Official 2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
Exige77 said:
Fuel is fuel and Kg is Kg.
The fuel has to be a certain chemical composition and qty is a certain weight.
Regardless of the fuel density, they are allowed xxx Kg. They declared xxx Kg and were found to Have xxx+5 Kg.
The density has nothing to do with it. It is measured in Kg for purposes of F1.
It’s not conceivable they could have measured +5Kg. Still unresolved even though it has been brushed under the carpet. 50K fine is a meaningless punishment for a big team.
I wasn't sure if the limit was defined as weight or volume. As you say, if it's defined by weight then density is irrelevant. In any case, the density of different fuels used to do the same job won't vary as much 5%, not even close. That was why I replied to the post asking if weight / volume mix up could have accounted for as much as 5kg.The fuel has to be a certain chemical composition and qty is a certain weight.
Regardless of the fuel density, they are allowed xxx Kg. They declared xxx Kg and were found to Have xxx+5 Kg.
The density has nothing to do with it. It is measured in Kg for purposes of F1.
It’s not conceivable they could have measured +5Kg. Still unresolved even though it has been brushed under the carpet. 50K fine is a meaningless punishment for a big team.
So... Ferrari have so far (unless I've missed it) not given any explanation for the error. An error that's almost inconceivable to be passed off as a mistake. Leaving the world of F1 fans to choose between believing they're either cheats or staggeringly incompetent. After the comedy season they have had, I suppose that we should have expected them to find a way to finish it on the ultimate low note.
Doink said:
Its like saying which is heavier....a ton of feathers or a ton of concrete?
True, however, the form is filled in by a human and I'm sure we've all seen utterly cack-handed processes in companies which make no sense to anyone from a logical point of view. I'm picturing someone in Ferrari thinking they are being really clever by measuring the fuel from the garage side in litres and doing a conversion to kilograms as a "cross check" against the figure (in kg) that the fuel meter displays (and then not actually doing said cross-check but just taking the figure they calculated). I have seen (light aviation) pilots do similar really weird things when working out weight and balance, thinking they are being clever and extra safe when in reality they are just making a mess.As others have said though, the discrepancy is too large for it to just be down to someone trying to be a smart-arse with the way they fill in the forms.
TheDeuce said:
Exige77 said:
Fuel is fuel and Kg is Kg.
The fuel has to be a certain chemical composition and qty is a certain weight.
Regardless of the fuel density, they are allowed xxx Kg. They declared xxx Kg and were found to Have xxx+5 Kg.
The density has nothing to do with it. It is measured in Kg for purposes of F1.
It’s not conceivable they could have measured +5Kg. Still unresolved even though it has been brushed under the carpet. 50K fine is a meaningless punishment for a big team.
I wasn't sure if the limit was defined as weight or volume. As you say, if it's defined by weight then density is irrelevant. In any case, the density of different fuels used to do the same job won't vary as much 5%, not even close. That was why I replied to the post asking if weight / volume mix up could have accounted for as much as 5kg.The fuel has to be a certain chemical composition and qty is a certain weight.
Regardless of the fuel density, they are allowed xxx Kg. They declared xxx Kg and were found to Have xxx+5 Kg.
The density has nothing to do with it. It is measured in Kg for purposes of F1.
It’s not conceivable they could have measured +5Kg. Still unresolved even though it has been brushed under the carpet. 50K fine is a meaningless punishment for a big team.
So... Ferrari have so far (unless I've missed it) not given any explanation for the error. An error that's almost inconceivable to be passed off as a mistake. Leaving the world of F1 fans to choose between believing they're either cheats or staggeringly incompetent. After the comedy season they have had, I suppose that we should have expected them to find a way to finish it on the ultimate low note.
It’s inconceivable they where 5Kg out in their measurement or 5Kg out in their paperwork.
As fishy as one of Katie Price’s thongs !!
Edited by Exige77 on Monday 2nd December 17:58
Exige77 said:
The fuel weight is critical as they are all trying to save a kg here and there and they measure fuel use during the race in a very precise way hence the often heard “save fuel, move to xx mode” and they often lift and coast to save a bit so they can maybe use a bit more for an attack.
It’s inconceivable they where 5Kg out in their measurement or 5Kg out in their paperwork.
As fishy as one of Katie Price’s thongs !!
