Red Bull Unhappy

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't fully understand what these fuel flow meters are actually for. They already have a maximum fuel amount that the cars are allowed to carry, so why the need for any other jiggery-pokery? Surely its just a case of; there's your fuel amount, now get to the finish, by hook or by crook...?

You might find this other thread interesting as it focuses just on that topic...

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

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't fully understand what these fuel flow meters are actually for. They already have a maximum fuel amount that the cars are allowed to carry, so why the need for any other jiggery-pokery? Surely its just a case of; there's your fuel amount, now get to the finish, by hook or by crook...?

The fuel consumption only limits the average power output during the race. Without the fuel-flow limit teams can turn-up the turbo boost and thus make the engines produce a lot more power during qualifying and some parts in the race. It is thought that without the fuel-flow limit the current breed of engines are able to produce more than 1,000 bhp, some are even suggesting an output around 2,000 bhp!

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.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

* 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.

Despite the fuel-flow limit teams and drivers are still figuring out those specific race strategies, as the fuel consumption limit does not allow drivers to drive flat-out the entire race.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Despite the fuel-flow limit teams and drivers are still figuring out those specific race strategies, as the fuel consumption limit does not allow drivers to drive flat-out the entire race.

I agree. Especially if you plan to not use the entire allocation of fuel for the race (I assume teams still do that) which reduces car weight at the start of the race.

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".

[Pingguest]

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.

[wolfhound]

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.

[Pingguest]

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.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is quite difficult to make a save fuel-flow restrictor, as fuel can vaporise.

,

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!

[Pingguest]

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/

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

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/

Ah but we have snake oil to fix that problem sir!

Only $15 000 a sensor!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Remember an injector by its very nature restricts fuel flow with no vaporization problems.

Agreed there is no vaporization problems, but is it true there is no vaporization?

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!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Agreed there is no vaporization problems, but is it true there is no vaporization?

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!

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.

[wnut]

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!

[Adam43]

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.

[Mike Harte]

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?

[Adam43]

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...

[Mike Harte]

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.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

The exact same could have been said for the entire field when RBR was dominant. People in glass houses....

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Casper

The exact same could have been said for the entire field when RBR was dominant. People in glass houses....

Ahh Yes... but IIRC Ron wasn't in the glasshouse at that time... Well he could argue that anyway..

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Ahh Yes... but IIRC Ron wasn't in the glasshouse at that time... Well he could argue that anyway..

Along the lines of: "I completely refute the accusation that at that time the walls of the house that I was in had a transparency rating of more than 75%!"

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

The exact same could have been said for the entire field when RBR was dominant. People in glass houses....

I can't recall that the entire field stating anything like that. I can remember certain teams who were consistently at the back of the grid and possibly one midfied team calling for changes to the regulations, to, in their sort of words, "even up the cars".

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.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

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!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

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!

I'm sorry, what has this to do with RBR (and Ferrari) whinging because Mercedes (the team) and Mercedes' powered cars have a more efficient power-unit, and attempting to get the FIA to change the rules/regulations in mid-season.

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.

[JamesH]

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?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

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?

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?