|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
21 Mar 2014, 14:57 (Ref:3382675) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,539
|
What is the difference between the fuel sensor reading and the RBR's figures? Are we talking a a percent or two, or a lot more? Obviously more fuel = more power, but I'm just wondering what sort of performance advantage RBR have supposedly gained / performance disadvantage avoided due to this.
I think Christian Horner used the phrase "significant disadvantage" when discussing why they did not adhere to the FIA's request, but I dont think I have seen anything more specific in terms of exact fule rates. With (probably) two more races to go before the hearing, I guess RBR have little choice other than to go with the flow(meter) in the meantime? |
||
__________________
It's just my opinion. |
21 Mar 2014, 15:29 (Ref:3382682) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
If Ricciardo had to run slower would Magnussen have been able to get ahead? We will never know.
The new rules are designed around restricted fuel usage. Another method to restrict fuel use would be to have all the fuel to pass through a certain size opening at a certain maximum pressure. There would also need to be a minimum fuel temperature that should equate to the prevaling air temperature. If the fuel is warmer it will expand and therefore will expand allowing less fuel to go through but a minimum temperature will prevent anybody artifically cooling the fuel. The problem with this type of restriction is its the volume flow rate as opposed to the mass flow rate that the new regs are trying to restrict. The current system that uses the Gill sensor seems to be mesuring device as opposed to a restriction device, I could however be wrong. |
|
|
21 Mar 2014, 15:49 (Ref:3382690) | #28 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know if it is bad form here to mention other forums or not, but there is a really good thread over on f1technical.net about this topic. On one hand you can make good arguments about the many variables that go into an accurate model such as... Variable cylinder pressure (this is direct injection) Fuel pressure Stable timebase for measuring injector timing Consistent injection motion Injector wear Fuel velocity Etc. So many of these variables may bounce around a bit from one millisecond to the next, but also may average out over time. So it might be pretty accurate for things like overall fuel consumption (will you run out or not), but just like the FIA flow sensor, it may also not be great at determining instantaneous flow. Especially if you are looking to run right up to the maximum 100kg/h limit. Overall, it just seems to be that looking for accurate instantaneous flow is pretty hard to do. Richard |
||||
|
21 Mar 2014, 16:36 (Ref:3382702) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
a few fast laps at the beginning, going slow in order to go faster later, and going slow at the end are already issues created by the tires aren't they?
encouraging these types of performance difference seems to me the FIA/FOM's desired choice to make the racing look more exciting. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
21 Mar 2014, 16:59 (Ref:3382708) | #30 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Mar 2014, 17:03 (Ref:3382709) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,565
|
The one overiding factor that most of you are overlooking is that the teams and powerunit providers, collectively, are able and willing to literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds to circumvent the rules that the FIA produce.
I am pretty sure that the people that devised the latest set of regulations did so in the knowledge that people that are paid a hell of a lot more than them would be burning the midnight oil to find ways to exploit the rule book. This the teams have always done, and I have no doubt, will continue to do. To refer to one of the previous postings, the FIA stipulated fuel cells with a maximum capacity in an effort to control the amount of fuel that could be used during a race. What did the teams do? They started cooling the fuel so that they had extra fuel to circumvent the FIA's rules. Might I suggest that it may be a reasonable idea to not get too excited about this matter until the relevant facts are aired at the appeal hearing. I say this because, it would seem to me, Red Bull's defence at the moment appears to be that they ignored the FIA's technical delegate's instructions because there had been problems, up and down the pit lane, with the sensors since the beginning of testing in Jerez. The therefore decided, unilaterally, that their computations were more accurate than the FIA's. However, this seems to overlook the fact that this action could well have given them an advantage over the other teams who were all following the FIA's directions. No doubt all this will come out at the appeals hearing in due course. |
||
|
21 Mar 2014, 17:03 (Ref:3382710) | #32 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 364
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
21 Mar 2014, 17:29 (Ref:3382715) | #33 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
||
|
21 Mar 2014, 20:01 (Ref:3382764) | #34 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,594
|
So the designers of the engines have to consider power and efficiency. More of a technical challenge?
