r/F1Technical • u/Twabithrowaway • Aug 01 '21
Question/Discussion Aston Martin claims 1.44l of fuel was available, but they were not able to get it out. Why can this fuel not be extracted?
If I'm not mistaken fuel levels are monitored frequently with a variety of sensors throughout the race weekend. In the FIA's report 
How can Aston Martin not get this fuel out? Where is it, why/how is it "stuck"?
Is AM lying when they say there is that much fuel? or there a technical reason this fuel could not be extracted.
It mentions they get three attempts to extract it, but what changed between this attempts that might affect how much fuel is able to be removed
53
u/GaryGiesel Verified F1 Vehicle Dynamicist Aug 02 '21
Aston Martin have most likely been caught out by a combination of factors - it’s surprisingly difficult to know how much fuel is actually in the tank, and also very difficult to get every drop out of the tank. Some reasons for this: - a portion of the fuel will evaporate inside the tank (this is probably small) - the fuel flow meter is not 100% accurate. Usually you’ll use the fuel injector calibrations to estimate fuel usage (more accurate than the FFM usually), but there’s still the possibility of wandering. In my experience, this is usually a big part of what causes you to have extra or “missing” fuel after the race, and is probably what’s caught AM out. - the fuel can get stuck in the system. It’s possibly that that fuel is still somewhere inside the tank/fuel lines, despite their best efforts at scavenging. Generally these days we’re usually pretty good with getting the fuel out, so I’d be surprised if this was the case. I’m also extremely surprised to see that Aston think that presenting calculations to show that they “must” have the required amount of fuel would satisfy the stewards. The rule is that you must be able to provide 1L of fuel to the FIA on demand. No sample, DSQ - it’s as simple as that. You could have 100 kg in the tank but if you can’t get it out it’s irrelevant
3
Aug 02 '21
I’m also extremely surprised to see that Aston think that presenting calculations to show that they “must” have the required amount of fuel would satisfy the stewards.
It is somewhat reminiscent of Red Bull in 2014 trying to prove that their injector calculations showing that they must have used the required fuel flow rate would satisfy the stewards.
Back then we also learned that there was variation in the FFM's and the teams would get a bunch of approved FIA tested FFM's and test to see which ones were "better".
1
u/GaryGiesel Verified F1 Vehicle Dynamicist Aug 02 '21
Yes it’s a bit like that. The main difference between this and that is that in the RB case, it was a totally new area of regulations, so it was feasible that they could have persuaded the stewards of their case. With the case from this weekend, there are many prior cases of exactly the same thing, and the result is always the same.
-74
127
u/Gaverick2503 Aug 01 '21
The fuel is held in a foam/sponge inside the tank, my guess would be that this 1.44L is sitting trapped in the sponge, slowly draining via gravity.
55
u/OneMoreDog Aug 01 '21 edited Aug 01 '21
Is that to stop it sloshing around?
90
u/Blue-Sky_69 Aug 01 '21
Because otherwise it would be subject to g forces and make mess with the car balance. For examole imagine turning left. All the liquid goes to the right. Then you stop cornering and it goes to the left and jiggles the car balance. Just put a bottle in your car and observe how it moves when you turn.
19
7
u/TBandi Aug 02 '21
But then how do they get the fuel out of the sponge to use it??
4
u/MrRoflmajog Aug 02 '21
Its a sponge, it has holes in it, fuel just drains through it to the fuel line in the bottom of the tank.
7
u/Samuel7899 Aug 01 '21
I'm curious as well.
Maybe safer in the event of a puncture as well?
30
u/pinotandsugar Aug 02 '21
F-1 fuel cell technology is derived from Vietnam era research to minimize the danger of fuel fires in helicopters due to gunfire and crashes. There's a foam in the tank that slows flow through a hole. Also prevents sloshing from changing weight distribution.
26
u/According-2-Me Aug 01 '21
I don’t think it’s a “sponge”, but it’s a fuel bag. There is also fuel left in the engine.
16
u/abhi_14 Aug 02 '21
Correct. That Richard Hammond engineering episode clearly explains the fuel bags.
6
u/StonedWater Aug 02 '21
are they structured internally like boats, to stop the sloshing?
