Ferrari International Assistance alive & well

[skinny]

TBH I never really understood why they needed an instantaneous fuel flow restriction in any case when they're limiting the total fuel volume. I was told it was to limit the performance in qualifying, tho personally i would like to see how quick the cars can actually go.
i guess its not great for optics to the casual viewer to have the cars driving significantly slower than their potential to save fuel. But this would then drive the teams to chase efficiency improvements and actually do something useful for trickle down (instead of chasing pointless aero)

[ArnageWRC]

I'm similar - I understand why they have it, but in my simplistic way, they have x amount of fuel, which has to last xx number of laps; if somebody wants to get a 30 sec lead in 5 laps, then let them.......but, can they last home?

[//j17]

If you just have the basic "Here's you X kg of fuel for the race, use it as you want" you tend to get very dull and dissapointing races.

Driver A uses a bit more fuel to try and overtake Driver B - so Driver B uses a bit more fuel to defend. Driver's A and B repeat this for much of the race, constantly cancelling each other out and over using their required fuel/lap rate...so come the last 5 laps of the race driver's A and B are crawling around the circuit just trying to limp home while Driver C who's had a really dull race just watching his fuel usage trundles up to them, overtakes and wins the race.

Yes, Driver C deserves the win as they ran the most intelligent race but it feel very artifical.

[Mr Pointy]

//j17 said:

If you just have the basic "Here's you X kg of fuel for the race, use it as you want" you tend to get very dull and dissapointing races.

Driver A uses a bit more fuel to try and overtake Driver B - so Driver B uses a bit more fuel to defend. Driver's A and B repeat this for much of the race, constantly cancelling each other out and over using their required fuel/lap rate...so come the last 5 laps of the race driver's A and B are crawling around the circuit just trying to limp home while Driver C who's had a really dull race just watching his fuel usage trundles up to them, overtakes and wins the race.

Yes, Driver C deserves the win as they ran the most intelligent race but it feel very artifical.

Sounds rather like Formula E doesn't it?

[Leithen]

TheDeuce said:

Exige77 said:

For all these mentioning sliding skirts, flexing wings, mass dampers, it’s 2020 by the way.

All sorts of things happened in the past but we have to judge based on today’s criteria.

By today’s standards this is a very bizarre situation. I don’t think the teams will just jet the FIA sweep it under the carpet.

I don’t have figures but I understand most of the FIA’s income comes from From F1 and that money is used to fund all their motorsports activities.

The other F1 teams could easily take a stand here.

Couldn't agree more.

The surprising thing for me is that the FIA themselves don't seem to have noticed the world has changed. It is 2020 and this sort of 'sweep under rug' treatment only raises headlines higher these days.

I don't see that anything has changed.

Any rules based competition will have grey areas of interpretation. A sport based on technical regulations of machines with engines will have even more areas available for exploitation.

With astonishingly large budgets and a search for the smallest of advantages, every team, to a larger or greater extent continues to look to where they can "stretch" the rules to their advantage.

Any external implementation will be easier to spot and challenge. Internal workings of hybrid engines, much harder to inspect.

If you wish to believe that Ferrari are default baddies, then whatever they do will be portrayed as cheating. IMHO a more realistic view should be that they probably found a method to increase fuel flow, that in their interpretation of the regulations was not illegal. The FIA disagreed, no doubt under pressure from others.

Do the Merc, Renault and Honda power units export any grey areas? I wouldn't bet against it.

Arguably what has happened shows the weakness of Ferrari and the dominance of Mercedes. In previous era I would have fully expected a certain Mr Ferrari to throw his toys out of the pram and threaten to walk away.

Instead, they appear to have rather meekly accepted the closure of whatever loophole they exploited, with the only olive branch being that the details of their engine design are not made public. Perhaps that is more important than we realise. Either way, the bleating of the other teams, needs to be put into perspective.

The piranha pool remains stocked with nasty little fish, not cute goldfish.

[kiseca]

Mr Pointy said:

//j17 said:

If you just have the basic "Here's you X kg of fuel for the race, use it as you want" you tend to get very dull and dissapointing races.

Driver A uses a bit more fuel to try and overtake Driver B - so Driver B uses a bit more fuel to defend. Driver's A and B repeat this for much of the race, constantly cancelling each other out and over using their required fuel/lap rate...so come the last 5 laps of the race driver's A and B are crawling around the circuit just trying to limp home while Driver C who's had a really dull race just watching his fuel usage trundles up to them, overtakes and wins the race.

Yes, Driver C deserves the win as they ran the most intelligent race but it feel very artifical.

Sounds rather like Formula E doesn't it?

Sounds like 1980s turbo era Formula 1, where you had cars conking out two miles from the finish or finishing two laps behind, and Prost, a personal favourite driver of mine but one rarely accused of being exciting to watch, excelling.

Still more interesting than Formula E, I will concede.

