Ferrari International Assistance alive & well
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
What additive can do that? The theory that they flowed more between each of the flow sensors cycles is the solution to fooling it surely?
I heard some mumblings somewhere that the sensor is an optical one that measures the refraction of the light, so presumably if an additive altered the refractive index of the fuel a smidge then...30 seconds of googling and that's clearly nonsense, but appears to be an ultrasonic sensor. So again, if you could mildly alter the properties of the fuel then the sensor wouldn't read correctly.
Edited by SturdyHSV on Tuesday 3rd March 09:18
SturdyHSV said:
You always seem to know quite a bit about F1 stuff. If it transpired the well known 'deesee' from the TV spent his spare time on PH that would be most amusing 
Can't be the real one though as you don't swear enough!
Haha... never could get my head round Mika had 3 peddles and I had four perhaps that’s why I never won a WDC (I’m not real dc)! Can't be the real one though as you don't swear enough!
(There are a few lurkers on here, and you do find news breaks from here onto the media).. ahem!
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Coolant & oil on the fuel, along with additives which caused the fuel flow to miss count.
What additive can do that? The theory that they flowed more between each of the flow sensors cycles is the solution to fooling it surely?The second sensor stopped the “uncorrected/uncounted” flow.
I’m pretty sure the miss fuel was somehow a result of this to.
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Coolant & oil on the fuel, along with additives which caused the fuel flow to miss count.
What additive can do that? The theory that they flowed more between each of the flow sensors cycles is the solution to fooling it surely?I'm pretty sure one of the sensors I used (decades ago in a different life), I had to enter the density/specific gravity of the fluid inside the pipe, in order to get the correct reading. Now if they could choose to "contaminate" the fuel to alter the density on demand...the fuel meter wouldn't give a true reading.
Would you contaminate during a flow calibration, and run "clean" during the race. Or contaminate on demand during the race so you are clean during the test? But why wouldn't the FIA not be looking for this as it's a pretty obvious thing to be doing to abuse the fuel.
Deesee said:
The details won’t be released the FIA have to protect the anonymity of the Scuderia employee, and also the IP of the engine manufacturer and the fuel/fluid supplier.
The second sensor stopped the “uncorrected/uncounted” flow.
I’m pretty sure the miss fuel was somehow a result of this to.
It was my understanding that the second sensor stopped the potential 'cheat' as the team aren't allowed to use it's output for their own purposes - and without reading it's output directly, they can't fool it by pulling extra fuel between each cycle of the sensor.The second sensor stopped the “uncorrected/uncounted” flow.
I’m pretty sure the miss fuel was somehow a result of this to.
https://www.flowmeters.com/product-list.php?page=u...
Some interesting reading of how the sensors work, as the one the FIA use has the word 'sonic' in the name, I'm going to assume it's ultrasonic...
To look at that like an F1 bod, the end paragraph is what's interesting, all the ways in which it could give inaccurate readings. An interesting one is build up on the pipe walls.
Presumably in order to make a sensible measurement of the flow then the internal diameter of the pipe is needed? If a buildup meant the inside of the pipe was narrower then the flow rate (difference between upstream and downstream times) would be greater for the 100kg/hour flow rate.
If an additive in the fuel could then dissolve this buildup, the pipe would end up being wider than measured during inspection / calibration, and thus the flow rate would be higher than measured
Some interesting reading of how the sensors work, as the one the FIA use has the word 'sonic' in the name, I'm going to assume it's ultrasonic...
To look at that like an F1 bod, the end paragraph is what's interesting, all the ways in which it could give inaccurate readings. An interesting one is build up on the pipe walls.
Presumably in order to make a sensible measurement of the flow then the internal diameter of the pipe is needed? If a buildup meant the inside of the pipe was narrower then the flow rate (difference between upstream and downstream times) would be greater for the 100kg/hour flow rate.
If an additive in the fuel could then dissolve this buildup, the pipe would end up being wider than measured during inspection / calibration, and thus the flow rate would be higher than measured
SturdyHSV said:
https://www.flowmeters.com/product-list.php?page=u...
Some interesting reading of how the sensors work, as the one the FIA use has the word 'sonic' in the name, I'm going to assume it's ultrasonic...
To look at that like an F1 bod, the end paragraph is what's interesting, all the ways in which it could give inaccurate readings. An interesting one is build up on the pipe walls.
Presumably in order to make a sensible measurement of the flow then the internal diameter of the pipe is needed? If a buildup meant the inside of the pipe was narrower then the flow rate (difference between upstream and downstream times) would be greater for the 100kg/hour flow rate.
If an additive in the fuel could then dissolve this buildup, the pipe would end up being wider than measured during inspection / calibration, and thus the flow rate would be higher than measured
I don't think you need to calibrate that kind of sensor though, so long as the cross section of the bore is known, the rest is just maths. If you then caked up the walls and subsequently increased velocity to achieve the same flow overall, the sensor would read the fuel passing through at the higher rate, it wouldn't 'know' the bore had been reduced, so under inspection it would just appear they were flowing more fuel than they actually are.Some interesting reading of how the sensors work, as the one the FIA use has the word 'sonic' in the name, I'm going to assume it's ultrasonic...