8
u/abhi_14 Aug 02 '21
They do use baffles i guess although I'm not completely sure. Here's that Richard Hammond video. The fuel tank part starts at 30 min mark. https://youtu.be/1OziCDoox5Y
5
-1
u/gardenfella Colin Chapman Aug 02 '21
There's definitely sponge in the tanks. I've been to the factory that makes them.
12
u/GaryGiesel Verified F1 Vehicle Dynamicist Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
This just isn’t true. There are baffles inside the tank, but no sponges, because sponges would lead to precisely this situation, while also making the fuel tank volume vastly bigger (with inevitable impacts on aero, etc.). Where did you get this idea?
4
u/gardenfella Colin Chapman Aug 02 '21
There's definitely sponge in the tanks. I've been to the factory that makes them.
2
u/Seismica Aug 02 '21
For most fuel tanks you'd be correct, but doesn't look like F1 cars use foam/sponge baffles: https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/analysis-f1-fuel-system/
1
u/gardenfella Colin Chapman Aug 02 '21
So the guys I spoke to at ATL are wrong, then?
3
u/Seismica Aug 02 '21
I think the question is did they specifically say that "F1 fuel tanks use foam baffles" or did they say "We use foam baffles in our fuel tanks. Our fuel tanks supply a range of motorsport disciplines including F1". ATL supply a lot of different motorsport disciplines, some (perhaps even most) i'm sure will use the foam baffle type.
Also depends when I suppose, I imagine older F1 fuel tanks almost certainly did use foam baffles.
ScarbsF1 is a well respected and highly reputable source in F1 technical world and he even posted some very informative pictures on his twitter page about this exact discussion:
2
u/gardenfella Colin Chapman Aug 02 '21
My question was specific to F1 tanks and was asked the year before last.
1
u/tujuggernaut Aug 02 '21
I think you are confusing an F1 fuel bladder with a fire-safe racing fuel cell. A fire-safe fuel cell and a fuel bladder are different things. The bladder has a special substance between the inner and outer bags that is designed to self-seal a puncture. Internally it has baffles to prevents sloshing. However it is completely flexible and fits compressed into a hold in the monocoque and is then arranged and expanded.
A fuel cell like the ones you see in most race series are usually cubical or rectangular and almost always in a metal box painted red. This is indeed a metal tank and contains a semi-solid porous material that is designed to prevent both slosh and splashing in the event of a rupture.
http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/fuel_cell.html
On either style, you can hook a vacuum pump up to the tank/bladder and try to extract as much fuel as possible. This can usually extract more fuel than the actual fuel pump.
11
u/dollarfrom15c Aug 01 '21
Follow up - what is the "injector model"? All I can think of is that the injector has a dP reading across it that they can use to calculate the flow rate from the injector pressure drop characteristic or flow path model.
8
u/therealdilbert Aug 02 '21
the fuel pressure is 100s of bars so pretty much a constant, so the fuel volume ~directly proportional to how long it is open, with correction for flow during opening and closing
1
1
u/tujuggernaut Aug 02 '21
The duty cycle applied to the injector is pretty accurate in terms of the amount of fuel that will be delivered during that duration. The teams use an aggregation of duty cycles across injectors to estimate the amount of fuel injected into the engine. However this does not account for losses in the lines, evaporation, and potentially mis-calibrated fuel injectors.
Remember a very very tiny difference in the amount of fuel delivered during the pulse width will result in a large aggregate error because there are millions (billions?) of injector events per race. This could be due to an injector tolerance or even variation in pressure in the fuel rail.
63
u/inmeucu Aug 01 '21
Why is more than a little needed? What are they testing for? And why is the result to be disqualified? I mean that just seems like the worst consequence one can have and this seems so minor in comparison to say last week's 10 second penalty for causing a crash.
94
u/OneMoreDog Aug 01 '21 edited Aug 01 '21
I can't find a current rationale for it being 1L exactly apart from convention, but the fuel is also a controlled element and so the FIA do test fuel samples for compliance with the regulations.
(See pg 94 of this document for the technical fuel requirements if you are interested in that.)
Like other automatic DSQs this is something that needs to be a firm black and white rule for the teams, otherwise you know they'll be pushing the limits to their advantage, and you can't really quantify that. The best way to make the rules attractive to follow is to remove any chance that the benefit of breaking the rules could be is greater than the penalty. A DSQ is a good way of doing that.
