|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Apr 2014, 15:15 (Ref:3388317) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,880
|
Quote:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141068 Ultimately it tries to limit the maximum instantaneous fuel flow. Depending upon who you ask they are doing that so that they can... * Limit ultimate peak HP (by limiting fuel at a given moment). I think this mostly applies to qualifying sessions given they don't really have to follow the maximum fuel limits. Otherwise they could just crank up the boost for a few old school qualifying laps. * Prevent specific race strategies that are used in fuel consumption series (such as Group C racing). Broadly speaking that is either running slow early to save fuel and then running fast at the end, or the reverse. I don't think there is any consensus on if those strategies are a good or bad thing. You have to wonder if maybe next season they find a different solution for the qualifying issue and then just let them run whatever flow they want otherwise (but still have the maximum fuel allocation). This likely would be a relatively easy thing to implement. Richard |
||
|
3 Apr 2014, 15:22 (Ref:3388319) | #77 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Quote:
For the sake of safety a fuel-flow limit is desirable. With the power output as mentioned above, speeds may become too high. Some also emphasize the possible speed differences, particularly during the race, as drivers would still have to save enough fuel to prevent a disqualification. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
3 Apr 2014, 15:25 (Ref:3388320) | #78 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
3 Apr 2014, 15:59 (Ref:3388326) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,880
|
Quote:
Richard PS: As I type this I wonder if you can include fuel allocation in the minimum weight. So there would be no incentive to start with less than maximum fuel load, and then maybe less incentive to conserve during the race. But that wouldn't be very "green". |
||
|
3 Apr 2014, 16:59 (Ref:3388349) | #80 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
The minimum weight is indeed without fuel. But as drivers are already not using the allowed amount of fuel, it is foreseeable that they will start with less than the 100 kilograms on tracks like Monaco.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
3 Apr 2014, 18:00 (Ref:3388366) | #81 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,550
|
In the 1980's when there were 1500cc turbocharged F1 cars they were some were reputed to produce 1500BHP so with the advances over the last 25 years it would not be unreasonble to expect a 20% increase on that in qually trim with unrestricted fuel flow.
Another way to restrict power would be a device that would limit the fuel flow rate to the engine as opposed to measuring the flow rate. A restriction on fuel flow rate should not be too difficult to achive. |
|
|
3 Apr 2014, 21:22 (Ref:3388458) | #82 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
It is quite difficult to make a save fuel-flow restrictor, as fuel can vaporise. To prevent engines from misfiring at peak power (!), a very advanced device is required. Toyota say they have developed such a device, but third parties are yet to test it.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
3 Apr 2014, 21:54 (Ref:3388461) | #83 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
This is not true, if the fuel is restricted just before it goes into the injectors and a bypass is use to return excess fuel not used back to the tank; as pretty well all FI systems do, the fuel will not vaporize. Remember an injector by its very nature restricts fuel flow with no vaporization problems. This is a nice try by someone selling gill meters! |
||
|
3 Apr 2014, 23:02 (Ref:3388479) | #84 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
As a lawyer I have to trust on other parties regarding this subject.
However, the Toyota seems to think otherwise. http://www.racecar-engineering.com/t...ow-is-limited/ |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
3 Apr 2014, 23:16 (Ref:3388484) | #85 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Ah but we have snake oil to fix that problem sir! Only $15 000 a sensor! |
||
|
5 Apr 2014, 00:08 (Ref:3388840) | #86 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
If there was vaporization exiting the fuel injector, wouldn't that be an ideal situation? Better than atomization! Just waiting for that spark so it could go ka-boom! |
|||
|
5 Apr 2014, 02:57 (Ref:3388861) | #87 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
People are claiming that the fuel will vaporize in the lines if they are restricted. I simply pointed out that the injectors are actually restrictors, if the restrictor is done correctly with bypass the fuel in the lines will not vaporize. After the fuel is emitted from the injectors in a very fine spray into a very hot cylinder, it will certainly vaporize, the more vaporized and mixed the better for complete combustion.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2014, 03:00 (Ref:3388863) | #88 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Q: (Edd Straw - Autosport) Adrian, you touched on the engine regs. Hypothetically, if you had a clean sheet of paper, and in broad terms, what sort of engine regulations do you like? Would you like something quite prescriptive like last year’s engine regs? Would you like something wider so that teams and engine manufacturers can explore different energy-efficient technologies that might perhaps drive road car technology even further than the current technology?
AN: I think it’s a very difficult question to answer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting we should go back to gas-guzzlers as Pat called them - although actually the V8s were extraordinarily efficient. But, it seems to me that what we have done is create a set of regulations which, whilst technically interesting, I still question whether it gets all the compromises right. Ultimately, then there is a relationship between cost, weight, aerodynamics… all sorts of factors if you’re going to go into road relevance. How you weigh that, how you proportion it is impossible for an open-wheeled single-seater. It’s a very different beast. So no easy answer. We’ve got for a package which is very complicated, very expensive. The cost of the power unit has at least doubled compared to last year, which is difficult for some of the smaller teams, so it’s a very complicated balance I think is the honest truth, outside this Friday Five meeting. http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...4/4/15676.html Adrian is clearly not a believer in the new technology, would rather that the money was spent on making the cars lighter - no arguments from me! |
|
|
5 Apr 2014, 20:44 (Ref:3389080) | #89 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,630
|
We'd noticed.