To look at that like an F1 bod, the end paragraph is what's interesting, all the ways in which it could give inaccurate readings. An interesting one is build up on the pipe walls.
Presumably in order to make a sensible measurement of the flow then the internal diameter of the pipe is needed? If a buildup meant the inside of the pipe was narrower then the flow rate (difference between upstream and downstream times) would be greater for the 100kg/hour flow rate.
If an additive in the fuel could then dissolve this buildup, the pipe would end up being wider than measured during inspection / calibration, and thus the flow rate would be higher than measured
Wouldn't it be far simpler, and more dependable, to have the fuel system synced to the read cycle of the flow sensor, and in the few ms between the end of each reading it give, before it takes the next reading, just have the injectors allow a little extra fuel through? IE if you know the exact moment the sensor takes each reading, you can fill your boots in between. The teams do definitely know what that cycle is, as they have access to the output of that sensor. That is why the FIA have added a second sensor which they are not allowed to tap in to, so that method of duping the sensor is no longer available.
TheDeuce said:
I don't think you need to calibrate that kind of sensor though, so long as the cross section of the bore is known, the rest is just maths. If you then caked up the walls and subsequently increased velocity to achieve the same flow overall, the sensor would read the fuel passing through at the higher rate, it wouldn't 'know' the bore had been reduced, so under inspection it would just appear they were flowing more fuel than they actually are.
Wouldn't it be far simpler, and more dependable, to have the fuel system synced to the read cycle of the flow sensor, and in the few ms between the end of each reading it give, before it takes the next reading, just have the injectors allow a little extra fuel through? IE if you know the exact moment the sensor takes each reading, you can fill your boots in between. The teams do definitely know what that cycle is, as they have access to the output of that sensor. That is why the FIA have added a second sensor which they are not allowed to tap in to, so that method of duping the sensor is no longer available.
Not sure I buy that.. the sample rate will be in 100's maybe 1000's HZ range.Wouldn't it be far simpler, and more dependable, to have the fuel system synced to the read cycle of the flow sensor, and in the few ms between the end of each reading it give, before it takes the next reading, just have the injectors allow a little extra fuel through? IE if you know the exact moment the sensor takes each reading, you can fill your boots in between. The teams do definitely know what that cycle is, as they have access to the output of that sensor. That is why the FIA have added a second sensor which they are not allowed to tap in to, so that method of duping the sensor is no longer available.
I suspect there was something else afoot, potentially within the fuel line system that allowed them to have what was in effect a reservoir.
BrettMRC said:
Not sure I buy that.. the sample rate will be in 100's maybe 1000's HZ range.
I suspect there was something else afoot, potentially within the fuel line system that allowed them to have what was in effect a reservoir.
The read cycle will probably be far lower though. And the frequency the signal is read will probably be detectable by the team too, on the basis that current is detectable, and it can therefore be detected how frequently the readings are being taken. I guess all this data goes back to the equivalent of a custom PLC or similar, which rarely scan faster than 1ms.I suspect there was something else afoot, potentially within the fuel line system that allowed them to have what was in effect a reservoir.
All depends exactly how much access the teams have. If they have access to the entire system, they should be able to detect the reading. And god knows how fast the injectors can switch but I'm guessing at F1 rpm, they're well below whatever the frequency of the reading is.
TheDeuce said:
BrettMRC said:
If Ferrari are running PLC's in the car it might explain an awful lot.... 
I know 
there must be some equivalent hardware to read and relay the various data and control the cars systems though. What is it? Some standard kit provided by the FIA?
Munter said:
TheDeuce said:
BrettMRC said:
If Ferrari are running PLC's in the car it might explain an awful lot....
I know there must be some equivalent hardware to read and relay the various data and control the cars systems though. What is it? Some standard kit provided by the FIA?
What's interesting is it only transmits 750m pieces of data in a two hour rase. Based on the 300 sensors the cars reportedly have, that's just 350 ish readings per second, almost 3ms between each reading - on average. I'm sure some data is sent at for more frequent intervals and others less. But it does show that overall, there have to be gaps - big enough potentially to allow the injectors to flow a little more fuel.
Still just a theory mind you. There remains a lot we just can't know about exactly what they were or even could be doing.
Marc Priestley makes a valid point that Ferrari cheating robbed other teams of points, from 18 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 3rd March 12:56
carinaman said:
Marc Priestley makes a valid point that Ferrari cheating robbed other teams of points, from 18 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
Well that was uplifting. He doesn't like Alonso, doesn't agree with the FIA and thinks the entire championship is going to be cancelled https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 3rd March 12:56
He made some good points though.
carinaman said:
Marc Priestley makes a valid point that Ferrari cheating robbed other teams of points, from 18 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
I don't think many teams want to go back and correct points scores for cars found to be a bit cheaty post season. I'm thinking a lot has come out over the years about past cars. Best to look forwards for all involved.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vywjtd49mM
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff