84 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

 

Jon Noble

‏@NobleF1

Breaking news in Spain as FIA clamps down on trick fuel systems - new 'constant' fuel rate demanded. It could impact Merc v Ferrari battle

 

Jon Noble ‏@NobleF1  19m

19 minutes ago

Teams have been playing around in area all year. From now on, fuel flow rate: "must remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/h."

 

No idea what this is about. Hope we get a better explanation later.

 

Edited by Timstr11, 10 May 2015 - 07:12.

[Ev0d3vil]

 

 

No idea what this is about. Hope we get a better explanation later.

 

 

Another in season rule change 

[Yoshi]

Here is one news about this message from the FIA over night

 

http://www.motorspor...-systems-568197

 

There have been some claims that Mercedes and Ferrari have been exploiting this area to varying degrees since the start of the campaign – although neither team has broken the rules.

Sources suggest that the matter of fuel-flow rates came up again at a meeting of technical directors earlier this week, and the FIA has now issued a note to teams making it clear that there are new limits in terms of what teams can do.

[Lights]

 

"Mercedes and Ferrari have been exploiting this area to varying degrees since the start of the campaign – although neither team has broken the rules." 

 

 

Why would any team not exploit this area without breaking the rules?

[Graveltrappen]

Breaking news overnight; FIA believes some teams are exploiting the fuel-flow system and have sent a letter to all teams informing them of their intention to inspect all systems.

Cars are in parc ferme, wonder if any teams are crapping themselves this morning?...

Some sources off of Twitter:

@adamcooperF1: The big news overnight is that the FIA is taking a closer look at fuel flow and pressure, an area some teams are thought to be exploiting

@adamcooperF1: A note sent from the FIA to the teams says "We will also be carrying out careful physical inspections of all fuel systems in use."

@NobleF1: Breaking news in Spain as FIA clamps down on trick fuel systems - new 'constant' fuel rate demanded. It could impact Merc v Ferrari battle

Edited by Graveltrappen, 10 May 2015 - 07:56.

[Newbrray]

 
Why would any team not exploit this area without breaking the rules?

I guess it's all that not operating within the "spirit of the rules" stuff and yet technically adhering to it

[kapow]

Personally I love this sort of scandal!

[Seanspeed]

Source?

[xmoonrakerx]

what happens if a team is found cheating?

[Imperial]

Whiting reported as having said “We will also be carrying out careful physical inspections of all fuel systems in use", yet tantalisingly doesn't seem to say when.

Edited by Imperial, 10 May 2015 - 07:47.

[Imperial]

Source?

Not my job, as I am not the OP, but: http://www.motorspor...-systems-568197

Edited by Imperial, 10 May 2015 - 07:46.

[Seanspeed]

 
Why would any team not exploit this area without breaking the rules?

Yea, sounds like they're just doing their job in that case.

[artista]

More here:

@adamcooperF1: The big news overnight is that the FIA is taking a closer look at fuel flow and pressure, an area some teams are thought to be exploiting

@adamcooperF1: A note sent from the FIA to the teams says "We will also be carrying out careful physical inspections of all fuel systems in use."

@NobleF1: Breaking news in Spain as FIA clamps down on trick fuel systems - new 'constant' fuel rate demanded. It could impact Merc v Ferrari battle

please people, give links or sources to your statements. Thanks!

[aramos]

When Jon Noble talks about 'must be over 90kg/hr' what is he talking about?

[Seanspeed]

So reading a bit more - nobody is being suspected of cheating. Gross exaggeration on the thread title(along with no source in the OP, c'mon...).

It sounds like certain teams are *possibly* exploiting the rules(not breaking them) and the FIA wants to clamp down on things just to make sure. Interesting, but not quite as dramatic as was being made out.

[Ducks]

"could impact ferrari/merc battle"

 

So who do we expect to take the hit, the team who was winning last year or the team who have made a big jump forward?

[Exb]

Is this the same thing they tried to enforce in China by bringing in measurements for the fuel flow at different points to stop teams (cough Ferrari cough) from storing fuel to use extra over 1 lap?

 

Edit: maybe not Ferrari, my apologies.

Edited by Exb, 10 May 2015 - 08:26.

[Seanspeed]

"could impact ferrari/merc battle"
 
So who do we expect to take the hit, the team who was winning last year or the team who have made a big jump forward?

