Ferrari International Assistance alive & well

[Paul_M3]

mcdjl said:

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.

Yes, which I why several posts ago I listed the rules which the above method would be in contravention of:

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.

5.1.4 is an absolute value.It doesn't matter how you do it, or what you're measuring, the flow must not exceed that limit. Rule 5.10.5 is there to stop them doing the sort of thing you're talking about.

[mcdjl]

Paul_M3 said:

Yes, which I why several posts ago I listed the rules which the above method would be in contravention of:

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.

5.1.4 is an absolute value.It doesn't matter how you do it, or what you're measuring, the flow must not exceed that limit. Rule 5.10.5 is there to stop them doing the sort of thing you're talking about.

But if you can't prove that's what it was doing that's how you could end up where the FIA/ Ferrari are now.

[Paul_M3]

mcdjl said:

Paul_M3 said:

Yes, which I why several posts ago I listed the rules which the above method would be in contravention of:

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.

5.1.4 is an absolute value.It doesn't matter how you do it, or what you're measuring, the flow must not exceed that limit. Rule 5.10.5 is there to stop them doing the sort of thing you're talking about.

But if you can't prove that's what it was doing that's how you could end up where the FIA/ Ferrari are now.

But what people are saying is that if you can't prove Ferrari did anything wrong, why wouldn't you just issue a statement saying that?

And if there is no proof of wrongdoing, there is certainly no need for a 'settlement', is there? Would you as Ferrari team management be happy paying a settlement (or fine) for something you hadn't been proven guilty of doing? Especially if such a settlement gave the implication that you had in fact been cheating.

[kiseca]

Paul_M3 said:

mcdjl said:

Paul_M3 said:

Yes, which I why several posts ago I listed the rules which the above method would be in contravention of:

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.

5.1.4 is an absolute value.It doesn't matter how you do it, or what you're measuring, the flow must not exceed that limit. Rule 5.10.5 is there to stop them doing the sort of thing you're talking about.

But if you can't prove that's what it was doing that's how you could end up where the FIA/ Ferrari are now.

But what people are saying is that if you can't prove Ferrari did anything wrong, why wouldn't you just issue a statement saying that?

And if there is no proof of wrongdoing, there is certainly no need for a 'settlement', is there? Would you as Ferrari team management be happy paying a settlement (or fine) for something you hadn't been proven guilty of doing? Especially if such a settlement gave the implication that you had in fact been cheating.

They have a history of such decisions, and not always about Ferrari.

Bennetton, with their software that *could* provide traction control. Couldn't prove they'd actually used it, so did nothing. However, that season, they did do just enough to make sure that Williams found their way back into the title race, without simply disqualifying the primary contender.
McLaren. Couldn't prove that they had used or gained any advantage from the Ferrari data that they had possession of. Fined them £100 million, removed their constructors points, but let the drivers, who had gained all of their points in the same questionable car whether they knew it or not (and one definitely did), keep their points. Disqualifying the whole team would have effectively ended the championship race there and then.
Tyrrell - lead weights in the water tanks or something or other that allowed them to race under weight. Team, including drivers - who had no real influence on the championship anyway - disqualified for season.

Whatever the problem or infringement is, they always have one eye on the impact to the championship race, the spectacle, the bottom line (dollars) and the other on making a reasonable ruling on the infringement. So there will never be any consistency as, when it's a team that isn't competitive, there's no spectator impact so they just rule on the infringement, and when it's a team that is competitive, they'll try keep the show interesting.

Edited by kiseca on Wednesday 11th March 17:29