84 replies to this topic

[pdac]

 You may want/need to consider this in a wider context (see my other post), if this temporary "overfueling" can help you to prevent "knock" under specific load conditions, then you can run much more agressive mappings, and it helps you to accelerate better, reaching (car) speed faster, and carrying more speed for longer.

I think Coopers article is "good", and goes some way to explain the underlying problem to the normal fan. I'm not so convinced that we talk about "ballons" or excessive "storage" here (because there where already regs in place to prevent this), I think it's a lot more subtle then this, but I see what they are aiming for & where the advantage would lay. It's just application of "proper" engineering / system dynamic principles / playing the margins.

 

The problem is that these are assumed margins. I see it like when I see  a speed limit sign on the road. It's an absolute limit. But it's not practical for auuthorities to measure everyone's speed every single millimetre. So I can assume there is a margin there but technically there is not.

 

That's why I feel that, if the FIA think there is any team that is not strictly adhering to the limits defined in the rules, then they should say that the suspect teams are cheating, regardless of whether it can be proved or not, or whether they intend to take any action if it can be proved.

[Nemo1965]

Okay, let us say the FIA as a point. Let us say they can control it in parc-ferme. Obviously, they have not caught anyone, otherwise we would have heard it, right?

 

What could this lead to? Is this a shot in front of the bow of certain teams? Do the FIA hope that certain teams will 'switch off' this trick that TC3000 explained? Will we suddenly see Renault-teams getting closer to the Mercedes-teams? Will we see, haha, see McLaren-Honda suddenly coming forward during the race?

 

Or... will the teams that use the 'trick' take the risk and just prepare themselves for a long battle with the FIA?

[steferrari]

I wonder if this has something to do with the "quali-map" that Mercedes is rumoured to have.

[P123]

I'm sure they must all dip below that 90kg/hr at some stage. Are we therefore due more lift and coast fuel saving during the races? Is this an admittance by the FIA that they can't (and haven't) been policing the fuel flow accurately in the past?

Perhaps this is just a ruse to bring upon the abandonment of fuel flow restrictions or agree to an increase in allowed fuel. Make them all sick of the moving goalposts and more likely to agree to ditch it.

Edited by P123, 10 May 2015 - 10:18.

[SealTheDiffuser]

Mercdes? Ferrari? Honda?

trick mainly to boost acceleration... Honda acceleration is very good btw... 

but I suspect it might be Ferrari

 

AMUS on fuel flow clampdown:

 

https://translate.go...t-text=&act=url

Edited by SealTheDiffuser, 10 May 2015 - 10:18.

[HP]

Excuse me but I don't understand the idea of a minimum fuel flow rate. When a driver goes off the throttle then the fuel flow rate will be less. No? Is that a problem?

 

EDIT: The link above explains it so that I understand the issue.

Edited by HP, 10 May 2015 - 10:23.

[P123]

Mercdes? Ferrari? Honda?
trick mainly to boost acceleration... Honda acceleration is very good btw...

It is? Seems more like it's one of Honda's weaknesses relative to the rest.

[Peter Perfect]

...

 

the FIA has, so far, specified a certain way how it intented to measure the "fuel flow rate" --> their sensor, just  as they define a "weight limit" and use their scale to enforce it.

What if I can build a car, that weigths in o.k. (within the limits) on the FIA scale, but runs lighter in the race/practice?

 

...

 

The you'd get a 2 race ban

 

Maurice Hamilton - "What they are saying is that they cannot prove there was a deliberate attempt to cheat but neither did the team prove to the scrutineers and the FIA that the car remained above the 600kg weight limit through the entire race."

i.e. the team must prove adherence to the regulations at all times

[LORDBYRON]

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.

Well RED BULL have been doing it for years so what is the difference...emm none 

 

 

I hate all of this "it's cheating" vs "it's a loophope"      If the rule is not broken then its not illegal F1 Teams have been doing it since it started 

Edited by LORDBYRON, 10 May 2015 - 10:39.

[Peter Perfect]

Well RED BULL have been doing it for years so what is the difference...emm none 

 

 

I hate all of this "it's cheating" vs "it's a loophope"      If the rule is not broken tHen its not illegal F1 Teams have been doing it since it started 

 

I think both this, and the flexi-wings, are being treated by the FIA as a case of 'if it's not detected then it's not cheating' irregardless of whether the rules have been broken.

[MastaKink]

"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?

 

 

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...

 

 

I'm not sure it's entirely fair or makes much sense to point the finger at the team that has made huge gains over the winter while deflecting suspicion from the team they signed a bunch of engineers from. 