21
u/rainbowedpanda Aug 02 '21
Finally someone talking sense. I'm just as sad as everyone else to see Vettel get DSQ he drove a brilliant race, but so many people getting mad at FIA and comparing this incident to the Bottas crash are just stupid. These are two completely different things
26
u/OneMoreDog Aug 02 '21
Another poster somewhere put it neatly: sporting regulations != technical regulations
Sporting regs are designed to shape driver behaviour, prioritise safety, allow for entraining races etc. The Tech regs are the 'formula' of Formula 1, and if you breach them it's 'cheating', not an 'incident'.
9
u/Misterman098 Aug 02 '21
That's a good reason to have a DQ for the fuel not meeting specifications. But not for there being an issue removing it from the vehicle. But really the penalty is for them not extracting a litre. And I'm not sure of the significance of why exactly 1 litre is required? Maybe they can't run a proper analysis on the fuel with any less than that?
18
u/OneMoreDog Aug 02 '21
Because not being able to remove the fuel means they can't test it, the penalty has to be the significant. Otherwise teams would take the lesser penalty for not being able to provide a sample (grid penalty) and the advantage from running a better fuel which would be impossible to calculate.
[I think the penalty for incorrect fuel isn't just a DSQ but could also lead to a bigger investigation and a deduction of points and other options.]
7
u/Misterman098 Aug 02 '21
I'm sure AM would be happy to go back to the garage with the FIA and cut the bladder open if need be, if it meant circumventing a DQ. And maybe that will come up in their appeal. If there is actually 1L in the system that can be recovered through some manner, just not immediately due to some mechanical problem with the equipment, then a DQ seems like a harsh penalty. If 1L of fuel physically does not exist in the car, then by all means I get the reasoning for the harsh penalty.
15
u/GaryGiesel Verified F1 Vehicle Dynamicist Aug 02 '21
Ultimately the rule says that you must provide a 1L sample on request. It’s irrelevant if there’s 100L in the tank if you can’t get it out on request
7
2
u/Misterman098 Aug 02 '21
It's still relevant depending on the spirit of the rules. Which is why the appeal process exists and why AM will be utilizing that avenue. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
14
u/GaryGiesel Verified F1 Vehicle Dynamicist Aug 02 '21
In the world of the technical regulations, all that matters is the letter of the law, which states: “Competitors must ensure that a 1.0 litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time during the Event.” This isn’t one of those “grey area” rules - it’s clear-cut, and I don’t see the appeal going anywhere
1
u/WarriorXIX Verified Wind Tunnel Model Designer Aug 02 '21
They wouldn't be happy cutting it open. They only order 5 for the year, each one costs thousands and they take like a while to make because they're made by hand
12
u/OneMoreDog Aug 02 '21
Compared to losing a 2nd place podium half way through the season? I think they’d be relatively ‘happy’.
2
u/Misterman098 Aug 02 '21
"Happy" was a bit tongue in cheek. More accurate to say I'm sure AM would work with the FIA to produce a suitable result to prevent this DQ.
2
1
20
u/Franks2000inchTV Aug 01 '21
They'd need to test several samples, and also have a backup in case the results were inconclusive or one of the teams challenged the results and demanded an independent test or something.
6
u/OneMoreDog Aug 01 '21
I wonder if like WADA doping tests they would also store/archive samples for testing in the future if/when technology catches up to any anticipated fuel doping strategies?
2
1
u/jordanb91 Aug 01 '21
Does each team develop and use their own fuel?
14
u/viggy96 Aug 01 '21
Each fuel supplier does. Each PU manufacturer is aligned with an exclusive fuel/lubricants partner. For example, Honda PUs use ExxonMobil, Mercedes PUs use Petronas, Ferrari PUs use Shell, and Renault PUs use BP.
2
u/jordanb91 Aug 02 '21
Interesting I did not know that. I guess I just assumed everyone used the same fuel. Is there much difference between them as far as performance or does it mostly just come down to the PU?
12
u/MattytheWireGuy Red Bull Aug 02 '21
The fuel and oil are two of the biggest performance pieces of the motor. ExxonMobil apparently found some additive from cosmetics and added it into the oil for Red Bull and apparently gained a bunch of power just recently as it greatly reduced friction.
