2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

How much extra MGIH power could they get if allowed to burn fuel in the oxygen rich exhaust of the current engines?

It should also help with the noise that many complain about.

[Vary]

How much extra MGIH power could they get if allowed to burn fuel in the oxygen rich exhaust of the current engines?

It should also help with the noise that many complain about.

This would be similar to a rally car antilag sistem, wouldn't it?
But if sound can be seen as "wasted enegy" i don't think that engines would be much louder...

For fuel flow limit vs boost limit: i know that theey are substantially the same, but for the average F1 fan fuel flow limit sound a like an economy run... (And also the engines would be able to run until 15000 rpm limit which would help also the sound)

[ian_s]

i wonder what would happen if instead of the 100kg maximum fuel limit, the FIA insisted on a fixed amount of fuel, that theoretically would mean the cars could run at the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit for the entire race.

we'd have no running in 'fuel saving' mode, the drivers can floor it out of every corner, and in fact are encouraged to push as hard as possible early in the race to burn the fuel off!

[Juzh]

i wonder what would happen if instead of the 100kg maximum fuel limit, the FIA insisted on a fixed amount of fuel, that theoretically would mean the cars could run at the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit for the entire race.

we'd have no running in 'fuel saving' mode, the drivers can floor it out of every corner, and in fact are encouraged to push as hard as possible early in the race to burn the fuel off!

Or just underfuel.

[Tommy Cookers]

i wonder what would happen if instead of the 100kg maximum fuel limit, the FIA insisted on a fixed amount of fuel, that theoretically would mean the cars could run at the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit for the entire race.
we'd have no running in 'fuel saving' mode, the drivers can floor it out of every corner, and in fact are encouraged to push as hard as possible early in the race to burn the fuel off!

for this they would need a fuel (flow rate) meter at least 10x as accurate as is possible in this application
as I pointed out 2 years ago
notice how the metering question has been kept very quiet (after the start of last season)
apparently no-one uses 100 kg of fuel ?
if so, is this because they limit their fuel rate target to eg 98 kg/hr to give a margin against the limitations of meter accuracy ?
to use 99.9 kg of fuel they would need to measure the fuel rate to better than 0.1% and target a 99.8 kg useage

wouldn't it be interesting to compare the calculated/displayed consumption data with the actual consumption
but we are not given this information ?

[Blanchimont]

apparently no-one uses 100 kg of fuel ?
if so, is this because they limit their fuel rate target to eg 98 kg/hr to give a margin against the limitations of meter accuracy ?

I believe that at most races less than 100kg is used as it simply is the faster strategy for the race. Less weight at the start means less stress on the tyres for the same laptime/corner speed/acceleration. As the Pirellis are that sensible that's the way to go currently.

If the PU would weigh less(the regulations demand minimum weights for the ICE and batteries) and better tyres were available, we probably would see that the teams would try to reach the 100kg and do not have to lift and coast.

[Tommy Cookers]

you are saying that many cars do not fill with 100 kg of fuel ??

[Juzh]

apparently no-one uses 100 kg of fuel ?
if so, is this because they limit their fuel rate target to eg 98 kg/hr to give a margin against the limitations of meter accuracy ?

I believe that at most races less than 100kg is used as it simply is the faster strategy for the race. Less weight at the start means less stress on the tyres for the same laptime/corner speed/acceleration. As the Pirellis are that sensible that's the way to go currently.

If the PU would weigh less(the regulations demand minimum weights for the ICE and batteries) and better tyres were available, we probably would see that the teams would try to reach the 100kg and do not have to lift and coast.

Plz stop overyhping the impact of deliberate under fuelling. On most tracks no one was under fuelled.
In russia and a lot of other venues fuel was definitely a major issue. After race interviews had all drivers saying the amount of fuel they had to save was simply ridicoulus.

[Blanchimont]

Overhyping or careful analysis?

