How Formula 1 reacted to fuel trickery

Last year proved to be a difficult chapter in Ferrari's story, as the Scuderia had numerous accusations thrown at it with regards to its straightline speed advantage.

How Formula 1 reacted to fuel trickery

The FIA was pushed for numerous clarifications and Ferrari had to vigorously defend its position, as fellow competitors questioned the legality of its power unit throughout the season.

The situation is still not over as rival teams remaining unhappy about a secret agreement reached between Ferrari and the FIA over what it is up to.

With rivals unable to understand how Ferrari was able to achieve this boost, numerous theories were thrown out there: ranging from questions over whether it was using a controlled leak of oil from the intercooler to improve combustion, to suggestions it had found a way around the fuel flow limit.

Here we look at both those theories, how they could be applied and also take a look at how changes in the regulations have been made to ensure teams are not cleverly exploiting these areas in the future.

Read Also:

Oil burning

Oil burning practices have been a staple of the hybrid era, as the various fuel and lubricants manufacturers have worked closely with their engine partners to get more performance from their products.

The 100kg/h fuel flow limit puts an onus on getting as much performance as is possible from the fuel. Plus, with the regulations surrounding the chemical composition of fuel being far more restrictive than oil, it is obvious that other avenues have been looked at to boost performance.

Burning oil as fuel became a natural playground, as the regulations surrounding the quantities and delivery methods were relatively weak. The FIA set about reining in the team's efforts to use these processes over the years, controlling the specific quantity and methods for how oil can be burnt.

But, that's not to say that there were not other ways of doing it.

Ferrari SF70H 2017 engine

Ferrari SF70H 2017 engine

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The use of fuel additives within the oil clearly raised questions amongst the engineers about how you could continue to add combustion boosting elements into the fuel mixture without being reliant on oil vapour as a delivery mechanism.

As such, theories surfaced among the non-Ferrari powered teams that its liquid-to-air cooler was utilising an oil based lubricant as the cooling medium, rather than using a more conventional water based solution.

It was then surmised that this additive rich lubricant could be leaked into the boost tract and provide the necessary combustion improvement that was leading to the Scuderia's straight line boost.

In full flow

 Fuel flow meter

Fuel flow meter

Photo by: Matthew Somerfield

Learning from F1's turbocharged past, the FIA needed a way to contain the boost levels at which the power units could be run. Rather than meter the boost pressure, as was done during the last turbocharged era, the FIA opted to meter fuel delivery.

Housed, within the fuel tank, the meter had to be more accurate than anything that was already available in the marketplace. It had to tolerate the range of conditions it would be placed under, provide the necessary accuracy and offer result repeatability over all devices in use.

The current meter, supplied by Senstronics since 2018, uses the time-of-flight principle, whereby transducers at either end of the meter fire short bursts of ultrasound in opposing directions. These values are measured and scaled according to the known dimensions of the flow tube to give the volumetric flow rate.

To get the necessary accuracy the meter measures the flow rate over 2200 times per second and is manufactured from a single metallic material to eliminate the need for any further calibration for different thermal expansion rates.

How does one defeat a flow meter then?

Whilst the meter takes measurements at up to 2200 times per second, this is filtered and the FIA works with a much smaller sample, as it must remove some of the noise created by various external variables.

This is supposed to give a more accurate reading of the flow rate, but it has been proposed that it could also be used as a way of defeating the process.

The introduction of noise (or resonance) at a certain frequency or even one similar to the metal that the meter is made from could, for example, create a dissonance.

This was the basis for Red Bull's most recent probe into Ferrari's straight line speed advantage and 'signal filtering', as it asked the FIA for clarification on the matter.

The FIA responded with a technical directive, making clear that the three scenarios offered by Red Bull would be in breach of articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.5 of the technical regulations.

Reading between the lines…

Shell oil and fuel testing unit

Shell oil and fuel testing unit

Photo by: XPB Images

A good way of spotting where the FIA have had problems in a previous year is amendments made to the wording of the technical regulations.

For 2020, several lines have been added to Article 19.8 - Sampling and testing at an Event. All of these changes relate to the fuel samples given to the FIA for analysis purposes, their relationship with the fuel in use.

For the sake of clarity, teams can approve five fuel formulations per season but are only allowed to use two per event.

Perhaps the most pertinent article is the final paragraph of 19.8.4:

If the deviations observed (above) by GC [gas chromatography] indicate that they are due to incidental mixing with another Formula One fuel to the one declared, but which has been approved by the FIA for use by the team, the fuel sample will be deemed to comply, provided that the adulterant fuel is present at no more than 10% in the sample. Any systematic abuse of mixed fuels will be deemed not to comply.

Of course there's always some room for cross contamination when changing between fuels, and that's why the FIA have allowed some wiggle room. But, these alterations suggest that a team, not necessarily Ferrari, was intentionally gaming the sampling system and mixing the two fuels that they were allowed to use at a given event.

Having the foresight to intentionally use two different fuel formulations raises some important questions about the composition and interaction of both fuel formulations.

Whilst there are heavy restrictions on what can be added to the fuel, which requires the suppliers to carefully balance their formulations, heavily weighting one of these with combustion boosting elements would not only have an interesting impact on combustion, but also in terms of how that might create a dissonance with the fuel flow meter readings...

Are two better than one?

It's clear that the FIA has made several attempts to cover off numerous aspects of the regulations that might have allowed for enhanced combustion or permitted the fuel flow limit to be exceeded, if only temporarily.

However, a technical directive (TD/042-19) issued toward the end of the season will be an important factor in policing fuel flow going forwards.

Up until this point the information gathered by the fuel flow meter has been sent to the SECU (Standard ECU) and has been accessible by both the teams and FIA.

To help police the fuel flow restrictions, the FIA has instructed teams that a secondary meter must be installed in series. This meter incorporates new, more robust anti-aliasing techniques, randomizing when the measurements are taken to prevent external feedback being able to match the measurement frequency.

This data is also sent via a separate encrypted data connection to the FIA SDR (Security Data Recorder), making it inaccessible to the teams.

To further randomise the process the FIA will be handed a pool of flow meters by each team and they will allocate a meter to each car at the start of an event and retrieve it at the end.

Dennis donates £1 million to feed UK health workers

Previous article

Dennis donates £1 million to feed UK health workers

Next article

Brown warns four F1 teams could disappear amid crisis

Brown warns four F1 teams could disappear amid crisis
Load comments
Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1 Prime

Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1

OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots Prime

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots

Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. Damien Smith brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1.

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background Prime

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background

OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus Prime

How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus

Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline

Formula 1
Sep 21, 2021
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey  Prime

The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey 

Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…

Formula 1
Sep 20, 2021
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog Prime

The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog

A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says Stuart Codling.

Formula 1
Sep 18, 2021
The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from Prime

The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from

OPINION: The headlines were dominated by the Italian Grand Prix clash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who had the halo to thank for avoiding potentially serious injury. But two days earlier, Formula 1 had a lucky escape with a Monza pitlane incident that could also have had grave consequences.

Formula 1
Sep 17, 2021
How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum Prime

How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum

With two sprint races under its belt, Formula 1 must now consider its options for them going forward. While they've helped deliver exciting racing on Sundays, the sprints themselves have been somewhat lacking - creating yet another conundrum for F1 to solve...

Formula 1
Sep 16, 2021