|
||||||||
Official Formula 1 Thread (Part 8) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#3701 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Gutted for DR.
![]() If there was any question over the accuracy of the fuel flowmeters, you'd think the FIA would have held off on the decision until it could be clarified. Must say, I've got quite a bit of experience with flow-metering systems and their reliability is almost always questionable. They're really best for showing trends rather than absolute measurements and it's almost always better to rely on absolute measurements taken over a period of time rather than relying on the flow rate as displayed by a flowmeter. Thing is, there's all sorts of things to consider. Just cos you're measuring flow in l/hr, what's the actually criteria for conformity? Does any reading greater than 100 l/hr mean non-compliance or does it only become non-compliance if you actually use more than 100 litres in an hour or when you use more than 1.6 litres in a minute or when you use more than 28ml per second? I mean, if RBR's telemetry shows that DR actually used 1.5 litres in one minute while the flowmeter says he was using >100 l/hr at certain points during that minute, which data do you give more credibility to? If the flowmeter is reading in l/hr and RBRs telemetry can show fuel usage per minute then really the RBR data should be considered more accurate. The other thing to bear in mind is that the fuel system is pressurised and that screws up flowmeter readings too. I can pump water into a pipe with a closed end and a flowmeter will, obviously, show that there's a flow and, of course, there is a flow because there's water going into the pipe to pressurise it. And yet, there's a closed end at the other end of a pipe so the actual flow-rate is obviously zero. Seems, to me, that surges in the pressure of the fuel system could easily account for spurious excess readings even when the actual flow remains within tolerances, especially at such low flow rates, under such extreme conditions. If I was RBR I'd be getting the boffins to put together a little test rig which proves that the FIA flowmeters can produce spurious readings and, that being the case, they're unreliable. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#3702 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SW Wales
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
Gutted for DR.
![]() If there was any question over the accuracy of the fuel flowmeters, you'd think the FIA would have held off on the decision until it could be clarified. Must say, I've got quite a bit of experience with flow-metering systems and their reliability is almost always questionable. They're really best for showing trends rather than absolute measurements and it's almost always better to rely on absolute measurements taken over a period of time rather than relying on the flow rate as displayed by a flowmeter. Thing is, there's all sorts of things to consider. Just cos you're measuring flow in l/hr, what's the actually criteria for conformity? Does any reading greater than 100 l/hr mean non-compliance or does it only become non-compliance if you actually use more than 100 litres in an hour or when you use more than 1.6 litres in a minute or when you use more than 28ml per second? I mean, if RBR's telemetry shows that DR actually used 1.5 litres in one minute while the flowmeter says he was using >100 l/hr at certain points during that minute, which data do you give more credibility to? If the flowmeter is reading in l/hr and RBRs telemetry can show fuel usage per minute then really the RBR data should be considered more accurate. The other thing to bear in mind is that the fuel system is pressurised and that screws up flowmeter readings too. I can pump water into a pipe with a closed end and a flowmeter will, obviously, show that there's a flow and, of course, there is a flow because there's water going into the pipe to pressurise it. And yet, there's a closed end at the other end of a pipe so the actual flow-rate is obviously zero. Seems, to me, that surges in the pressure of the fuel system could easily account for spurious excess readings even when the actual flow remains within tolerances, especially at such low flow rates, under such extreme conditions. If I was RBR I'd be getting the boffins to put together a little test rig which proves that the FIA flowmeters can produce spurious readings and, that being the case, they're unreliable. ![]() Have you sent it to RBR? You should! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3703 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,272
|
Is the above post not over-complicating the issue? The FIA have said that the RB was "consistently" exceeding the allowed rate, so sounds to me that it's been a brazen flouncing of the rules. And as they do love to sail close to the wind rule wise then it's easy to believe wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3704 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Okay, full-on geek mode now...
