Formula 1: Malaysia. And what's the deal with fuel sensor arguments?

[ASB]

I dont thi k they got to 1500. But might have done. As I recall bmw got to about 1300 from the qualifying spec engine. But it couldnt do it for long.

If fia insist on their own meter for the limit I dont see why they cant engineer a device that enforces the limit rather than just measuring the flow.

[VectraMan]

I don't think the engines are capable of 1500bhp, you're being silly.

Doh! They were getting 1500bhp out of slightly smaller 1.5 V6 turbos with a lower rev limit in the 80s. They wouldn't have lasted a race distance, but even if technology hadn't progressed in 25+ years then with what we're talking about they'd only need that full power for a short time anyway.

These engines probably aren't capable of 1500bhp, but that's because they were designed from day one with the 100Kg/h fuel flow limit in mind.

Many people within F1, including Helmut Marko, think the real-time flow-rate stuff isn't sensible and they probably know a lot more about it than any of us, which puts it in the category "it's not essential, just a decision which could have gone either way".

Helmut Marko, the middle level marketing manager of a drinks company whose team is the only one to be caught out by this issue? If you're going to argue that, at least try to come up with someone who is technical and isn't so obviously biased.

What surprises me in all this is that the FIA felt the need for these additional fuel flow meters. Given that efficiency is only achieved by hyper-accurate fuel injection systems, and given that the FIA can inspect everything, they could have just left it down to the teams to show that they comply if required. It seems odd that they feel the need to have independent verification of this one technical detail, when there's so many others that a team could use to cheat if they were inclined.

[d000hg]

I don't think the engines are capable of 1500bhp, you're being silly. And the gap between a top car with DRS and a back-marker without is NOT small.

Many people within F1, including Helmut Marko, think the real-time flow-rate stuff isn't sensible and they probably know a lot more about it than any of us, which puts it in the category "it's not essential, just a decision which could have gone either way".

[VectraMan]

The qualifying aspect seems to me to be the only sensible argument. Arguing about increased closing speeds on the straights doesn't hold water when you remember they introduced DRS with the deliberate intention of doing this.

DRS is only a small difference; with unrestricted engine power you could have one driver with 1500bhp and the other with 750bhp. Then it's like racing two different formula on one track.

Qualifying isn't the only problem. If it's just the total amount of fuel that's limiting things, then cars would have a lot more peak power at slower circuits. And if the safety car comes out for 10 laps, then everybody can have a huge power boost for a few laps and the cars are suddenly much much faster than they were setup for or would ever have been deemed safe.

And then there's the argument that unlimited power means unlimited spending. Everybody's going to be trying to push the limits of how much turbo-boost their engines can take without self destructing. This is what happened with rpm a few years ago, and why Renault threatened to walk away from the sport until the FIA agreed a limit.

As VM says it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it just seems a bit pointless having very tight overall fuel limit AND a real-time usage limit.

So not pointless at all. They don't achieve the same thing.

[d000hg]

The qualifying aspect seems to me to be the only sensible argument. Arguing about increased closing speeds on the straights doesn't hold water when you remember they introduced DRS with the deliberate intention of doing this.

As VM says it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it just seems a bit pointless having very tight overall fuel limit AND a real-time usage limit.

[VectraMan]

WTS. I've read the same thing on F1 fan sites from people you'd think would know better. They've been limiting performance for years, this is no different. With N/A engines it was effectively the rev limit that put a cap on engine performance, and we've had 18Krpm limits for a while without people moaning a lot. With a turbo, you either need to limit the boost or the fuel flow, and they limited the fuel flow. I really don't understand why people are surprised or upset about this rule. If it wasn't for Red Bull's disqualification, nobody would be talking about it.

[malvolio]

It's also to do with qualifying. 100Kg for the full race is easy enough, but you have to limit how much you use during the 15 or so laps of qualifying otherwise you have everyone doubling their horsepower: while that might work out evens for the cars, it doesn't do much for the green agenda.

[DaveB]

As I understand it, the new rules not only limit you to 100kg of fuel but also mean you cannot use it faster than 100kg/hr. I don't really see the point, why not just bung in 100kg, put a padlock on the fuel flap and leave them too it? If they want to burn up their fuel really fast and then have to limp the last 20 laps, why not let them?

It's supposedly a safety thing and to produce more competitive racing.

Without the flow limiter you could drop a huge amount of boost coming into a long straight and get a huge disparity in speeds between cars increasing the risk of accidents in the braking zone with drivers braking too late or carrying too much speed.

With the fuel flow limit this can't happen and you are back to normal F1 style tactical driving and overtaking with more emphasis on driver skill and less on car performance.

Not saying it's right or not, but thats the FIA reasoning.

[d000hg]

I'm aware of the issues about applicable technology but cars which can go fast when you put your foot down and be super-efficient the rest of the time are quite popular.

Surely limiting the fuel so severely in the first place imposes consumption restrictions that are more like real life - you want an average mpg that's great, so you can get a long way on one tank.

After all the 100kg/hr flow rate restriction is already such that driving at that rate would only get you 2/3 of race distance so on average, they're using considerably less than this.

[TykeMerc]

As I understand it, the new rules not only limit you to 100kg of fuel but also mean you cannot use it faster than 100kg/hr. I don't really see the point, why not just bung in 100kg, put a padlock on the fuel flap and leave them too it? If they want to burn up their fuel really fast and then have to limp the last 20 laps, why not let them?

Perfectly fair argument if it was all about the racing, but it's not.

A fair proportion of the F1 motorsport is about the engine markets and being a partial shop window for car buyers. Renault were going to withdraw and Honda already had so the fuel consumption rate is an issue especially in the current climate.

[d000hg]

As I understand it, the new rules not only limit you to 100kg of fuel but also mean you cannot use it faster than 100kg/hr. I don't really see the point, why not just bung in 100kg, put a padlock on the fuel flap and leave them too it? If they want to burn up their fuel really fast and then have to limp the last 20 laps, why not let them?