[Paul_M3]

Leithen said:

IMHO a more realistic view should be that they probably found a method to increase fuel flow, that in their interpretation of the regulations was not illegal.

Except how can you increase fuel flow without being in direct contravention of rule 5.1.4 and/or 5.10.5?

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.

As rules go, they seem pretty black and white. How could they be interpreted differently by Ferrari?

[//j17]

Mr Pointy said:

//j17 said:

If you just have the basic "Here's you X kg of fuel for the race, use it as you want" you tend to get very dull and dissapointing races.

Driver A uses a bit more fuel to try and overtake Driver B - so Driver B uses a bit more fuel to defend. Driver's A and B repeat this for much of the race, constantly cancelling each other out and over using their required fuel/lap rate...so come the last 5 laps of the race driver's A and B are crawling around the circuit just trying to limp home while Driver C who's had a really dull race just watching his fuel usage trundles up to them, overtakes and wins the race.

Yes, Driver C deserves the win as they ran the most intelligent race but it feel very artifical.

Sounds rather like Formula E doesn't it?

I almost added ", much like the first couple of years in Formula E"

[StevieBee]

Paul_M3 said:

Except how can you increase fuel flow without being in direct contravention of rule 5.1.4 and/or 5.10.5?

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.

As rules go, they seem pretty black and white. How could they be interpreted differently by Ferrari?

How is the fuel flow measured in terms of time though? Do the rules allow interpretation that would, for example, allow more fuel flow for a given period of time allowing the car to pull a gap providing that this is compensated for for the rest of the hour? I could see how in some circumstances that might afford an advantage.

[kiseca]

StevieBee said:

Paul_M3 said:

Except how can you increase fuel flow without being in direct contravention of rule 5.1.4 and/or 5.10.5?

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.

As rules go, they seem pretty black and white. How could they be interpreted differently by Ferrari?

How is the fuel flow measured in terms of time though? Do the rules allow interpretation that would, for example, allow more fuel flow for a given period of time allowing the car to pull a gap providing that this is compensated for for the rest of the hour? I could see how in some circumstances that might afford an advantage.

Steven Wright: "I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, 'Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?' 'Yes, officer, but I wasn’t going to be out that long…' "

[thegreenhell]

Paul_M3 said:

Leithen said:

IMHO a more realistic view should be that they probably found a method to increase fuel flow, that in their interpretation of the regulations was not illegal.

Except how can you increase fuel flow without being in direct contravention of rule 5.1.4 and/or 5.10.5?

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.

As rules go, they seem pretty black and white. How could they be interpreted differently by Ferrari?

Every F1 designer knows that you don't have to comply with every written letter of the rules, but merely pass the enforecement tests and measurements of the FIA stewards at scrutineering.

[Paul_M3]

StevieBee said:

Paul_M3 said:

Except how can you increase fuel flow without being in direct contravention of rule 5.1.4 and/or 5.10.5?

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.

As rules go, they seem pretty black and white. How could they be interpreted differently by Ferrari?

How is the fuel flow measured in terms of time though? Do the rules allow interpretation that would, for example, allow more fuel flow for a given period of time allowing the car to pull a gap providing that this is compensated for for the rest of the hour? I could see how in some circumstances that might afford an advantage.

100kg/h is an instantaneous mass flow rate. It doesn't mean an average over an hour.

You could convert it to kg/nanosecond if you wanted, but it would still be the same thing.

[Munter]

kiseca said:

Steven Wright: "I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, 'Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?' 'Yes, officer, but I wasn’t going to be out that long…' "

We're actually travelling at about 630 MPH. The faster you drive against the spin of the earth the slower you'd be going. So...to avoid speeding tickets. Go west! Fast!

[Gary C]

Munter said:

kiseca said:

Steven Wright: "I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, 'Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?' 'Yes, officer, but I wasn’t going to be out that long…' "

We're actually travelling at about 630 MPH. The faster you drive against the spin of the earth the slower you'd be going. So...to avoid speeding tickets. Go west! Fast!

Speed is relative!

[TheDeuce]

Gary C said:

Munter said:

kiseca said:

Steven Wright: "I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, 'Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?' 'Yes, officer, but I wasn’t going to be out that long…' "

We're actually travelling at about 630 MPH. The faster you drive against the spin of the earth the slower you'd be going. So...to avoid speeding tickets. Go west! Fast!

Speed is relative!

Sadly, by the same logic, a person waiting patiently at the traffic lights could be ticketed for doing 630mph!

Sometimes best not to push your luck

[Graveworm]

TheDeuce said:

Gary C said:

Munter said:

kiseca said:

Steven Wright: "I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, 'Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?' 'Yes, officer, but I wasn’t going to be out that long…' "

We're actually travelling at about 630 MPH. The faster you drive against the spin of the earth the slower you'd be going. So...to avoid speeding tickets. Go west! Fast!

