GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: John S on July 02, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
-
Races may suffer, but will 100kg/hr flow rate ruin balls out Quali??? :DntKnw:
According to F1fanatic website the fuel limit & flow rate is not the only issue facing engine builders and teams, there is a little matter of heat rejection from the turbo - can reach 1,000C ......... gosh and crumbs! :swoon:
However the good news is that the new power units may be unreliable due to the challenges of different tech and doubling of the engine cycles. ;)
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/07/02/ferrari-warns-2014-fuel-limit-could-spoil-racing/
-
I hope races don't become a boring fuel saving procession :(
F1 should be about pushing to the limits.
But 1000C... :swoon: :swoon: Fernando will be hot in more ways than one :swoon:
-
We'll just have to wait and see. I'm not much of a one for getting too worked up until there's more evidence of how these new power units perform in testing.
As for possible unreliability, let it happen please :D.
-
Turbos have always run hot. During the 962 era you could see the exhaust system glowing red hot during the night at Le Mans.
-
Wait a moment. Cars will be allowed 100 kg of fuel, and the maximum burn rate will be 100 kg/hour. That means that you won't be able to push at 100% for more than an hour. In fact, the amount you can push on average will be (using this year's race times as a guide):
Australia: 66.6%
Malaysia: 60.6%
China: 62.5%
Bahrain: 62.5%
Spain: 60.60%
Monaco: 55.55% (this is a guess because 2013 involved stoppage time)
Canada: 65.2%
Silverstone: 64.5%
Average effort permitted by fuel: 62.26%
Note: if that percentage is taken directly from horsepower, and we assume the engines as they stand have a peak horsepower of 800 hp (they were just touching that level when they were homologated), then the average usable horsepower will be 498.08 hp.
While I note that KERS will allow up to 8 MJ of energy output, this must be put into context. The 400 kJ currently allowed is good for 80 hp for 6.7 seconds. The increase will be enough to allow that 80 hp for the entire lap. Just.
So that leaves F1 with an effective average of 578.08 hp. To compare:
Indycar: 700 hp
GP2 car: 612 hp
F1 2014: 578.08 hp
Renault World Series: 530 hp
There are already complaints that tyres only allow 85-90% of effort. They will only get worse if, as appears here, the cars will allow less speed and demonstration of challenge than its feeder series, let alone Indycars.
The only good thing about this is that Pirelli will struggle to make tyres bad enough to be overtaxed, for the amount necessary to do that would cause cars to run out of fuel anyway.
-
Wait a moment. Cars will be allowed 100 kg of fuel, and the maximum burn rate will be 100 kg/hour. That means that you won't be able to push at 100% for more than an hour. In fact, the amount you can push on average will be (using this year's race times as a guide):
I think you are taking the top burn rate out of context Alia, my reading is that the 100kg/hour maximum is to prevent teams dangerously turning the wick way too high for Quali.
The engine builders knew the allowance of fuel they would have for a race during the design stage of the process. Therefore it would make no sense to build an engine that will only run at 66% or less of it's potential in a race. I'm certain these new engines will be run at over 90% of their capabilities for long periods in races, this max flow rate is just to stop teams exceeding the red line by too much in Quali.
-
An engine that sounds like an Isetta, with less power than a GP2 car that runs most of the race in fuel save mode. Lovely.
-
I think you are taking the top burn rate out of context Alia, my reading is that the 100kg/hour maximum is to prevent teams dangerously turning the wick way too high for Quali.
The engine builders knew the allowance of fuel they would have for a race during the design stage of the process. Therefore it would make no sense to build an engine that will only run at 66% or less of it's potential in a race. I'm certain these new engines will be run at over 90% of their capabilities for long periods in races, this max flow rate is just to stop teams exceeding the red line by too much in Quali.
That would be mathematically impossible. If the engine can do 100 kg/hr in qualifying, then it will have to do much less in the race, else it will run out of fuel.
I've since found the copy of Autosport with the Silverstone preview in it, which helpfully features fuel consumption. Its average fuel consumption is 2.8 kg/lap. (Disclaimer: it's the second highest in F1). That means the total fuel consumption is 145.6 kg (since Silverstone has 52 laps).
This year's British Grand Prix lasted 1 hour and 33 minutes for the winner, rounded to the nearest minute. So that 145.6 kg takes 93 minutes to burn (note I haven't counted pre- and post-race laps in that calculation because they need less fuel per lap, but do include the Safety Car laps because the refuellers wouldn't have known about them ahead of time).
This reveals that F1 cars burn 1.566 kg of fuel per minute at Silverstone. Multiply that by 60 and the average fuel burn rate is 93.93 kg/hr. It is admittedly not 100 kg/hr, but it is pretty close considering that tyres and the effect of that much fuel necessarily limit the amount that can be burned in the beginning of the race. The peak limit, even in the race, will be higher than 93.93 kg/hr.
The difference between the fuel burn rate achieved this year and next is 29.43 percentage points, or a 31% reduction. That seems a bit steep to do in one year.