 

 

But yes it could be Honda or Renault.  

[Seanspeed]

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

Some rules are meant to allow design or performance freedom, others are not, and some are in between. The FIA decides how much freedom to allow and that's fine. You can disagree on the amount they allow but to say they shouldn't decide these things doesn't make sense.

Them making changes is only a problem when the changes disadvantage some due to inherent fundamentals of the car design being unfairly affected.

[SophieB]

Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  2m2 minutes ago
If you are wondering about the fuel flow saga, there was no great unmasking of a dodgy fuel system in scrutineering tonight (cont.)
 
Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  56s56 seconds ago
(cont). However the FIA has laid down a marker, and it has lot of fuel pressure/flow data from this race to analyse in the coming days
 

[Guizotia]

Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  2m2 minutes ago
If you are wondering about the fuel flow saga, there was no great unmasking of a dodgy fuel system in scrutineering tonight (cont.)
 
Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1  56s56 seconds ago
(cont). However the FIA has laid down a marker, and it has lot of fuel pressure/flow data from this race to analyse in the coming days
 

 

Did the rule clarification take effect before or after today's race?

[SophieB]

Did the rule clarification take effect before or after today's race?

 

Before, I think. Certainly Adam Cooper reckoned so because he wondered about the possible impact of the note being issued after the cars were in park ferme after qualifying.

[Nemo1965]

If Amus is right, at least it stands to reason why the FIA wants to put an end to this 'loophole'. The fact that the fuel low may be higher than 100 kg/hour for short period of times does not bother me or any racing-fan, I think, as long as the car stays within the 100kg/per race rule. But as I understand it now, the 'constant flow' of minimal 90 and maximum 100 is ALSO a way to control the total amount of fuel used PER race and also a way to stop the benefit of hidden tanks or bladders or any kind or 'reservoirs' in the engine.

 

A question: does the FIA still check if the cars are not able to carry physically more than 100kg of fuel? Or does the FIA just control that by measuring the fuel-rate?

Edited by Nemo1965, 10 May 2015 - 20:24.

[Huffer]

 

A question: does the FIA still check if the cars are not able to carry physically more than 100kg of fuel? Or does the FIA just control that by measuring the fuel-rate?

 

Can't they check against pressure measurements? If fuel is being tanked off, stored or a hose is allowed to expand the pressure will drop (as the area of the cross section increases at some point in the flow) despite the fuel rate being larger or the same. 

Or am I being obtuse?

[Jvr]

One thing that must also be remembered is that liquids, such as petrol, do compress, eventhough not very much. However, the pressures in the common rail side in F1 car are significant and just as an example, the drop of pressure from the maximum allowed 500 bar to 250 bar (both figures still very functional injection pressures) with bulk modulus of "engineered" petrol of 0.9 x 10^9 Pa would give a volume increase of nearly 3% due to the drop of pressure. Add to this some flexing mechanical construction and the pressure change in the system could contribute easily momentary flow rates over 105 kg/h when the pressure is decreased and still the main flow meter would show figures under 100 kg/h.

[Pyrone89]

If it is indeed related to boosting acceleration, it might turn out to be Ferrari, seeing their sector 3 troubles (acceleration section). Will know soon enough when we get to Monaco

[turssi]

what happens if a team is found cheating?

A slap on the fingers

[chrisPB15]

So how many sensors will they have now, 3? 4? how much does each sensor cost? Co2 emissions of factories producing sensors?    Surely giving teams an extra 10kg of fuel would be cheaper and far less hassle and more like a sport not a technical demo.

Edited by chrisPB15, 11 May 2015 - 01:02.

[f1RacingForever]

All this could be avoided by simplifying the rule and mandating an x amount of feul per race, not giving clever engineers an opportunity to exploit. Rule makers never seem to learn.

[itsnoe30]

Did this not happen back in March?

[Seanspeed]

If it is indeed related to boosting acceleration, it might turn out to be Ferrari, seeing their sector 3 troubles (acceleration section). Will know soon enough when we get to Monaco

Like we're saying in the Ferrari thread, they were having trouble in S3 before Sunday. Nothing changed.

Not sure how we're going to 'know' anything from Monaco, either.

Edited by Seanspeed, 11 May 2015 - 07:39.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Like we're saying in the Ferrari thread, they were having trouble in S3 before Sunday. Nothing changed.

Not sure how we're going to 'know' anything from Monaco, either.

Maybe they knew it was coming so was trying to sort the issue as best they could? - Not that I am accusing Ferrari...