Given that F1 fuel weighs approximately 700g per litre, I'm gonna assume that means it's roughly 70% of the density of water. We're also told that even if a car runs out of fuel it's often possible to obtain enough fuel for a sample from the fuel remaining in the system, which suggests the fuel system has a volume of 2 litres at least. I have absolutely no idea what sort of fuel pressure F1 car engines run at but I seem to recall that cars I've had have run at around 6 bar fuel pressure. So, maths tells us that it should take roughly 9ml of water to increase the pressure of a 2l system by 1 bar. Bearing in mind that F1 fuel is 70% of the density of water than means it'd probably take around 13ml of fuel to do the same job. Given that we're talking about a flowmeter that is measuring 28ml of flow per second, it'd only take a 1 bar pressure change within the system to make it seem like the flow rate was actually 30% higher than allowed for a second. Which, again, takes us back to needing to quantify the regulations in terms of flow/time rather than simply flow rate. I've really got no idea how F1 fuel systems or FIA flowmeters work but I'd bet my house that if you bolted half a dozen of them into one car you'd get half a dozen different readings and that, alone, should be enough to damage their credibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3705 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Is the above post not over-complicating the issue? The FIA have said that the RB was "consistently" exceeding the allowed rate, so sounds to me that it's been a brazen flouncing of the rules. And as they do love to sail close to the wind rule wise then it's easy to believe wrongdoing.
It also depends what they mean by "consistently" too. I mean, if they were consistently showing readings of, say, 200 l/hr every time the car hit a straight then, yeah. They're obviously taking the piss. OTOH, what if the car was "consistently" showing a reading of, say, 105 l/hr for 5 seconds as the car went through turn one? That'd be a "consistent" infringement, even if it was only by a tiny percentage and also might be explained by fluctuations in the fuel system pressure. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3706 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3707 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,789
|
Quote:
Okay, full-on geek mode now...
Given that F1 fuel weighs approximately 700g per litre, I'm gonna assume that means it's roughly 70% of the density of water. http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/ru.../6852/fia.html And then I got lost! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3708 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,709
|
Verdict: What a pile of poo!
All the main runners limped out of the race leaving the also runs to get some TV time. Oh well, downhill from here then. What a wonderful new system that is total crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3709 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
Verdict: What a pile of poo!
All the main runners limped out of the race leaving the also runs to get some TV time. Oh well, downhill from here then. What a wonderful new system that is total crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3710 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,709
|
Quote:
Then I suggest you spend your Sundays knitting or embroidering and leave the sport to those who like to watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3711 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,043
|
It's got to get better than this. Ok the first race in the new era can show up many issues and be more a case of who got it ready and right, but when we get further in, then follow me leader just wasn't worth the effort. Seems they are under such scrutiny that any real innovation will be unlikely to be permitted and it's even further from the optimum of technology and speed.
Made me laugh to hear Rosberg say that it's much slower and he has got used to that, but was constantly asking and doing things to save the car. With the dull mumble from the engines and gentle acceleration, how does he think it is for us? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3712 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,272
|
Quote:
Naaa I'll watch and post my opinion.
Clearly you'e a man who knows his racing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3713 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Am I the only one who just flat-out likes the idea of the cars being quieter?
In real life the cars were just mind-numbingly loud. I've only been to a couple of races but when there was a car nearby you just couldn't attempt to have a conversation or attempt to listen to the commentary or PA or anything and, on the TV, all you hear is "Neeeooooowwww.....Neeeooooowwww.....Neeeooooowwww....." I actually just plain like being able to hear the crowd cheering, the tyres squealing and the PA announcements etc. It adds to the atmosphere and the feeling of involvement IMO. More than anything else, within the framework of the rules, F1 should be about form following function, IMO, so if the current exhausts are the optimal design for the current engines that's the way they should be and they certainly shouldn't be thinking about daft megaphone exhausts or any other contrived nonsense. Maybe somebody could devise a smartphone app' which uses the microphone to pick up the exhaust noise and modify it into a V8 (or V10) style howl and play it through headphones if people are that desperate to hear it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3714 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Swindon
Posts: 2,893
|
Its a good point, TV always dulled the sound of an F1 car compared to at the track. To be honest while it was a little odd sounding it didn't bother me that much.
I don't like the fact F1 racing is no longer about going flat out all the time because of fuel restrictions. Nothing more frustrating than seeing a driver trying to catch the car in front, but being called off because of it. But dems da rules (sic). |
|
|
|
|
|
#3715 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 4,214
|
Quote:
Am I the only one who just flat-out likes the idea of the cars being quieter?