Oh, does she wear underwear these days? It’s inconceivable they where 5Kg out in their measurement or 5Kg out in their paperwork.
As fishy as one of Katie Price’s thongs !!
Edited by Exige77 on Monday 2nd December 17:58
It is very suspicious. At least we know that Ferrari do indeed get special treatment. Whatever, if they need to cheat or get special treatment to do well in F1, that's their issue I suppose. If they can't win straight, cheat a bit. If they still can't win.. Well, that's just embarrassing really!!
Flooble said:
Just thinking, the fuel quantity is given in kg. That makes it somewhat density dependent. If Ferrari had been using that "special fuel" they talked about, which had a different density to "regular fuel" then it could throw their figures off. Maybe for the last race of the season they didn't bother with the super expensive and rare fuel additive so just messed up their calculations.
I believe the teams can have their own fuel recipe so long as it conforms to FIA outline specs. I would hope they/their supplier knows the specific density (one of the simplest fuel quality checks to do)There is an official ambient temp declared by the FIA which can change throughout the day. When fueling, the fuel added cannot be more than 10degC below this. Fuel chillers are added to circulate fuel but they must be removed 40mins prior to the race start.
CardShark said:
shirt said:
CardShark said:
My point, not that I stated it directly, is that everyone is going off on a tangent with the mindset that Ferrari tried to pull a fast one when there's nothing to suggest that at all, not as per the official statement anyway. It's as if we're intent on nailing something negative on the team, particularly after the fuel flow chatter - people are trying to make the evidence fit a crime that simply may not exist, that's not particularly fair.
Yes, they may look a bit daft if it was a clerical error however that's a long, long way from being a cheat.
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero. Yes, they may look a bit daft if it was a clerical error however that's a long, long way from being a cheat.
shirt said:
The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence
So there's a zero chance of someone filling a form in incorrectly however it is possible to incorrectly fill a tank due to gross incompetence?Flooble said:
True, however, the form is filled in by a human and I'm sure we've all seen utterly cack-handed processes in companies which make no sense to anyone from a logical point of view. I'm picturing someone in Ferrari thinking they are being really clever by measuring the fuel from the garage side in litres and doing a conversion to kilograms as a "cross check" against the figure (in kg) that the fuel meter displays (and then not actually doing said cross-check but just taking the figure they calculated). I have seen (light aviation) pilots do similar really weird things when working out weight and balance, thinking they are being clever and extra safe when in reality they are just making a mess.
As others have said though, the discrepancy is too large for it to just be down to someone trying to be a smart-arse with the way they fill in the forms.
Trust me, all fluids are input in kg. Oil for example is filled by hand pump but with the oil container placed onto scales.As others have said though, the discrepancy is too large for it to just be down to someone trying to be a smart-arse with the way they fill in the forms.
I work with large engines and even we measure fuel in kg, never seen any reference to volume outside of road car fuel consumption.
I take your point about forms however. Strikes me as very quaint that with all the data capture, analysis and live feeds to the factory that the teams and FIA still use formal letters to communicate with each other.
At the risk of spamming the thread...
No additional weight is allowed to be added to a car following parc ferme conditions which start once the car leaves the garage for qualifying. The only exception is fuel and other fluids below a certain specific gravity, and compressed gases. The earlier comment that ferrari knew they would be under weight and hence misdeclared their fuel load holds most water imo, even though it’s an easy catch given the fuel flow meter and the FIA’s general knowledge of what the cars should typically consume.
I’m sure the real reason will come out in the wash
No additional weight is allowed to be added to a car following parc ferme conditions which start once the car leaves the garage for qualifying. The only exception is fuel and other fluids below a certain specific gravity, and compressed gases. The earlier comment that ferrari knew they would be under weight and hence misdeclared their fuel load holds most water imo, even though it’s an easy catch given the fuel flow meter and the FIA’s general knowledge of what the cars should typically consume.
I’m sure the real reason will come out in the wash
shirt said:
Trust me, all fluids are input in kg. Oil for example is filled by hand pump but with the oil container placed onto scales.
I work with large engines and even we measure fuel in kg, never seen any reference to volume outside of road car fuel consumption.
I take your point about forms however. Strikes me as very quaint that with all the data capture, analysis and live feeds to the factory that the teams and FIA still use formal letters to communicate with each other.
