Kimi Raikkonen has won a thrilling race that was full of action from start to finish. The Finn marks his first win since his return to Formula One and in the end fended off a charging Alonso who finishes second. Sebastian Vettel finished third after having started from 24th position.
Actually fuel consumption at Singapore race is the highest of the season.1158 wrote:I would assume the nature of the circuit comes in to play as well. For instance at Singapore the SC is almost guaranteed to be deployed. I'm sure the teams take that into account and figure several laps being run with much lower fuel consumption.
I think it should always end that way because cars will be lighter and tyre will be worn out by thenraymondu999 wrote:The quote I mentioned in particular was not a vague "let's try to go aggressive" quote - it was James Allison, in an interview with either Sky or the BBC.
During the 2012 Belgisan GP Kimi said "so give me full power!" On the team radio. James Allison was asked afterwards whether there were any issues. He said no, and just said (in no unclear words) that standard procedure for Lotus completing a dry race was to start the early laps on full power and taper off gradually along the race distance until they finish the race in a fuel-saving mode, because it was the quickest way for the Lotus E20 to complete the race distance.
In 2010 Ross Brawn also said (after Turkey 2010, IIRC) that the quickest way to complete a race distance was to end off on fuel conservation mode, because the earlier laps on a lighter fuel load would pay you more than you paid with the lower power at the end. It would also, let's not forget, lighten the duty of the tyres and help them last longer
Apologies CHT, I have tried, unsuccessfully, to illustrate my point using round numbers and hypothetical situations, but thanks to my lack of communication skills, it appears you have taken everything I have said literally, which was not my intention. Yes I know fuel is not a strategy in itself and many factors need to be considered. I tried to use a hypothetical situation whereby the term "under fuelled' could be used in context - do you recall that original post? Somehow we've moved way off track and more importantly, off topic. Best we both move forward. Apologies again.CHT wrote:I believe fuel consumption calculation from the engine department should include many different variables such as weather, fuel blend, track characteristic, temperature and tyre strategy etc. So there is really no such thing as a fixed normal fuel benchmark to follow. If you are running a one stop strategy, then the NORMAL fuel load will be lower than the norm for a 2 or 3 stopper and vice versa.
Having said that, I do believe that fuel load is not a strategy in itself, it is more of a variable used to maximize the team tyre strategy.
Honestly how do you expect any team to pre-determine how many laps the driver should run rich lean or normal?
I think the original post was along the line the RBR underfuel Vettel to give him an advantage for the race. but you did bring up interesting point that fuel consumption throughout the race is not linear.Cam wrote:Apologies CHT, I have tried, unsuccessfully, to illustrate my point using round numbers and hypothetical situations, but thanks to my lack of communication skills, it appears you have taken everything I have said literally, which was not my intention. Yes I know fuel is not a strategy in itself and many factors need to be considered. I tried to use a hypothetical situation whereby the term "under fuelled' could be used in context - do you recall that original post? Somehow we've moved way off track and more importantly, off topic. Best we both move forward. Apologies again.CHT wrote:I believe fuel consumption calculation from the engine department should include many different variables such as weather, fuel blend, track characteristic, temperature and tyre strategy etc. So there is really no such thing as a fixed normal fuel benchmark to follow. If you are running a one stop strategy, then the NORMAL fuel load will be lower than the norm for a 2 or 3 stopper and vice versa.
Having said that, I do believe that fuel load is not a strategy in itself, it is more of a variable used to maximize the team tyre strategy.
Honestly how do you expect any team to pre-determine how many laps the driver should run rich lean or normal?
Fuel consumption behind the SC is the key, not the track. I'm saying that less fuel is needed over the race distance when SC is deployed. So at a track where the SC has a high probability of being deployed a car can be "under fueled" as opposed to fully fueled where fully fueled = the minimum amount of fuel needed to complete the race distance given a set strategy.CHT wrote:Actually fuel consumption at Singapore race is the highest of the season.1158 wrote:I would assume the nature of the circuit comes in to play as well. For instance at Singapore the SC is almost guaranteed to be deployed. I'm sure the teams take that into account and figure several laps being run with much lower fuel consumption.
Does anyone know where to find information on fuel load requirement for different track?
I am not sure if any team will be willing to gamble their fuel load on SC as saving a few kg of fuel during is not going to give drastic boost in performance and if the outcome is wrong, the entire race might be compromise. Then again if something is so obvious and everyone else is doing it then where is the advantage?1158 wrote:Fuel consumption behind the SC is the key, not the track. I'm saying that less fuel is needed over the race distance when SC is deployed. So at a track where the SC has a high probability of being deployed a car can be "under fueled" as opposed to fully fueled where fully fueled = the minimum amount of fuel needed to complete the race distance given a set strategy.CHT wrote:Actually fuel consumption at Singapore race is the highest of the season.1158 wrote:I would assume the nature of the circuit comes in to play as well. For instance at Singapore the SC is almost guaranteed to be deployed. I'm sure the teams take that into account and figure several laps being run with much lower fuel consumption.
Does anyone know where to find information on fuel load requirement for different track?
Previously you asked for a reason why a team would fill a car with less fuel than required to complete a race distance. I was merely offering a reason.
I believe he started using his 8th engine at India.raymondu999 wrote:He didn't switch engines with the pitlane start - which leads us to sort of believe that potentially he was on a new engine for the weekend. Any engine changed between qualifying and the race cannot be used in another competitive engine (it becomes practice-only)
His 8th one only should have around 400km of mileage. My speculation is that maybethey wouldn't have had time any track time with the new engine before the race. Even a brand new item might come out faulty, perhaps ??? Do they check new engines on the dyno before installing in the cars?raymondu999 wrote:Interesting. Sort of doesn't make sense though. If he had started that 8th engine at India, why wouldn't he nab a freebie engine with 1 race distance less mileage?
I suspect for that they have rough estimates, a simulator or just skilled people within the team that make educated guesses on how the race progresses, what kind of factors influence it etc. That this isn't exact science is probably why every now and then, you'll hear the engineer telling the driver to switch to a different engine map or advice him to save fuel. The goal would be to end the race with as little excessive fuel as possible.CHT wrote:Honestly how do you expect any team to pre-determine how many laps the driver should run rich lean or normal?