Who says a team couldn't be doing this last year as well?

I know you hate Ferrari and are desperately hoping they get hurt, but Mercedes could well affected by this just as much, if not more. We simply have no idea.
 

Is this the same thing they tried to enforce in China by bringing in measurements for the fuel flow at different points to stop teams (cough Ferrari cough) from storing fuel to use extra over 1 lap?

There was no reason to suspect Ferrari were the culprit except wishful thinking by some.

I remember one or two people had a hard-on about how Ferrari were going to be hurt by it, and yet nothing changed.

Edited by Seanspeed, 10 May 2015 - 07:58.

[Ducks]

By your vigorous defense of Ferrari I suspect you think its them exploiting this rule, thanks for helping me understand who the issue might be with.

[SophieB]

I moved a few posts from the race day thread into here and edited the title as there seems to have been no suggestion that any team has cheated.

[Seanspeed]

By your vigorous defense of Ferrari I suspect you think its them exploiting this rule, thanks for helping me understand who the issue might be with.

This is like the old, "He'd denying he's guilty so he must be guilty!" argument. lol And worse, I'm not even denying Ferrari is guilty. I wouldn't know.

It's obviously you who is displaying any eagerness to lay blame on anyone, not me. There's no way I could know anything and I think anybody who is going around pointing fingers is doing so almost purely by wishful thinking.

Edited by Seanspeed, 10 May 2015 - 08:05.

[Exb]

There was no reason to suspect Ferrari were the culprit except wishful thinking by some.

I thought it had been confirmed it was Ferrari that had spotted a loophole (I'm not accusing them of cheating) but than the FIA removed the loop hole by bringing in further measurements. If it wasn't Ferrari then it is just my bad memory, but either way is it the same thing as what has been flagged up here???

[Seanspeed]

I thought it had been confirmed it was Ferrari that had spotted a loophole (I'm not accusing them of cheating) but than the FIA removed the loop hole by bringing in further measurements. If it wasn't Ferrari then it is just my bad memory, but either way is it the same thing as what has been flagged up here???

No, it was never confirmed it was Ferrari.

And this sounds like it would either be the same thing, or something related. Possibly the previous 'clampdown' did not actually close the loophole being exploited, or a certain team(s) were finding other ways of circumventing the measurement system.

[Timstr11]

Anyone interested in understanding the directive instead of pointing fingers?

 

They've lost me here: "With immediate effect we will expect fuel pressure, in the high and low pressure systems, to remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/hr,” wrote Whiting.

 

Why is it not allowed to dip below 90kg/hr? What if your demand is low? 

Must be more to it, but for now it doesn't make sense to me.

[Lotus53B]

What I'm wondering is that if you have differential pressure in the two systems, fuel might be allowed to pool somewhere to be used at times of high demand.

[Alexandros]

Anyone interested in understanding the directive instead of pointing fingers?

 

They've lost me here: "With immediate effect we will expect fuel pressure, in the high and low pressure systems, to remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/hr,” wrote Whiting.

 

Why is it not allowed to dip below 90kg/hr? What if your demand is low? 

Must be more to it, but for now it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Just having adequate fuel pressure doesn't mean that the fuel will actually enter the valves. That depends on the throttle.

[ClubmanGT]

Smacks of flexing front wings all over again - they know it's going on, they know who is doing it and they can't find a way to prove it's actually breaking the rules. 

[realracer200]

that's great news. maybe the championship will be closer...

[Timstr11]

 

this is a great example, to show just how "schoddy" the reporting in the so called "expert media" is, and that some of the so called "experts" have not the fainthest idea what they are actually talking about.   - discraseful

 

---> "“With immediate effect we will expect fuel pressure, in the high and low pressure systems, to remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/hr,” wrote Whiting.

 

day and night difference from a technical point of view

 

So only above a flow rate of 90Kg/hr shall the pressure in both systems remain constant.

Begins to make more sense.

Edited by Timstr11, 10 May 2015 - 08:45.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I suspect people think it is Ferrari due to the PU gains this year....

 

But it could just as easily be Honda or Renault... or even Mercedes, but I don't think its Mercedes as there performance is about the same as last year...

[smitten]

Just having adequate fuel pressure doesn't mean that the fuel will actually enter the valves. That depends on the throttle.