Fair enough. I work with large engines and even we measure fuel in kg, never seen any reference to volume outside of road car fuel consumption.
I take your point about forms however. Strikes me as very quaint that with all the data capture, analysis and live feeds to the factory that the teams and FIA still use formal letters to communicate with each other.
Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
Flooble said:
True, however, the form is filled in by a human and I'm sure we've all seen utterly cack-handed processes in companies which make no sense to anyone from a logical point of view. I'm picturing someone in Ferrari thinking they are being really clever by measuring the fuel from the garage side in litres and doing a conversion to kilograms as a "cross check" against the figure (in kg) that the fuel meter displays (and then not actually doing said cross-check but just taking the figure they calculated). I have seen (light aviation) pilots do similar really weird things when working out weight and balance, thinking they are being clever and extra safe when in reality they are just making a mess.
As others have said though, the discrepancy is too large for it to just be down to someone trying to be a smart-arse with the way they fill in the forms.
Light aviation? A 767 ran out of fuel due calculation issues and confusion between lbs and kg.As others have said though, the discrepancy is too large for it to just be down to someone trying to be a smart-arse with the way they fill in the forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
Flooble said:
Fair enough.
Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
Nothing you have said is wrong imo - however, the fluid qty of different density fuels isn't going to be as much as 5% out. Nor will temperature equal 5% out either. We're talking fractional differences here, not 5kg of unaccounted for fuel.Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
jeeeeeeeeez that seems like an awful lot of messing around just to weigh the effin car and measure the fuel.
why bother with all that - why not allocate teams a certain amount of fuel for the weekend, and weigh the car at the start of every session when empty to determine the cars weight.
how big a fuel tank/much fuel used /electrical assistance/energy 'v' combustion - can be totally at the discretion of the engineers who design and build the thing= different approaches different types of cars = variables in the race.
if they dont run in early sessions to save fuel, they dont get track data, if they do, they have less fuel for the race = a variable.
if they have problems with the car and cannot run till the race, then have tons of extra fuel for a faster car = a variable.
if they have an accident in qualy with a car , the other car can get more fuel = a variable.
....variables make for interesting races....
...not minute detailed rules...
FIA seems to enjoy making that rule book thicker and "greyer" as possible.
thats my pre coffee rant of F1 for a tuesday
why bother with all that - why not allocate teams a certain amount of fuel for the weekend, and weigh the car at the start of every session when empty to determine the cars weight.
how big a fuel tank/much fuel used /electrical assistance/energy 'v' combustion - can be totally at the discretion of the engineers who design and build the thing= different approaches different types of cars = variables in the race.
if they dont run in early sessions to save fuel, they dont get track data, if they do, they have less fuel for the race = a variable.
if they have problems with the car and cannot run till the race, then have tons of extra fuel for a faster car = a variable.
if they have an accident in qualy with a car , the other car can get more fuel = a variable.
....variables make for interesting races....
...not minute detailed rules...
FIA seems to enjoy making that rule book thicker and "greyer" as possible.
thats my pre coffee rant of F1 for a tuesday
rider73 said:
jeeeeeeeeez that seems like an awful lot of messing around just to weigh the effin car and measure the fuel.
why bother with all that - why not allocate teams a certain amount of fuel for the weekend, and weigh the car at the start of every session when empty to determine the cars weight.
how big a fuel tank/much fuel used /electrical assistance/energy 'v' combustion - can be totally at the discretion of the engineers who design and build the thing= different approaches different types of cars = variables in the race.
if they dont run in early sessions to save fuel, they dont get track data, if they do, they have less fuel for the race = a variable.
if they have problems with the car and cannot run till the race, then have tons of extra fuel for a faster car = a variable.
if they have an accident in qualy with a car , the other car can get more fuel = a variable.
....variables make for interesting races....
...not minute detailed rules...
FIA seems to enjoy making that rule book thicker and "greyer" as possible.
thats my pre coffee rant of F1 for a tuesday
Not as easy as that. The cars weight changes over the weekend. amongst other things the wiring loom in a car halves after practice because they remove as many sensors as possible to save weight....so how much weight loss is allocated to fuel and how much to parts that are no longer on the car why bother with all that - why not allocate teams a certain amount of fuel for the weekend, and weigh the car at the start of every session when empty to determine the cars weight.
how big a fuel tank/much fuel used /electrical assistance/energy 'v' combustion - can be totally at the discretion of the engineers who design and build the thing= different approaches different types of cars = variables in the race.
if they dont run in early sessions to save fuel, they dont get track data, if they do, they have less fuel for the race = a variable.
if they have problems with the car and cannot run till the race, then have tons of extra fuel for a faster car = a variable.
if they have an accident in qualy with a car , the other car can get more fuel = a variable.