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
22 Mar 2014, 04:43 (Ref:3382894) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,354
|
Quote:
The point of regulating the amount of flow is to control the amount of fuel (and ultimately power) to a maximum at any one time. Measuring is surely to ensure the limit is not breached. So if Red Bull is actually within the limit over the length of the grand Prix they have complied with the competitive rule and should be reinstated. If not then then they are excluding someone who has complied with the competitive intent of the rule. If the exclusion is based purely on the methodology, then excluding despite compliance is crock full of vile substance. The point of rule has been obeyed. The compliance should be based on the fact of the rule limit, not the method of measurement if the equipment used by the FIA is not as accurate or as consistent in its application as an alternative measurement. F1 should be about excellence. And that should not just be technical compliance but excellence in measurement, equipment, technical and driving competition. It also includes excellence in decision making process, integrity of process and reinforcing the purpose and point of every evaluative process. If RBR's process proves they did comply then they should win the appeal. If they do that but still lose the appeal because it is not the FIA's system of measurement and if their system actually has more inaccuracy or flaws in it then that is not excellence. It is just the FIA penalising someone because they can. That is unacceptable, ethically, competitively, and in any other way of a sporting competition. It's simply wrong. So we will know by China's round if they are a body worthy of ruling F1 or not. |
||
|
22 Mar 2014, 08:58 (Ref:3382952) | #36 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Quote:
|
||
|
22 Mar 2014, 14:59 (Ref:3383021) | #37 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
There's another, even simpler, way of dealing with the underlying problem - just have the driver drive to a delta time. It's something that's already happening now in terms of controlling speed during safety car situations.
|
|
|
22 Mar 2014, 18:29 (Ref:3383070) | #38 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 364
|
Quote:
Driving to a delta is a common practice to save on fuel or tires, and it got absolutely ridiculous last year when it was clear the field was driving something like 2s slower than their potential. That being said a minimum lap time should never be mandated in the rules imo. |
|||
|
22 Mar 2014, 18:52 (Ref:3383078) | #39 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,354
|
The technical information I have is that the sensors have a 1% margin of error.
10 years ago engineers say they could measure the fuel flow to an accuracy of 0.05% i.e. (5/100ths of 1%). If true then RBR may have the correct information.... |
|
|
22 Mar 2014, 19:23 (Ref:3383088) | #40 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Quote:
|
||
|
22 Mar 2014, 20:13 (Ref:3383103) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
|
22 Mar 2014, 21:18 (Ref:3383117) | #42 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
Paul |
|||
|
22 Mar 2014, 22:44 (Ref:3383151) | #43 | |||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,594
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
23 Mar 2014, 13:26 (Ref:3383285) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
23 Mar 2014, 15:58 (Ref:3383322) | #45 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,470
|
|||
__________________
“We’re trying to close the doors without embarrassing ourselves, the France family and embarrassing (the) Grand American Series,” he said in the deposition. “There is no money. There is no purse. There’s nothing.” |
26 Mar 2014, 03:37 (Ref:3384448) | #46 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 40
|
|||
|
26 Mar 2014, 22:27 (Ref:3384838) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
That is a great get. It would seem that the evidence is clear that these flow sensors are not accurate. Get one that under reads, you win the world championships, get one that over reads you have the RBR option - damned if you do, damned if you don't! |
||
|
27 Mar 2014, 09:31 (Ref:3384962) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
A fuel-flow limit will not forbid teams to be faster than others or break records, hence there is in no way a lap time delta.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
27 Mar 2014, 10:23 (Ref:3384986) | #49 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
It is however a power delta for a known technology at a given efficiency, development is frozen, and the other efficiencies are pretty well set, so the lap time variances will be extremely small on a maximum fuel flow / power!
|
|
|
27 Mar 2014, 18:55 (Ref:3385259) | #50 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 40
|
FWIW, a couple more articles on the background and implementation of fuel flow restriction:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/t...ow-is-limited/ http://www.racecar-engineering.com/t...w-meters-work/ I think I like the idea of restricting fuel flow rather than air to the engine, but hope the questions about reliable measurement are sorted quickly. Looks like Toyota may have a workable system for the Japanese series, but, ironically, are obliged to use the controversial Gill sensor in LMP1. If Red Bull actually argues and wins their appeal on the basis that Charlie's opinions don't constitute actual, enforceable rules, then I can see the whole series quickly descending into anarchy and chaos. Very interesting for all of the wrong reasons. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113091 In any event, I suspect the manufacturers love this approach, as it allows them to genuinely work toward road relevant efficiency. While I'm not sure how much of road relevance will come from F1, the sports cars are likely to yield some real world improvements and give the makers a reason to participate in motorsports other than marketing. Paul Last edited by ciscotex; 27 Mar 2014 at 19:03. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Knock sensors | Alex E | Racing Technology | 8 | 12 Aug 2012 22:21 |
Suspension sensors | forestdweller | Racing Technology | 4 | 8 May 2010 22:30 |
CAN and current sensors | Michael24 | Racing Technology | 4 | 3 Jul 2009 03:29 |
New to Cadet Karting, fuel/fuel tank question | Paulc | Kart Racing | 6 | 2 Jun 2006 08:14 |