 

Except we are talking flow rate, not pressure.

 

If the fuel limit is 100kg, and the time limit for a race 2 hrs, and fuel flow must remain above 90kg/hr, then surely nobody could finish a time limited race.  Or am I missing something?

[Mackey]

but I don't think its Mercedes as there performance is about the same as last year...

 

For all we know, it could be that Mercedes were doing it last year already and now Ferrari is doing it as well.

[Timstr11]

this is a great example, to show just how "schoddy" the reporting in the so called "expert media" is, and that some of the so called "experts" have not the fainthest idea what they are actually talking about.   - discraseful

 

---> "“With immediate effect we will expect fuel pressure, in the high and low pressure systems, to remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/hr,” wrote Whiting.

 

day and night difference from a technical point of view

 

 

This is better worded (by AMuS)

 

 

Andreas Haupt ‏@andihaupt1  4m

4 minutes ago

#F1: #FIA warns teams. Fuel flow must be consistent between 90 and 100kg/hour. No big fluctuation in those regions. More later on our page.

Edited by Timstr11, 10 May 2015 - 08:52.

[Peter Perfect]

this is a great example, to show just how "schoddy" the reporting in the so called "expert media" is, and that some of the so called "experts" have not the fainthest idea what they are actually talking about.   - discraseful

 

---> "“With immediate effect we will expect fuel pressure, in the high and low pressure systems, to remain constant above a flow rate of 90kg/hr,” wrote Whiting.

 

day and night difference from a technical point of view

 

 

What I'm wondering is that if you have differential pressure in the two systems, fuel might be allowed to pool somewhere to be used at times of high demand.

 

From what Charlie has said that's what it seems like to me i.e. the same situation that was mentioned earlier this year (disclaimer: I Am Not A Technical Whizz)

 

I suspect people think it is Ferrari due to the PU gains this year....

 

But it could just as easily be Honda or Renault... or even Mercedes, but I don't think its Mercedes as there performance is about the same as last year...

 

..unless of course Mercedes were doing this last year too.

[pdac]

I hate all of this "it's cheating" vs "it's a loophope" ... The FIA are to blame on this. They have rules and they have ways of testing that the rules are being adhered to. If the rule is the flow rate and teams are duping the test, then it's cheating. If they are not, then the FIA are trying to change the rules. They should be clear about which it is - none of this "no one is cheating but we suspect they are gaining an advantage".

[Ferrari2183]

I guess it's all that not operating within the "spirit of the rules" stuff and yet technically adhering to it

There is no spirit of the rules. Teams should be allowed to operate within the rule subset. End of.

If it's not breaking the rules then it's fair game.

This sport has completely lost its mind.

[Seanspeed]

There is no spirit of the rules. Teams should be allowed to operate within the rule subset. End of.

If it's not breaking the rules then it's fair game.

This sport has completely lost its mind.

Its fair game but if a rule was introduced for a reason and teams are circumventing it, its understandable that the FIA want to tighten up the rule to eliminate the exploitation.

There is certainly a spirit of the rules, even if its not illegal to break them.

[artista]

Another (just published) article on the issue by Adam Cooper:

http://www.motorspor...fuel-flow-rates

[Ferrari2183]

Its fair game but if a rule was introduced for a reason and teams are circumventing it, its understandable that the FIA want to tighten up the rule to eliminate the exploitation.

There is certainly a spirit of the rules, even if its not illegal to break them.

If that is the case we'd end up with cars that look exactly the same and operate in the exact same manner eventually.

I was all for the flexi-wings. As no object is infinitely rigid, the FIA devised a series of tests to ensure compliance. That control was the test and teams designed their wings with that tolerance in mind. What happens after that threshold is reached is fair game.

The regulations are written and teams design within those confines. This spirit stuff is just bluster because the double diffuser would have been banned from the get-go if it had any merit.

[Rasputin]

Perhaps this is the answer to Honda's uncompetitiveness, they are the only ones taking the rules seriously?

[pdac]

There is no spirit of the rules. Teams should be allowed to operate within the rule subset. End of.

If it's not breaking the rules then it's fair game.

This sport has completely lost its mind.

 

There is no 'spirit' of the rule - true, but there is the plain statement and the way in which compliance is tested. If the rule states something that's the rule, regardless of whether you can find a clever way of fooling the test procedure to give a false positive. The FIA need to be clear on this.