Speed is relative!

Sadly, by the same logic, a person waiting patiently at the traffic lights could be ticketed for doing 630mph!

Sometimes best not to push your luck

Nearer 1.3 million MPH. Not sure on the sentencing guidelines for that.

[TheDeuce]

Graveworm said:

Nearer 1.3 million MPH. Not sure on the sentencing guidelines for that.

Earth spinning around the sun... Yea, you don't want to be caught doing that

On the flip side my very first car, albeit for only a week was an ancient escort diesel - not turbo charged. It's top speed was literally 68 mph.

A speed I did on a b-road that week, and my father said I'd be sorry if I got a fine. My retort was that in this heap of st I'd get the fine framed!

The car broke at the end of the week, I had asked to much of it. I bent a credit card the following day and bought a mint MK2 honda crx vtec - a car I should have kept as they're so collectable now!! I've never had a remotely slow car since, although I genuinely don't ever speed now. I just like to reach the speed limit out of every b road corner extremely quickly

[mcdjl]

Paul_M3 said:

100kg/h is an instantaneous mass flow rate. It doesn't mean an average over an hour.

You could convert it to kg/nanosecond if you wanted, but it would still be the same thing.

Is it? As you say delivering that much fuel in a nanosecond could be challenging but as an engineer that wouldn't stop me trying. If the FIA haven't defined their averaging/measurement period then delivering really fast pulse of fuel as the injector opens, then stopping the flow totally would potentially let you get more fuel in for short durations. Of course over the period of an hour this would have to even out to the 100kg/hr which is where it takes cleverer engine designer than me to figure it out.

[Paul_M3]

mcdjl said:

Paul_M3 said:

100kg/h is an instantaneous mass flow rate. It doesn't mean an average over an hour.

You could convert it to kg/nanosecond if you wanted, but it would still be the same thing.

Is it? As you say delivering that much fuel in a nanosecond could be challenging but as an engineer that wouldn't stop me trying. If the FIA haven't defined their averaging/measurement period then delivering really fast pulse of fuel as the injector opens, then stopping the flow totally would potentially let you get more fuel in for short durations. Of course over the period of an hour this would have to even out to the 100kg/hr which is where it takes cleverer engine designer than me to figure it out.

I don't think really understand. kg/h is a instantaneous unit of measurement. Just because it has 'per hour' in it, that doesn't mean you average the reading over an hour. The speed limit of 70mph is your instantaneous speed. It doesn't mean you can do 120mph for most of an hour and then slow down to 30mph for the last bit. No average or measurement period needs to be defined, because it is not an average measurement.

Converting to kg/nanosecond wouldn't be any more challenging because it would be the same amount of fuel. You convert the units, you don't just suddenly say 100kg/nanosecond. It would in fact be 2.777e-13kg/nanosecond.

Regardless of any of that...the flow rate of 100kg/hr will only be achieved at around maximum power. If they were able to average it over an hour, they'd all be using much higher flow rates every lap, as a fair chuck of the lap will be done with flow rates nowhere near 100kg/h.

[mcdjl]

Paul_M3 said:

I don't think really understand. kg/h is a instantaneous unit of measurement. Just because it has 'per hour' in it, that doesn't mean you average the reading over an hour. The speed limit of 70mph is your instantaneous speed. It doesn't mean you can do 120mph for most of an hour and then slow down to 30mph for the last bit. No average or measurement period needs to be defined, because it is not an average measurement.

Converting to kg/nanosecond wouldn't be any more challenging because it would be the same amount of fuel. You convert the units, you don't just suddenly say 100kg/nanosecond. It would in fact be 2.777e-13kg/nanosecond.

Regardless of any of that...the flow rate of 100kg/hr will only be achieved at around maximum power. If they were able to average it over an hour, they'd all be using much higher flow rates every lap, as a fair chuck of the lap will be done with flow rates nowhere near 100kg/h.

While the unit might be instantaneous, the measurement of it won't be. To measure at nS intervals will create 1,000,000,000 data points per second which isn't practical. If we assume the engines max speed is 10,000rpm then you'd want to sample at at least 3-5x that to get a true approximation of the fuel flow. That said since each injector won't fire each revolution, and then only for part of a revolution it still gives you space to back up fuel pressure behind the measurement point and allow the injector to briefly fire more than an apparent 100kg/hr as thats not where its going past the measurement point.

In terms I'm more familiar with a laser can be rated at 3W. By pulsing it it can deliver a peak of 300W in very short flashes (nS), or it can be operated to give a continuous light at 3W. Over the course of a full second you get 3W average either way. Using the wrong measurement system on it and you'll only see the 3W, never the 300W as it won't react fast enough.
It feels to me like Ferrari found someway of playing games in the sampling/frequency space where the timing is so short/precise that its basically impossible to prove whats been done, even though you know its been done.