Judging purely on only the first race, I think they are perhaps a bit too quiet. I just didn't get that enjoyment of hearing the revs rise as they pull out of a corner, and if there was something wrong with an engine sorry power unit, an audible sound can quite often be the first clue to the viewer. Although maybe when/if a turbo gives up we'll all know about it. However, it is much easier to make out what drivers are saying during a race. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3716 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,549
|
Quote:
As for Hamilton, I must admit, I'm concerned with all these reliability gremlins
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3717 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 19,601
|
I can't see myself ever getting back into F1. Moaning drivers, constant rule changes every single season. It's stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3718 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,541
|
I like the new engine sound as you can now hear what the tyres are up to, especially when a driver gets it wrong!
For anyone that didn't see it, stewards decision on Ricciardo (looks banged to rights to me): http://184.106.145.74/f1-championshi...t%20-%2056.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
#3719 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 934
|
Quote:
Gutted for DR.
![]() If there was any question over the accuracy of the fuel flowmeters, you'd think the FIA would have held off on the decision until it could be clarified. Must say, I've got quite a bit of experience with flow-metering systems and their reliability is almost always questionable. They're really best for showing trends rather than absolute measurements and it's almost always better to rely on absolute measurements taken over a period of time rather than relying on the flow rate as displayed by a flowmeter. Thing is, there's all sorts of things to consider. Just cos you're measuring flow in l/hr, what's the actually criteria for conformity? Does any reading greater than 100 l/hr mean non-compliance or does it only become non-compliance if you actually use more than 100 litres in an hour or when you use more than 1.6 litres in a minute or when you use more than 28ml per second? I mean, if RBR's telemetry shows that DR actually used 1.5 litres in one minute while the flowmeter says he was using >100 l/hr at certain points during that minute, which data do you give more credibility to? If the flowmeter is reading in l/hr and RBRs telemetry can show fuel usage per minute then really the RBR data should be considered more accurate. The other thing to bear in mind is that the fuel system is pressurised and that screws up flowmeter readings too. I can pump water into a pipe with a closed end and a flowmeter will, obviously, show that there's a flow and, of course, there is a flow because there's water going into the pipe to pressurise it. And yet, there's a closed end at the other end of a pipe so the actual flow-rate is obviously zero. Seems, to me, that surges in the pressure of the fuel system could easily account for spurious excess readings even when the actual flow remains within tolerances, especially at such low flow rates, under such extreme conditions. If I was RBR I'd be getting the boffins to put together a little test rig which proves that the FIA flowmeters can produce spurious readings and, that being the case, they're unreliable. What should happen with such brazen flouting of the rules despite being told to stop, is what happened some years ago to BAR when they cheated with an extra fuel tank. Ban the team for 3 races. Anything else would be inconsistent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3720 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sunny Devon
Posts: 1,561
|
Quote:
It's got to get better than this. Ok the first race in the new era can show up many issues and be more a case of who got it ready and right, but when we get further in, then follow me leader just wasn't worth the effort. Seems they are under such scrutiny that any real innovation will be unlikely to be permitted and it's even further from the optimum of technology and speed.
Made me laugh to hear Rosberg say that it's much slower and he has got used to that, but was constantly asking and doing things to save the car. With the dull mumble from the engines and gentle acceleration, how does he think it is for us? ![]() i enjoy the sport but this is like a top gear inter-continental fuel race - conserving fuel to get to the end...it should be flat to the floor and to the flag.....so disappointed when Magnussen backed off and the top 3 were in effect were in the same place they began lap one or 2 in.....i found it very dreary i'm afraid......... as to the sound....i think halfway between the two would be better at least....now a road Ducati Panigale or RSV with race pipes is probably louder than an F1 car which is bizarre....... Moto GP and WSBK is at least still loud though WSBK have gone down the daft engine limit rules as well which is sad....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3721 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: on the Fence
Posts: 7,596
|
I fear Lotus will do what Williams did last year being near the back of the Grid unless they improve during the season
![]() I am impress with Magnussen , kvyat on how they drove in there first race, and ricarddio(sp) was unlucky to get a DQ but did a solid and impressive drive
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3722 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Red Bull's fuel argument, the fact remains that they were told that their sensor was illegal before the race, (in FP). They were instructed to refit the legal FIA sensor and refused. Basically, they were told "you are cheating, please stop", and Red Bull being the massively arrogant people that they are replied with "piss off". Now Christian is typically whining about this as usual, even though they were told and just had to conform to the rules that all of the other 10 teams conform to. Jesus, the guy is still going on about double diffusers 5 years after his team last lost a championship!!!
