the EDGE wrote: ↑16 Feb 2019, 21:33
f1316 wrote: ↑12 Feb 2019, 16:08
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?
Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?
Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
Part of the goal of F1 is to push limits of design, and build fuel efficient, greener engines. Following your concept and the concepts that followed, having a fuel eficient engine would become a handicap because you would design your car to burn more fuel than necessary to burn up the excess weight
I know what you’re saying and I largely agree. But what I’m saying is that just allowing the larger tanks won’t solve the problem the FIA were intending to solve - if they actually want to get rid of lift and coast then you actually have to regulate in such a way that provokes that. Perhaps, to incentivise more fuel efficiency, you could be allowed a smaller tank by passing some kind of verifiable fuel economy test (e.g. something like running the car on a rolling road as you might with a road car) to show you can run flat out with that amount of fuel for the required distance.
My opinion is and always will be that formula one was better as a series of sprints - and that this is naturally removed any (significant) need for tyre or fuel saving - but doesn’t seem like that’s ever going to happen again.