 

I don't believe the teams only find out when we do - They must at the very least know it is coming and when...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 11 May 2015 - 08:01.

[SenorSjon]

*sigh* These rules add nothing to the sport and only complicate things. We have sensors checking other sensors to check if they are giving the correct value. Just let them design the cars with the amount of fuel they need. Just like the post turbo era. Need 200kg to fuel your fast gas gussler to the end? Or 100kg with a slower, more efficient engine? Either way that is what F1 is about. Not making everything spec.

[TimRTC]

Did this not happen back in March?

 

 

?

[grackle]

It does remind me of their conniptions after the Australian GP of '14

[chipmcdonald]

"Race cars using too much fuel" - news story in the 21st century.  Exciting!

 

 

Ahrgh.

[Timstr11]

The speculation around the fuel pressure rule:

http://www.motorspor...ystem-clampdown

Edited by Timstr11, 15 May 2015 - 07:41.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The speculation around the fuel pressure rule:

http://www.motorspor...ystem-clampdown

I did always think it would have (most likely) been either Honda or Ferrari....

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I did always think it would have (most likely) been either Honda or Ferrari....

 

Or another logical explanation is that Mercedes used it last year, Ferrari and others caught on to this trick, and now the FIA is involved, leading to the closure of this loophole. Mercedes did not engineer this "discovery" but rather were the ones caught.

 

It's not cheating, it is exploiting a grey area in the regulations. Each year, when the new technical regulations are released, teams pore over every word and punctuation mark, examining any way to take full advantage of the wording in those legal documents. It has been this way for decades, it will always continue because if you follow the others, you will never be the one with success. Pushing the technical and legal boundaries is a hallmark of Formula One.

[northanmonkee2]

Or another logical explanation is that Mercedes used it last year, Ferrari and others caught on to this trick, and now the FIA is involved, leading to the closure of this loophole. Mercedes did not engineer this "discovery" but rather were the ones caught.

 

It's not cheating, it is exploiting a grey area in the regulations. Each year, when the new technical regulations are released, teams pore over every word and punctuation mark, examining any way to take full advantage of the wording in those legal documents. It has been this way for decades, it will always continue because if you follow the others, you will never be the one with success. Pushing the technical and legal boundaries is a hallmark of Formula One.

this doesnt make sense if merc were using it in say melbourne maylasia and china and didnt in spain because they were rumbled, why were the gaps to ferrari bigger when not using it ,

logicly going on performance if any team were using it it was ferrari as they had bigest drop of to the front , almost same gap that merc had over next best team last year .

[pdac]

Or another logical explanation is that Mercedes used it last year, Ferrari and others caught on to this trick, and now the FIA is involved, leading to the closure of this loophole. Mercedes did not engineer this "discovery" but rather were the ones caught.

 

It's not cheating, it is exploiting a grey area in the regulations. Each year, when the new technical regulations are released, teams pore over every word and punctuation mark, examining any way to take full advantage of the wording in those legal documents. It has been this way for decades, it will always continue because if you follow the others, you will never be the one with success. Pushing the technical and legal boundaries is a hallmark of Formula One.

 

Surely this covers it all:

 

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.

 

I don't see any greyness in this. The words "device", "system" and "procedure" cover everything and the phrase "purpose and/or effect" covers both deliberate and accidental.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

this doesnt make sense if merc were using it in say melbourne maylasia and china and didnt in spain because they were rumbled, why were the gaps to ferrari bigger when not using it ,

logicly going on performance if any team were using it it was ferrari as they had bigest drop of to the front , almost same gap that merc had over next best team last year .

 

We can not attribute all the differences in performance just to the fuel flow rates, such factors as tire wear, strategy, aerodynamic updates and such all play a part. But IMO it is not inconceivable that Mercedes were using it last year, and it could be a small factor in their incredible power unit dominance.

 

One possible scenario is that teams such as Ferrari reverse-engineered the solution by examining the Mercedes power unit. All major teams scrutinize their opposition in great detail, one tool microphones and positional tracking to analyze the power levels every meter of the track. Maybe they discovered an anomaly at assumed high RPM levels where the Mercedes power unit should not have exceeded. One possible conclusion was that Mercedes had somehow found a way to get that little extra fuel to the combustion chambers, and working backward, discovered a method to temporarily accumulate some fuel.

 

Someone always comes up with an idea first, and it's only a matter of time until the opposition figure things out. Mercedes probably had it in 2014, Ferrari and others got it in 2015, the FIA got into the loop, a directive issued, story over.