What should happen with such brazen flouting of the rules despite being told to stop, is what happened some years ago to BAR when they cheated with an extra fuel tank. Ban the team for 3 races. Anything else would be inconsistent. Look at the thing with the cameras. People have been asking them when they're gonna fit the camera pods all through testing and they've been saying "We just haven't gotten around to it yet" and then they show up in Oz without the pods and it turns out that they've found a loophole in the rules which means they don't have to fit the pods after all. RBR definitely can be slippery but they're also very good at being slippery. I wouldn't bet against them being able to justify their position and force the FIA to reverse their decision. And, again, the basic fact is that DR did only have 100kg of fuel in the car so he must've adhered to the fundamental fuel-efficiency rules. Why does it actually matter if a car can flow more than 100l/hr of fuel anyway? Regardless of peak fuel flow rate, they've still to achieve the same overall efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3723 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St Ives, Cornwall
Posts: 3,177
|
Quote:
And, again, the basic fact is that DR did only have 100kg of fuel in the car so he must've adhered to the fundamental fuel-efficiency rules. Why does it actually matter if a car can flow more than 100l/hr of fuel anyway? Regardless of peak fuel flow rate, they've still to achieve the same overall efficiency. The '100' is getting in the way of understanding the problem. They have 100kg of fuel to demonstrate that racing is fuel efficient and 'green'. They all have to lug a similarly heavy fuel tank around. They have 100lt/hr fuel flow to limit horsepower - remember the old turbo era of 1300+ horsepower monsters. You can compress lots of air with a turbo but you can only burn a 'correct' amount of fuel with it' Fuel flow is critical to power. That's why the Riciardo incident is such a big deal. The Gill flow meters they are using are subject to problems of accuracy and sampling rates but this is the same for all teams - RedBull were told their flow rate was too high and chose not to correct it. Apparently. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3724 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 480
|
These new rules are a very bold move for F1.
It is correct that they maintain F1 at the cutting edge of car technology with the emphasis on efficiency but maybe this does not make for the best spectator sport. I wonder how many spectators leave the circuit in their " green" car and drive it carefully to return the maximum fuel efficiency. From what I see amongst my friends they are buying bigger cars and more 4 wheel drive models so efficiency is not something that interests them. We can all understand previous technical infringements, eg 1 mm too wide, 1 gm too heavy, not enough fuel left in tank, but we can see today that these new rules can throw up stuff which is just too complex for us to understand. As for the new quieter engines, just listen to a jet fighter plane flying low overhead and watch how everyone just has to look up in response to the sound, it may be childish but noise does add to the excitement. Although good for technical progression I believe these new regs will not be good for the popularity of F1 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3725 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Folks are getting confused and mislead by numbers.
The '100' is getting in the way of understanding the problem. They have 100kg of fuel to demonstrate that racing is fuel efficient and 'green'. They all have to lug a similarly heavy fuel tank around. They have 100lt/hr fuel flow to limit horsepower - remember the old turbo era of 1300+ horsepower monsters. You can compress lots of air with a turbo but you can only burn a 'correct' amount of fuel with it' Fuel flow is critical to power. That's why the Riciardo incident is such a big deal. I just don't understand why there's a need to limit horsepower when efficiency is already governed by having a finite quantity of fuel to use. Let's face it, if you're intent on finding real-world applications for F1 technology, any numpty can build an engine that can do 50mpg when it's limited to, say, 40bhp. If, OTOH, a car manufacturer invented a car that had an "economy" mode which would return 50mpg but also had a "sport" mode that'd give you 250bhp when you need to overtake a lorry it'd be far more useful. I know there are some racing categories which use orifice plates in the induction system to govern maximum fuel/air flow but, AFAIK, they're all categories which allow refueling so you need to find some way to stop teams from building monster engines and just refueling them as required. On that note, though, if the FIA are intent on limiting power, it seems like using something like an orifice plate, which has no margin of error, to limit air flow into the engine would be far more reliable than using a flowmeter. Fundamentally, as I said, if you bolt 2 or 3 flowmeters together you'll get 2 or 3 different readings so it doesn't seem smart to rely on technology like that to enforce rules. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:48.