-
I've seen predictions (maybe in a thread on here?) that the cars will be 2-3 seconds a lap slower next year, your calculations seem to confirm this. Green parties across Europe have traditionally opposed racing as wasteful which has lead to F1 trying to be more eco-friendly. I fear we are beginning to feel the results. My only hope is that another prediction is also true, and the cars will be more difficult to drive because they will have enough low end to get sideways off almost any corner. :DntKnw:
-
The difference between the fuel burn rate achieved this year and next is 29.43 percentage points, or a 31% reduction. That seems a bit steep to do in one year.
Yes the change will be noticeable and it's unfortunate that this has to be done in in one go, but I still don't think we will see car performance reduced anywhere near the 31% you calculate. A change to 6 cylinders with or without turbos was always going to be different and if the engine makers get it right smaller engines can, and should, run on much less fuel. These new engines have been worked towards over 4 or 5 years and in that time big leaps have been made in the technology of reducing fuel consumption.
We all know that without changes to the regs the cars will keep getting faster and faster, this year lap times on average are faster than last, so action would be necessary to slow them all down again anyway. Surely that's one of the many reasons this new engine regime was put in place?
With the ingenuity and resources in F1 I wonder how long (I'm talking seasons here rather than races) it will take the top teams to get back to 2013 lap times in the new engine era? ;)
-
I fail to see why number of cylinders would have that great an effect on fuel efficiency in engines of a given displacement. Why would a 2.8 l. 4 cylinder unit be more efficient than a 2.8 6 popper, and that more efficient than a 2.8 V8? If green racing is really the aim (and not just an arbitrary show of power by the FIA) why not follow the lead of the ALMS?
http://www.alms.com/alms101/green-racing-innovator
-
Yes the change will be noticeable and it's unfortunate that this has to be done in in one go, but I still don't think we will see car performance reduced anywhere near the 31% you calculate.
Performance as a whole won't be down 31%, but that particular marker of performance will. It happens to have knock-on effects on certain elements of the competition, particularly because it will take over from tyres as the primary limiting factor of performance, and because GP2 is in a position to be more consistently powerful.
The goal wasn't to slow the cars down, at least not when the idea was proposed. It was to make the series more road-relevant, introduce greener thinking and attract new manufacturers to a potentially more innovative engine.
The other things John discussed are things I would be more comfortable discussing after seeing exactly how the F1 paddock implements the 2014 ruleset onto some actual cars.
-
Maybe someone will run out of fuel? I remember when CART (Indycar) and the WEC had rules that caused a number of cars to run out of fuel. At Road America one year I think 2 or 3 cars ran out of fuel in the last 2 laps leaving the 4th place car to take the win.
-
I'm sure people will run out of fuel. In fact I think one of the hopes is that a couple of people will do exactly that occasionally.
-
Surely running out of fuel would be The Most Absolute Basic Error to succumb to, compared to any other reasons for failing to finish a race. I'll take bets on the first three takers, but I want odds:
I bet no one will fail to finish an F1 race in 2014 down to fuel levels alone. 3/1 in my favour.
Max bet £20. Max no. of bets 3.
-
Jim Clark ran out of fuel while leading the South African GP because Chapman would not allow the mechanics to fill the tank as the fuel was too heavy. Clark's chief mechanic managed to sneak in a couple extra gallons, but it wasn't enough. For his trouble, the mechanic was almost fired for disobeying Chapman's orders. And how many times have we heard the pit wall instruct a driver to lean out the fuel and conserve this year.
-
With 3 engine suppliers, 4 in 2015, there will surely be some difference in how and when the power units use the fuel. Even if we don't see cars actually run out of fuel hopefully it's going to spice up the final stages of races as some will have knock back the revs or risk not finishing. Teams with cars in the lower end of the points coming under attack late in a race could well take the gamble on running out, they face losing the points anyway.
Does anyone know if there's potentially harmful or costly damage that may occur if these new turbo engines run out of gas? With the current engines we often see cars deliberately running out of fuel in test sessions, or even practice, as teams seek to find accurate info on consumption and how much can be actually used from the fuel cell.
-
Surely running out of fuel would be The Most Absolute Basic Error to succumb to, compared to any other reasons for failing to finish a race. I'll take bets on the first three takers, but I want odds:
I bet no one will fail to finish an F1 race in 2014 down to fuel levels alone. 3/1 in my favour.
Max bet £20. Max no. of bets 3.
There are so many variables involved, and so much pressure to guess as close to possible, that there is bound to some errors. It's possible - and likely - that other excuses would be cited when it happens because otherwise, it's possible for other teams to calculate your fuel usage. Back in 2003, Ferrari tried to claim Rubens Barrichello running out of fuel in Brazil was due to a fuel feed error, but Rubens eventually revealed that the car worked fine once it was returned to the pits and a little fuel added...
The only reason I'm not taking this bet is because I don't do gambling.