Reading his words are very interesting, if you don't just hone in on something that you want to see. Not a fan, yes, but he also gives an insight into how difficult this is. How the last set of regs weren't ideal and shows how initially when you introduce a change it is more expensive. He also points out that it is interesting. He also works for Red Bull. The new engines and the knock on impact is fascinating. I still think it is too restrictive, but at least at the moment, it is a huge step more varied and interesting than the last set of regs. On top of that the racing hasn't changed. Depending on your point of view, realistically, the worse you could think is it was crap last year it is still crap. Last edited by Adam43; 5 Apr 2014 at 22:13. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
6 Apr 2014, 09:18 (Ref:3389216) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,590
|
One has to smile, or even laugh, at some of Horner's comments.
He has said that he wants the FIA to drop the requirement to have a flow meter, and that flow-rate should be be. He adds that "he would be hammered" because this would give Red Bull an advantage. "But" he says "I don't believe that this would give us an advantage". He claims that the rational behind his view is that spectators/viewers don't understand the requirement for the regulation! What nonsense. Using his logic, you could probably scrap over 50% of the rules and regulations as they are incomprehensible to the general public. It is not the rules, etc. that people want to see, but cars at the top of the technical peak being driven competatively by the top drivers aginst each other. In reality, they don't care what is under the bodywork - yes, the purists do - but to the average punter, all they want is to see spactacle and to a certain degree, noise. But back to the flow metering, and Horner's punters not understanding. I would hazard a guess that they also don't fully understand turbo boost either, so why not make that free as well! I mean, surely there wouldn't be any advantage gained by that, would there? |
||
|
6 Apr 2014, 10:11 (Ref:3389231) | #91 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,630
|
I do agree with him that a lot of spectator/viewers don't understand it. I suspect most people don't even understand the units of flow, let alone the consequence, or what accuracy/uncertainty to the measurement is. As you say, you'd scrap most regulations. Most people don't know how a V8 works either. So I agree it is a mute point.
There is a quote from Tim Birkin on the subject, I'll try to find it... |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
7 Apr 2014, 17:51 (Ref:3389838) | #92 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,590
|
Interesting interview with Ron Dennis by Sky, and reported on Pitpass.
In essence, he says without naming anyone that Ecclestone, di Montezemolo and Horner/Newey should all stop whinging, and that RBR and Ferrari should just get on and make their cars work within the current rules and regulations. He makes it clear that teams were part of the sanctioning group that agreed the rules and regulations, and that he would veto any changes this season. |
||
|
7 Apr 2014, 22:58 (Ref:3389978) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 Apr 2014, 02:23 (Ref:3390011) | #94 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,362
|
||
|
8 Apr 2014, 07:13 (Ref:3390067) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,656
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
8 Apr 2014, 08:18 (Ref:3390084) | #96 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,590
|
Quote:
What I do do recall, however, was both McLaren and Ferrari saying on a multitude of ocassions that they were not doing well enough, and they needed to, metaphorically, pull up their socks to compete with Red Bull. They did not, to the best of my recollection, ever call for the regulations to be altered mid-season so that they could get on par with RBR except when they felt that RBR was running their cars in a way that they felt was outside, at a minimum, of the spirit of the rules. What I do further recall, proving that they have form in this regard, was that it was RBR that was most outspoken last year early on in the season about the tyres. And, funnily enough, the tyre compounds and structure were altered to suit RBR mid season, even though it was publically known that RBR were ignoring Pirelli's instructions on both tyre pressures and wheel cambers. In an amazing coincidence, it is yet again the same team ignoring official instructions and calling for changes that suit their purpose. |
|||
|
8 Apr 2014, 09:46 (Ref:3390104) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Seriously Mike? The spirit of the rules is, you find a loophole that the FIA can't justify plugging immediately! c.f. McLaren rear wishbones! |
||
|
8 Apr 2014, 10:27 (Ref:3390126) | #98 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,590
|
Quote:
Other teams may be unhappy about the McLaren's rear wishbone, however they seem to meet the requirements laid down by the FIA, so they have the choice of copying them. By so doing, I don't believe that the teams would have to make huge changes to the whole car design, whereas the same could not be said of some of the "design" features of RBR's cars in the recent past. |
|||
|
8 Apr 2014, 11:38 (Ref:3390141) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
The Mercedes PU isn't taking an advantage of a loophole.
It's just a MUCH better engine. Why should they (and the Mercedes car as well) be punished for being good at their job, by changing the rules so everyone else can catch up? |
||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
8 Apr 2014, 13:32 (Ref:3390206) | #100 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
You're absolutely right, but how many people will be watching Mercedes walk off into the distance at 2 seconds a lap for 3 years?
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Red Bull keep it up? | kmchow | Formula One | 12 | 20 Mar 2006 03:29 |
Red Bull - No Bull | Glen | Formula One | 48 | 11 Mar 2005 10:59 |
No bull? Red Bull Jordan! | slicktoast | Formula One | 38 | 23 Dec 2002 19:08 |