[Nemo1965]

In order to may understand the underlying problematic a bit better, have a look at this graphic.

 

 

mass flow is governed by a pressure ratio.

Now if we take this to the injector, then one of the pressures is the pressure inside the combustion camber, while this is not "constant", in a running engine, we can consider it as a "given" (for a given engine, under specific conditions --> rpm, boost pressure, temperature).

 

Now if I can raise the injector pressure (upper limit as per the rules is 500 bar) I raise the "mass flow" into the engine. And I may do this (raising the fuel pressure) "temporary" by employing pressure wave or resonance effects.

 

To give a "idea" how actual fuel pressure traces look like (there is no such thing as "constant" pressure or fuel flow in "engineering" terms ) take a look at this graph. It's not for a DI engine, so the pressue values are low(er) but the underlying problematic is the same. It show which effect a "damper" ( or just a designed elasticity in the fuel system --> injector rail) can have on the pressure inside the fuel rail over the rpm range. And it should show, what the "name of the game" is/can be, for the context (FIA directive) at hand.

 

Sorry I can't embed the graphic, so you need to follow the link:

http://delphi.com/im...8996de3943c-gif

 

Thank you. With your posts, and that of Adam Cooper's article, I finally get the crux of the problem!

[george1981]

Except we are talking flow rate, not pressure.

 

If the fuel limit is 100kg, and the time limit for a race 2 hrs, and fuel flow must remain above 90kg/hr, then surely nobody could finish a time limited race.  Or am I missing something?

 

It's not saying the mass flow rate needs to be constantly between 90-100kg/h. It is saying that when the mass flow rate is between 90-100kg/h the pressure in the system needs to be constant. There will be times when there is no fuel demand such as when braking etc. when the mass flow rate will be below 90kg/hour which will allow the teams to get last a race on their fuel.

[milestone 11]

Except we are talking flow rate, not pressure.

If the fuel limit is 100kg, and the time limit for a race 2 hrs, and fuel flow must remain above 90kg/hr, then surely nobody could finish a time limited race. Or am I missing something?

Have to agree with you, in fact, I fail to understand how they can race for longer than 66 minutes. The directive just doesn't stack up to me.

[Exb]

Another (just published) article on the issue by Adam Cooper:

http://www.motorspor...fuel-flow-rates

Thanks for linking - I actually understand that article. So it is the same as what they tried to clamp down on in China.

[Timstr11]

In order to may understand the underlying problematic a bit better, have a look at this graphic.

 

 

mass flow is governed by a pressure ratio.

Now if we take this to the injector, then one of the pressures is the pressure inside the combustion camber, while this is not "constant", in a running engine, we can consider it as a "given" (for a given engine, under specific conditions --> rpm, boost pressure, temperature).

 

Now if I can raise the injector pressure (upper limit as per the rules is 500 bar) I raise the "mass flow" into the engine. And I may do this (raising the fuel pressure) "temporary" by employing pressure wave or resonance effects.

 

I get the pressure wave effect that would allow a spike in fuel mass flow beyond the fuel flow meter. But it doesn't sound like something you can exploit to a great extent.

You will still be limited by the 100 KG in race. Although I do see benefits for qualifying where you don' have that limit.

[GoldenColt]

Is it this time of the year again?   

[Huffer]

Interesting that we didn't hear about this last season. I would have thought that with the FIA keeping a close eye on fuel flow, there would have been a big noise had the other teams thought this was happening at the time.

 

The natural prime suspect in this is of course, as always, Ferrari. They've made the largest gains on the PU this season, and it's not going to be exactly clear where those gains are. I'm not convinced that their gains have come about from energy recovery systems - it's a difficult thing to do when you've outsourced that whole aspect of the PU - given the amount of time and testing they've had. I think they focused more one what they can quickly and easily change in-house (software, packaging, ICE) rather than wasting time on the "outsourcing merry go round".

[pdac]

I get the pressure wave effect that would allow a spike in fuel mass flow beyond the fuel flow meter. But it doesn't sound like something you can exploit to a great extent.

You will still be limited by the 100 KG in race. Although I do see benefits for qualifying where you don' have that limit.

 

Also, that's illegal too, surely ...

 

5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.

 

[Timstr11]

Also, that's illegal too, surely ...

 

Ok. Noted.