3 said:

The deflection test was specific in the rules. If it complied with the test it was legal. It did not say the deflection must not be more than 'x', it said it must not be more than 'x' with a specific load at a specific place.

The fuel rule is not like that. It simply says "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h".

It also says "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".

I'm not sure how the rules could be any more watertight than that?

Thinking somewhat outside the box, I don't recall the regulations specifying the angle at which the sensor sits when referencing the outlet pipe of the fuel tank. Ordinarily it would be 90 degrees to the pipe it was reading from; if it was on an ever so slight skew, over the course of an hour, a sensor that's told a pipe cross sectional area is 'x' would be recording a mass flow rate that was travelling a further distance, so would it appear to be flowing faster or slower?

It could make no difference at all. I'm not brilliant with fluid mechanics, and luckily the technical regulations for Funny Cars limit fuel flow in a different way (rpm and gallons per minute).

I would assume the sensor is an complete unit which which sits in series using hose connections either side?

As you say, surely using a 'clamp on' solution would give too much potential for manipulation.

Either way, the rules cover deliberate manipulation of the flow readings regardless of how it was achieved.

[Paul_M3]

Sandpit Steve said:

If that’s the 2019 regulation as written, then it’s a slam dunk penalty.

That is indeed the exact wording as published on 12th March 2019:

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

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.

[TheDeuce]

Paul_M3 said:

I would assume the sensor is an complete unit which which sits in series using hose connections either side?

As you say, surely using a 'clamp on' solution would give too much potential for manipulation.

Either way, the rules cover deliberate manipulation of the flow readings regardless of how it was achieved.

They're all pretty much the same: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/flow-sensors-indica...

Port either side, the fluid passes through the body of the sensor. Has to be that way as anything 'clamp on' would be inaccurate. We use larger versions of the same to monitor flow through some of our kit at work. Clamp on types are available but wouldn't give a very accurate measurement.

Assuming they do use an ultrasonic flow sensor, there are alternatives.. likely is ultra sonic though as they're the only really compact yet accurate type.

[Derek Smith]

rev-erend said:

Anyone remember what happened to McLaren when they were found guilty of cheating.

Stephen gate I think it was called..

All points deducted, huge fine etc..

Guess it would never happen to Ferrari.

There has been quite a number of instances where FIA investigations were, to be nice, suspect. There was the time when Benetton set fire to the pit complex, risking the lives of not only drivers, Verstappen for one, the pit crews, the fire-fighters and those in the rather plush stands above the pits.

The prosecution, according to many sources on-line, not to mention the defence brief, Carman, negotiated with the Benetton solicitors pre-trial, promised a lot, and delivered. They got a very strong telling off for removing a safety device on the pit fuel-delivery system.

The teams saved a deal of time at every pit stop, yet nothing was done with regards the drivers’ points. The suggestion was that they didn’t know what was going on. Odd, really, when it seems everyone else in the pits did. Even the commentary team did once, but only once for some strange reason.

It had the potential, almost realised, of causing the highest loss of life at a motor racing circuit since 1955. Mosley/Carmangate.

Another time, everyone knew that a certain team was running software that was illegal. Senna could tell when standing trackside after dropping out of the race. If he could hear it, then it seems strange that the FIA stewards and officials could not. Just about every FIA officialgate.

Two men, one of whom was not called Stephen, in high positions in their respective teams, privy to confidential development information, get together to, rumour suggest, sell the details to any team that would pay them. They didn’t do it to further the ends of their own teams.

Something similar happened frequently in F1, and an employee leaving one team for another would, perhaps, let his new team into certain secrets of the car they’d been working on before the agreed ‘no collusion’ date. Sort cuts to costly development.

So the FIA investigated both teams in order to see if there’d been any seepage of information between them. They put a tremendous amount of effort into one team, but, exhausted after that, they decided they couldn’t be bothered with the other.

Even if my olfactory skills were minimal, I think I would have felt it stank.

I see your reason for calling it Stephengate. The chap’s dead. It was a tragedy. I prefer the term Mosleygate. It's more apt.

The history of the organisers of F1 in enforcing the regs has frequently been questionable. When it takes four men to carry a rear wing a few feet to an F1 car, and everyone’s laughing, you have to conclude that being pristine is not high on its agenda.

There’s more . . .

I'm not a stickler for the regs. If there's marginal advantage, if it's a mistake, if it's a team struggling at the bottom, trying to stay competitive, then I'm happy enough for it to be just stopped. However, I feel that what would be dreadful for the sport is partiality. Isn't it.

[Paul_M3]

TheDeuce said:

They're all pretty much the same: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/flow-sensors-indica...

Port either side, the fluid passes through the body of the sensor. Has to be that way as anything 'clamp on' would be inaccurate. We use larger versions of the same to monitor flow through some of our kit at work. Clamp on types are available but wouldn't give a very accurate measurement.

Assuming they do use an ultrasonic flow sensor, there are alternatives.. likely is ultra sonic though as they're the only really compact yet accurate type.

I agree it’s not suitable for the F1 application we’re talking about, but the decent clamp on instruments can be very accurate these days.

We’ve assessed some models and qualified them for use in safety related applications. (I’m a Control and Instrumentation Engineer at a Nuclear Power Station)

[Deesee]

These are the sensors that are used

https://www.reventec.com/fia-homologates-flowsonic...

&

The reason why the fuel flow is 100kg/hr, is that they could be running 15k + rpm and smashing track records by significant amounts.

Imagine if you could change/cheat that...

