Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As already said, fuel flow limits, limit the peak horsepower

If they were allowed to double the fuel flow, they would get a significant increase in HP. Think about if they did this for half a lap to overtake someone. They could still make it to the end and overtake someone with an advantage. But then the person in front could also increase the fuel flow to defend. So it limits max HP, but also has implications on fuel usage

Well back in the day (Mid eigthies) they had fuel limits with no boost or fuel flow limits. Which made Sunday nice and safe but less so on Friday/Saturday when it was basically a free for all. Not sure how they cap horsepower now (by limiting boost) but a fuel flow limit does that in no uncertain terms.

The power is capped by the fuel flow.

Edit: damnit, beaten

Edited by chus13
The problem was solved by 100kg of fuel why solve the problem again?

100kg of fuel won't restrict the power like a air intake restrictor would, it would only restrict how much power they could use at anyone time.

Allow refueling and whatever power you want to run. This current rule set is silly.

If f1 were the green ambassador that it jinks it is, they wouldn't be flying 1000s of tons of equipment round the world on 747s.

I don't know when it became about fuel conservation, but I don't like it.

FIA President Jean Todt has suggested that the sport's governing body would be open to making Formula One engines louder and less fuel-efficient if that is what spectators want.


Todt's comments were made during an interview with Italian national broadcaster Rai after a lot of criticism for the FIA's decision to move to V6 engines this year occurred following the season opener in Australia last week.


"There should be calm before reaction," Todt told Rai.


"The noise is obviously different now and if there is a problem with it we can look at a way to make it noisier.


Todt added that he does believe that the amount of fuel-saving that is necessary to get to the end of races this year seems excessive.


"I do not want F1 'economy runs', the permitted amount of fuel, 100kg, was proposed by the teams. For me it is not a problem if they want it to be 100kg," Todt added.


However, the former Ferrari boss dismissed suggestions that the fuel-saving measures the teams used in Melbourne was responsible for few passing opportunities arising.


"Instead it is the aerodynamics of the cars and the circuit in Melbourne, for example, has never been very good for overtaking," Todt maintained.


"I am convinced that very soon we will see a lot of overtaking. So let's wait before making judgments."



http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9229671/FIA-open-to-changes-Todt



good news?


Interesting that the fuel meter isnt in the technical regulations! It is covered in a technical directive from Charlie Whiting so not a rule, just Charlies opinion on things. So pretty big loop hole, when the clarifications even talk about when the meter is faulty you can use injectors etc as a means

Talk is by the FIA meter Dan would have slowed to a pace that would have seen him come home 5th

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations:

5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

FIA President Jean Todt has suggested that the sport's governing body would be open to making Formula One engines louder and less fuel-efficient if that is what spectators want.

Todt's comments were made during an interview with Italian national broadcaster Rai after a lot of criticism for the FIA's decision to move to V6 engines this year occurred following the season opener in Australia last week.

"There should be calm before reaction," Todt told Rai.

"The noise is obviously different now and if there is a problem with it we can look at a way to make it noisier.

Todt added that he does believe that the amount of fuel-saving that is necessary to get to the end of races this year seems excessive.

"I do not want F1 'economy runs', the permitted amount of fuel, 100kg, was proposed by the teams. For me it is not a problem if they want it to be 100kg," Todt added.

However, the former Ferrari boss dismissed suggestions that the fuel-saving measures the teams used in Melbourne was responsible for few passing opportunities arising.

"Instead it is the aerodynamics of the cars and the circuit in Melbourne, for example, has never been very good for overtaking," Todt maintained.

"I am convinced that very soon we will see a lot of overtaking. So let's wait before making judgments."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9229671/FIA-open-to-changes-Todt

good news?

Not good news. it would be totally unfair to the teams that have done the best development work under the engine regulations over the past 3yrs!

To make them louder would mean opening wastegates, changing the characteristics of the powertrain and especially the MGU-H energy recovery.

To allow them to use more fuel also just helps those who haven't done as good a job of making their engies fast and efficient. 100kg per race was the concensus limit they were working to. It should remain. Australia is the 2nd highest fuel consumption track on the calendar (Canada is No1 in terms of kg/lap) and no teams had real problems making it to the end even in the very first race under these rules - even the ones who were using excessive fuel flow at times mad eit no worries :P IMO the fuel limit is not a problem.

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations:

Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

Thats wrong Harry,

A Technical Directive IS NOT the technical regulations!!!! Thats the point I am trying to make.

You would be brave or have to have good reason to go against a technical directive, but it is more Charlies opinion as FIA front man of the technical regulation and is openly able to be contested.; as RBR are doing.

"Technical regulations" say "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h "

Technical Directives are NOT BINDING and issued as means of clarifications. The International Court of Appeals will have the final say, but they will firstly look at the Technical Regulations and see if there is ample compliance with those in consultation with the regulations.

"Opinions" given by the FIA outside of the Technical Regulations are meant for guidance and they are only guidance they do not constitute part of the Technical Regulations. A Technical Directive may come from the FIA but up to the ICA to see if RBR were in compliance with the Technical Regulations, not a technical directive

In the original German interview Mateschitz is first asked what could theoretically prompt an exit from F1 for Red Bull, THEN asked about the incident in Melbourne.

They switches around these 2 answers (and omits the questions) to make it sound as if Mateschitz threatened to quit F1 over Melbourne, which he didn't.

In fact if you read the rest of the interview it's quite obvious that he is committed to F1.

Thats wrong Harry,

A Technical Directive IS NOT the technical regulations!!!! Thats the point I am trying to make.

You would be brave or have to have good reason to go against a technical directive, but it is more Charlies opinion as FIA front man of the technical regulation and is openly able to be contested.; as RBR are doing.

"Technical regulations" say "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h "

Technical Directives are NOT BINDING and issued as means of clarifications. The International Court of Appeals will have the final say, but they will firstly look at the Technical Regulations and see if there is ample compliance with those in consultation with the regulations.

"Opinions" given by the FIA outside of the Technical Regulations are meant for guidance and they are only guidance they do not constitute part of the Technical Regulations. A Technical Directive may come from the FIA but up to the ICA to see if RBR were in compliance with the Technical Regulations, not a technical directive

Firstly, it's 100kg/hr at 10,500rpm and above. below that the fuel flow limits are lower. So there are times where even if you are flowing 100kg/hr you could be breaking the rules.

Secondly, the Technical Regulations do stipulate that the homologated sensor to measure the temp, pressure and flow must be fitted and must log to the FIA data logger, as per my previous quote from the Technical Regulations.

Finally, regarding the validity and role of Technical Directives, according to JAonF1:

...Technical Directives from the FIA’s Charlie Whiting and Jo Bauer. These are private documents circulated only to the technical heads of teams which give permissions and instructions from the FIA, essentially amendments to technical regulations. The public and media do not get to see them but effectively they supersede the F1 Technical Regulations

Not just one blokes opinion that teams may choose whether or not they bother listening to.

But even if what you say was accurate, the problem you have is that the only method for measuring fuel flow mentioned in the Technical Regulations is the homologated sensor, which RBR totally ignored. There's nothing in the Technical Regulations to say they can choose an alternate method of measurement - that's only in the Technical Directive, which you say means nothing!

In reality the Technical Directives are exactly what they say they are - an official, authoritative instruction from the FIA.

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol, not arguing.... Read the 2014 regs...JA is wrong too....it does not legally supersede the technical regs....its meant for clarifications that teams can take or leave....its wise to take

Copy and paste from FIA WEBSITE

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature
and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA
data logger.
RBR are arguing that their data shows they are compliant with these technical regulations.

yes that's what I quoted from the technical regulations earlier. NB "5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure...the flow of the fuel". The homologated sensor is the only method for measuring fuel flow permitted or recognised under the Technical Regulations, the other method RBR used without permission is the one outlined in the Technical Directive to be used when the sensor fails.

FIA Technical Directives are just that - directives issued by the governing body. They have always been used to enforce rules.

* EBD's were banned under an FIA Technical Directive.

* Off throttle blowing was banned under an FIA Technical Directive.

I could go on and on, but the picture is pretty obvious - FIA Technical Directives are binding and a legitimate part of the regulations governing the sport. If you ignore them, you get disqualified...

Edited by hrd-hr30

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hey all, my 2004 Nissan Skyline 350GT overheated the other day with coolant boiling and leaking out of the coolant reservoir when I was parking. So today, I started it up again just to see if it was a thermostat/head gasket issue. After about 20 mins of running, temps were normal again, no coolant was leaking out and the upper reservoir hose was warm but my engine suddenly cut off. I checked the oil dipstick and cap when it was running and there was no white foamy residue and the exhaust did not have white smoke. I tried starting up the car again but it would only crank, similar to when I had a camshaft sensor issue just that now there’s no check engine light on the dash. Any ideas? Unfortunately I don’t have an OBD2 that can read the Nissan's programme.
    • Bump on this to not make another post, had a ‘head drain’ leak on me and have the engine out as we speak. Planning on just putting a new freeze plug back in , plug the tapped holes and just be done with that headache.    Now I still want to relieve pressure to allow oil to pass down the blocks returns easier. I’ve seen catch cans with multiple vents help folks with this issue on this forum.  I’m wanting to make my own. I have some pictures here of my setup if anyone can help how I should plumb and design the catch can I would deeply appreciate it !   rb25 Oil upgrades: 1.0mm restrictor n1 pump/billet gears extended crank collar  extended sump with trap doors/w welded fitting    
    • The Frenchy's kit is the way to go forward. A modern compressor that weighs about 1/2 as much, is at least twice as efficient, and will do a good job on R134a. And of course the kit has everything else you need to connect it up and have it work properly.
    • Hey all , I am in the process of having the AC system in my r32 GTST converted from r12 to r134a and I’m being told my compressor has gone bad and I will need a new one. I was wondering if anybody has any suggestions for what is the best route to go aside from dropping $1500 on a new oem one? I did see that Frenchy’s performance garage offers a kit to mount a Toyota compressor, has anybody actually used this kit on their car? Or is there anywhere I could purchase just a clutch? Any help is appreciated.
    • Well, your RB20 ECU loom won't have wires for the boost solenoid, that boost sensor, and possibly one or two other things. There could be differences in seemingly random things like the charcoal canister purge solenoid, because the 25DET has to handle boost in the vacuum system and the 20DE does not. I don't know - I haven't looked. It is very likely that all the most important things are same-same, being the main sensors like AFM, CAS, etc, and the injectors and ignition. Not that you'll need the AFM for the Haltech anyway. I would suggest that you would seriously want to sit down with the pinouts for both ECUs and just go through them and highlight green what is the same, orange what is different/missing, and make a plan from there. It's not going to be difficult. It will either be the same or need to be fixed.
×
×
  • Create New...