8
u/splashbodge Aug 02 '21
It's a shame the fuel/oil suppliers don't get any kudos in F1 considering they seem to have a big role. Like we all know which team uses what power unit, back when we had 2 tyre suppliers it was very well known who was on what and what the advantages were. Be interesting if they somehow got the fuel/oil into the picture a bit more.
I guess you can argue it's not really important for the viewer as it's tied to the power unit and not something the team decides on
13
u/MattytheWireGuy Red Bull Aug 02 '21
FWIW, Merc has their oil suppliers name as the main sponsor on the car. Ferrari has a big ass Shell logo on its car and after that they become more subdued.
Id say they are less talked about than they should be during the race and thus nobody seems to understand how important they are.
1
u/splashbodge Aug 02 '21
Yeh I know they're on their sponsor but I think most people think fuel is fuel and oil is oil, and all teams are probably using the same stuff... For a sport that gets very technical, I seldom ever hear them talk about the fuel or oil like this, maybe it's too low level as it's just a piece of the power unit so no point dwelling on it, especially if teams can't change oil supplier
1
u/VampyrByte Aug 02 '21
RBR feature Mobil 1 pretty heavily. McLaren have a Gulf logo on the engine cover and ran a special livery at Monaco for them. Alfa Romeo feature Orlen prominently too. Alpine feature Castrol on the engine cover aswell.
I can't see or identify the fuel or oil supplier on the Haas or Alpha Tauri. Williams are sponsored by Lavazza, which are likely fuel suppliers for the pit crew rather than the car, but it counts.
7
u/This-Inflation7440 Aug 01 '21
supposedly a technical rule breach is viewed as more significant than a sporting mistake. I think it is clear that there was no intent to „cheat“ in this situation either, but apparently that is irrelevant 🤷🏼♂️
21
u/FalconMirage Alpine Aug 01 '21
Because if they let something like this pass, you’d bet everyone will burn a liter more of fuel in the next race and claim "they didn’t intend to cheat"
3
u/This-Inflation7440 Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
Oh I think it should be punished, but not quite as harshly perhaps. And the free pass argument doesn’t really work imo as you can make the exact same argument for sporting penalties. I really don’t see how this kind of technical breach is any worse and should be punished any harsher than causing a shunt or ignoring double yellows for instance.
In a best case scenario, you might gain 5-8 seconds throughout a race by running a full 1L less fuel and that’s a stretch. My proposition would be that so long as there is enough fuel left to ensure that the mixture is compliant with tech regs, but not the required 1 Liter that a 10 second penalty be applied. Obviously if there is like actually no fuel to test then it has to be a DSQ as no tests can be carried out. Obviously this isn’t a huge problem, as teams have enough fuel most of the time. I just think it’s a bit unnecessary to punish teams so harshly for a relatively small mistake 🤷🏼♂️
18
u/LostHero50 Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
The rule is laid out plain and simple, everyone follows them and it has almost never been an issue in modern F1.
My proposition would be that so long as there is enough fuel left to ensure that the mixture is compliant with tech regs
Yes and that amount of fuel is 1L. The FIA has determined they need this amount for whatever tests, retests, appeals, and failsafe could arise from an issue. There is no reasonable way you could see how much a car has benefited from breaking this rule which is why it's black and white. Adding unnecessary ambiguity, clauses and leeway just allow room for cheating and inconsistent decisions.
9
u/SirLoremIpsum Aug 02 '21
My proposition would be that so long as there is enough fuel left to ensure that the mixture is compliant with tech regs
So to be proper about writing rules, because legalese must be precise, you would have to put an amount in writing.
You can't just say "as long as there is enough fuel left" you would say "there must be x amount of fuel".
And they have specified 1L as that amount.
So you're essentially asking for the same thing as the rules right...?
I just think it’s a bit unnecessary to punish teams so harshly for a relatively small mistake 🤷🏼♂️
You're only thinking about it as if it's a mistake. If you don't punish teams for this infringement then it becomes a game of 'how can we deliberately exploit this'. Maybe they put less fuel in the car to begin with and drive underweight, maybe they find more fuel flow regs so they can crank it up so the car runs 0.5m past the finish line.