In the first two pages of this thread http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=20195 some screenshots are posted that show fuel consumption.

http://i.imgur.com/VAS0Y9g.jpg
lap 65 of 66, min 91,78, max 95,87
scaled with 66/(65-1) 94,65 and 98,87

http://thejudge13.files.wordpress.com/2 ... dchart.jpg
lap 54 of 56, min 87,82, max 95,06
92,79 and 100,44

http://i.imgur.com/2VNQSMz.jpg
lap 69 of 78, min 65,38, max 72,37
75 and 83,01

http://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/commen ... erence_in/
lap 47 of 54, 76,65 and 80,38
89,98 and 94,36

http://i.imgur.com/61bHHeQ.jpg
lap 45 of 53, min 77,65, max 82,61
93,53 and 99,51

http://i.imgur.com/BD3j3lL.jpg
lap 54 of 56, 90,89% and 94,43%, if 1%=1kg
96,03 and 99,78

The way i scaled (n-1) these data to the race end, the results are higher than the actual total consumptions for the leaders that already completed some of the lap that the graphic shows.
Did the drivers had to save fuel in Russia because the had to stay under the 100kg limit or under the limit the team choose to set by only filling 98 or 95 kg in the tank?

[Juzh]

I said some venues. Monaco is not even 300km distance. Yes, merc powered cars ( -mclaren) had a significant advantage in fuel consumption. Hamilton and williams especially.
We've heard vettel and perez on radio complaining massively on radio in hockenheim about fuel consumption. I can't possibly see how they could be faster with that 2Kg advantage, while having to lift for almost entire race.
Russia was the most obvious example though. There was an interview with magnussen saying he had to lift so much he was not understanding how people were not catching him. that's because everyone had to lift most likely.

[gruntguru]

A bit surprising the drivers would have to "lift". When more economical running is required, surely the engine management can be programmed for the most efficient way to achieve it? . . . and the driver simply selects the mode.

[Blanchimont]

Lift and coast is the most efficient way to save fuel in terms of time_loss/fuel_saved. As lift and coast reduces the speed from let's say 320 to 260km/h before the brakes are applied, it also helps conserving the tyres as at high speeds the tyre braking force is the highest due to downforce. Very important with Pirelli tyres!

Juzh, you're right about Monaco, it's a bad example as there were also safety car breaks. Does anybody have the fuel consumption graphics for Russia in the last part of the race?

[gruntguru]

Lift and coast is the most efficient way to save fuel in terms of time_loss/fuel_saved. As lift and coast reduces the speed from let's say 320 to 260km/h before the brakes are applied, it also helps conserving the tyres as at high speeds the tyre braking force is the highest due to downforce. Very important with Pirelli tyres!

. . and of course the ES gets more charge than it would under normal braking. Thanks Blanchimont.

[wuzak]

Lift and coast is the most efficient way to save fuel in terms of time_loss/fuel_saved. As lift and coast reduces the speed from let's say 320 to 260km/h before the brakes are applied, it also helps conserving the tyres as at high speeds the tyre braking force is the highest due to downforce. Very important with Pirelli tyres!

. . and of course the ES gets more charge than it would under normal braking. Thanks Blanchimont.

This is part of the problem with F1. No-one explains and very few understand.

The vast majority of the so-called "lift and coast"was not fuel saving as such. It was to store power in the ES, since only one or two of the circuits have sufficient braking to allow the 2MJ to be captured from the rear brakes.

Instead people immediately jump to the conclusion that it was fuel saving. Most of the races IMO (I have no data, just going from memory) didn't have much, if any at all, issues with fuel usage.

But I do support the removal of the 100kg fuel for the race limit. That will free them to use full power all of the race, if they so wish.

I also find it remarkable that, in this and other forums, people whinge about fuel saving and then suggest removing the fuel flow limit and keeping the 100kg race fuel limit.

[gruntguru]

I guess if the sole intention was to increase storage in the ES, the engine could continue under power - converting fuel to battery charge without compromising lap time. Lift and coast would be a deliberate sacrifice of lap time - extending the braking zone to increase ES charge while using zero fuel.