In some way I understand the effort f1 has made to conserve fuel and sustainability..

But... 15/18k rpm modern aero monsters would be ... wow..... and proper f1 IMO (you may know I was brought up in the V12 era).

(Sorry if no reply’s to above questions I’ve been a bit busy, I’ll try and update and questions later)..

However I still believe Ferrari have a massive aero advantage last yr on the floor of the car, that was able to stall the rear hence the massive straight line speed, otherwise programme the maps to attack mid corner...

Anyway we will see..

[carinaman]

Saward and Spanners discuss it from 13 minutes in. Earlier Saward mentions the 1919 Spanish Influenza and how many people that wiped out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gktHen7UoNs

[red_slr]

Paul_M3 said:

Sandpit Steve said:

If that’s the 2019 regulation as written, then it’s a slam dunk penalty.

That is indeed the exact wording as published on 12th March 2019:

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

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.

However look at it this way.... just for example..

Fuel mass flow did not exceed 100kg/hr.
They did not increase the flow rate, at the sensor and kept under the 500 bar limit.
They did not store or recycle fuel after the sensor.

Personally I think the bit that's very poorly worded is "to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point".

Could they use gaps in the sensors resolution to flow more - maybe. But that would be a direct contravention of the rules as its more than 100kg/hr.

However, if there was a way to flow 100kg when you only need 80... and then deliver that spare 20 when you do need it now you are onto something. Especially if you can do it without storing it.. and especially if the car is capable of using the lower quantity of fuel just before you need the extra fuel.

[Alicatt1]

TheDeuce said:

They're all pretty much the same: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/flow-sensors-indica...

Port either side, the fluid passes through the body of the sensor. Has to be that way as anything 'clamp on' would be inaccurate. We use larger versions of the same to monitor flow through some of our kit at work. Clamp on types are available but wouldn't give a very accurate measurement.

Assuming they do use an ultrasonic flow sensor, there are alternatives.. likely is ultra sonic though as they're the only really compact yet accurate type.

Could the fuel be pulsed through the sensor in such a way that the frequency of the pulses fully or partially nullify the ultrasonics of the flow sensor giving a false reading?

While I have used ultrasonic transducers/probes for measurement, it was a very long time ago and I was looking for voids/inclusions in metal objects.

[TheDeuce]

Paul_M3 said:

TheDeuce said:

They're all pretty much the same: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/flow-sensors-indica...

Port either side, the fluid passes through the body of the sensor. Has to be that way as anything 'clamp on' would be inaccurate. We use larger versions of the same to monitor flow through some of our kit at work. Clamp on types are available but wouldn't give a very accurate measurement.

Assuming they do use an ultrasonic flow sensor, there are alternatives.. likely is ultra sonic though as they're the only really compact yet accurate type.

I agree it’s not suitable for the F1 application we’re talking about, but the decent clamp on instruments can be very accurate these days.

We’ve assessed some models and qualified them for use in safety related applications. (I’m a Control and Instrumentation Engineer at a Nuclear Power Station)

I do a little control work, mostly more on the mechanical side these days - I'm a bit old school though so don't mind that!

The clamp on stuff is fine if you need either a general idea on a larger scale, or just want to see a % +/- shift in flow. But for accuracy at very low flow rates I'd always worry the read out would be skewed by not knowing the exact cross sectional area of the flow through the sensor.

I'm sure you've got the right sensor for the job though - I figure we'd all notice if you made a mistake in a nuclear power station

[TheDeuce]

Alicatt1 said:

Could the fuel be pulsed through the sensor in such a way that the frequency of the pulses fully or partially nullify the ultrasonics of the flow sensor giving a false reading?

While I have used ultrasonic transducers/probes for measurement, it was a very long time ago and I was looking for voids/inclusions in metal objects.

That's basically what we're talking about, pulse the flow in the moments between measurements. The reading from the sensor is almost continuous, so unless extreme flow velocity was possible you couldn't do much with the fractional gap between measurements. But if you know how often the reading from the sensor is logged by the ECU, you could have several milliseconds of time in which pulling a little extra through was possible..

[epom]

I’m impressed. Not with the FIA, but with Ferrari on two counts. A) their engineers B) doing the ‘nothing to see here’ deal with the FIA.
Brazen.

[Megaflow]

I reckon this is going to go one of two ways, 1) some kind of cope out deal with the other teams, similar to what the FIA have just done with Ferrari to appease them, or 2) full nuclear, ala Toyota Team Europe 1995.

Which way it goes hinges exactly on what Ferrari have been up to.

[StevieBee]

epom said:

I’m impressed. Not with the FIA, but with Ferrari on two counts. A) their engineers B) doing the ‘nothing to see here’ deal with the FIA.
Brazen.

Yet despite this, despite the favourable treatment, the extra money, a seat on the board of F1....... they succeed in managing to achieve next to bugger all, comparatively speaking.

[anonymous-user]

Megaflow said:

I reckon this is going to go one of two ways, 1) some kind of cope out deal with the other teams, similar to what the FIA have just done with Ferrari to appease them, or 2) full nuclear, ala Toyota Team Europe 1995.

Which way it goes hinges exactly on what Ferrari have been up to.

It will be a different scenario to the TTE cheat turbo restrictor if the FIA have found something illegal and not thrown them out.

In the TTE issue, the FIA booted them out, if this turns out to be a case of Ferrari doing a power gaining cheat, being caught, but let off, that's going to be dynamite for the FIA, not only the team.

I'll wait until this all plays out, but so far it's been very odd.