The rules are not written to assume positive intention, the rules are written to create the parameters for the competition.
1
u/Misterman098 Aug 02 '21
There is already rules on fuel flow, and it is monitored live. You would think this 1 litre rule would not affect fuel flow cheating. However some team may choose to take a risk of running one less litre for some miniscule weight savings?
1
u/pinkminiproject Aug 02 '21
Afaik they made it more than a little simply because there were time in the past teams ran it so close that they ran out before the flag. This way they don’t risk that.
26
u/CricketRacer10 Aug 01 '21
Broken fuel pump I’m seeing murmours of
13
u/therealdilbert Aug 02 '21
the regulations allow for an external pump
25
u/Abraxas19 Aug 02 '21
But weren’t they given time and their own equipment to get the fuel out? If they can’t get it out themselves that’s pretty clear cut
31
u/Filandro Aug 01 '21
There is a designated FIA fuel port usually near the standard port. The FIA go through that port and must be able to extract the required am't. If Aston has more fuel on board, but the fuel is not available at that port (queued up somewhere, too low, bad design, etc, then it doesn't matter how much is on board. The FIA need to go through their own port, which is built into every car, and get the am't needed. AM could drain or squeeze it out, and that'd be a moot exercise.
11
u/JuanFF8 Aug 01 '21
Is it possible that there was a faulty fuel sensor that gave AM a false reading? And if so, could the penalty still stand even if the sensor reading was wrong
31
u/OneMoreDog Aug 01 '21
I don't think the FIA would care, really. If they could get away with that then what's to stop teams claiming a faulty sensor on tyre pressures or other controls to gain an advantage (and you know they would!)
4
Aug 02 '21
The sensors are provided by the FIA no ? If Aston can prove there's a fault with the sensor how can you expect them to know what's in the tank ?
So it's not like the team will just say : "oh the sensor wasn't working". You still need to be able to prove it.
7
u/This-Inflation7440 Aug 01 '21
if anything that would open AM up for a harsher penalty because of the possibility that they may have been burning more fuel than allowed by the fuel flow limit 😅
3
u/Zinjifrah Aug 02 '21
Do they remove the fuel from everyone or just the podium cars? Point cars? I know the reg is availability for everyone but curious if they actually take everyone's sample.
1
u/aaae1115 Aug 02 '21
I don’t believe ocons car was sampled I read. They looked at people who stopped on track this time round (Vettel, Williams)
4
u/handsomebottom Aug 02 '21
What's the rationale behind needing to test fuel after the race? From my limited knowledge I think it's tested everytime the fuel moved. I can understand why they would do it before the race(regulatory compliance checks) but why does the fuel testing matter at the end?
8
Aug 02 '21
it's a standard compliance test since fuel is a controlled substance and F1 teams bend the rules wherever possible and if there is an opening to cheat, they will.
-15
Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/spellwhatspell Aug 02 '21
The car, team, and driver need to comply to very specific regulations at any point before, during, or after the race.
Breach of these regulations should not and are not treated lightly.
Extracting the fuel is irrelevant if they can't not provide the mandatory unaltered fuel sample. They should be punished according to the rules.
1
u/pinotandsugar Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
From a design standpoint the pickup might assume some acceleration g force to get the last drops of fuel .
Interesting article on FIA fuel cells http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/fuel_cell.html
1
u/Isaiah1962 Aug 02 '21
Do Ferrari have to shoulder some of the blame for this rule because of their fuelling chicanery a couple of years ago? If so, it would be pretty ironic that the rule trapped one of their (ex)drivers who benefitted from the cheating back then.
125
u/tujuggernaut Aug 02 '21
Steve Matchett explained in his book that the fuel cell is a flexible rubber fuel bladder with many internal baffles to keep the fuel available to the pickup point under hard cornering. It's designed to get virtually all the fuel out of the bladder but sometimes there may be fuel hung up in the internal baffles. It sounds like Aston tried a couple of times to vacuum the fuel out but it didn't work. Therefore they probably do not have their estimate of fuel in the tank; they probably burned slightly more than expected during the race.
The bladder is shoved into a hole on the back of the monocoque which is apparently one of the least-fun jobs of working on an F1 car.