....variables make for interesting races....
...not minute detailed rules...
FIA seems to enjoy making that rule book thicker and "greyer" as possible.
thats my pre coffee rant of F1 for a tuesday
Same goes for fuel density, which changes with temperature etc so measuring and comparing can be trick.
TheDeuce said:
Flooble said:
Fair enough.
Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
Nothing you have said is wrong imo - however, the fluid qty of different density fuels isn't going to be as much as 5% out. Nor will temperature equal 5% out either. We're talking fractional differences here, not 5kg of unaccounted for fuel.Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
37chevy said:
Exige77 said:
As said already, the fluid density is not part of the equation or even taken into consideration as it’s only measured in Kg.
but the fuel density and weight (kg) does change with temperature, so they are somewhat linkedIt’s really splitting hairs anyway as it won’t materially effect anything.
Flooble said:
Fair enough.
Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
Ferrari setting themselves up to fail?? God forbid!Light aviation is a total mess where you have US aircraft which give their fuel capacity in (US) gallons, but the pumps at airfields (here) are litres, however, your weight and balance needs to be in units of mass (with US aircraft giving pounds and inches but lots of things here in kg and centimetres). So I've seen some very scary mis-calculations happening. I'm pretty sure no-one ever compensates for ambient temperature either.
I also work in the IT industry and I see far too many examples where numbers that could be auto-generated are instead calculated by hand in Excel, then hand-typed into a Word Document (often in more than one place, to maximise the chance of error and inconsistency). Sometimes it seems as though firms are trying to set themselves up to fail.
Exige77 said:
I believe there’s a temperature range when the weight should be taken.
It’s really splitting hairs anyway as it won’t materially effect anything.
not really, ive been over/ under weight in a kart race before because temperatures have risen/ decreased from the time I measured/ poured fuel into the tank to the point the kart has been weighed. It’s really splitting hairs anyway as it won’t materially effect anything.
Autosport
Honda is "very sorry" for the engine issue behind Max Verstappen's problem in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, even though the Red Bull Formula 1 driver still finished second.
After Verstappen made his sole pitstop just before the halfway mark of the race, he started to report a problem with throttle response in his Honda-powered Red Bull.
The problem did not stop him catching and passing Charles Leclerc's Ferrari for second in the race, but it was something that could not be fixed.
Honda's F1 technical director Toyoharu Tanabe told Autosport that initial analysis traced the issue to Honda's power unit control.
"We tried to improve it with some different settings during the race after the pitstop," said Tanabe.
"Then the driver compromised the application of the throttle.
"We are very sorry about the trouble during the race.
"Today, the problem didn't give him a big deficit in terms of position.
"But there was a big chance to give him a big deficit, it depends on the race situation.
"We should be perfect enough to supply our drivers and teams in terms of power unit performance."
Verstappen's ability to make the finish capped an impressive season of reliability for Honda, which completed the entire year without a race-ending failure on either Red Bull.
Honda is "very sorry" for the engine issue behind Max Verstappen's problem in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, even though the Red Bull Formula 1 driver still finished second.
After Verstappen made his sole pitstop just before the halfway mark of the race, he started to report a problem with throttle response in his Honda-powered Red Bull.
The problem did not stop him catching and passing Charles Leclerc's Ferrari for second in the race, but it was something that could not be fixed.
Honda's F1 technical director Toyoharu Tanabe told Autosport that initial analysis traced the issue to Honda's power unit control.
"We tried to improve it with some different settings during the race after the pitstop," said Tanabe.
"Then the driver compromised the application of the throttle.
"We are very sorry about the trouble during the race.
"Today, the problem didn't give him a big deficit in terms of position.
"But there was a big chance to give him a big deficit, it depends on the race situation.
"We should be perfect enough to supply our drivers and teams in terms of power unit performance."
Verstappen's ability to make the finish capped an impressive season of reliability for Honda, which completed the entire year without a race-ending failure on either Red Bull.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff