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

    • Ah, fair enough. For the IAT, I'm using a legit GM sensor that was used on the car prior to my current build. I'll get another wideband and IAT ordered and follow up when they show up. Thanks for the help.
    • You shouldn't need to massively fatten up the mixtures for cold conditions. For one thing - 0°C is not that cold. For another, the Haltech will be using the IAT sensor to tell it how dense the air air, and calculate the correct amount of fuelling. Then the cold start enrichment is added as a % on top of that, so it should scale with the main fuelling. You might also doubt the IAT sensor at this time. You're not using one from an RB26 are you? Using a nice Bosch sensor or similar? Happens. Some wideband units take great pleasure in killing their sensors. Put another wideband in the tailpipe and compare. Or just swap the sensor to a brand new one and see.
    • Oh, my misunderstand. When the car was running, it sounded ok, but if I gave it any gas it wanted to die but caught itself afterwards. It's very different from how it was a couple months ago when it was warmer outside. The logs show that the AFRs are better during, what I assume, is warmup enrichment. Because it's cold, and air is more dense, should I work on the enrichment bit?
    • yess of course im not using 2nd hand parts from my spare engine, but the place where i live is hard to find parts for the RB20DET ,but for the RB20E is everywhere including new ones and a lot cheaper ,because for the RB20DET you have to order it overseas to get one and it cost a lot of money 3x the price to be exact. so i ask this topic because if i can use the new ones but for RB20E is it compatible or not. if not im screwed haha, not totally screwed but i have to save a lot of money first before i can begin repairing my engine, thanks for the information before.
    • Unless my sensor just died, was only a couple months old, I strongly believe it didn't. How can I test it? I never mentioned it being 20:1+?
×
×
  • Create New...