More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Marbot]

However, there is nothing to suggest that the 100kg/h rule is applied to anything other than the actual race.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Marbot

However, there is nothing to suggest that the 100kg/h rule is applied to anything other than the actual race.

No, that's true, but I would still view it as a flow rate of quantity/time, and not just that you have 100kg of fuel to use, so if you only have 10 minutes, you can still use 100kg. (Meaning you could only use 100/6kg in 10 minutes).

[Marbot]

Yes, I now understand that it's not an average but it's actually a maximum for any period of use on track.

However, It is obvious that some races of close to 2 hours duration (Monaco, Singapore, etc) will require a fuel consumption rate of about 50 to 60kg/h. This is obviously much less than the maximum fuel consumption rate allowed over the period of one hour. This implies that qualifying can be run at the maximum fuel flow rate of 100kg/h which is close to twice the consumption rate of fuel that will be used during the race.

ERS use will be identical in all situations because its use is governed by both time and quantity over a single lap for any on-track period during the weekend. However, that doesn't mean to say that the time and quantity maximum figures can be easily achieved.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes, I now understand that it's not an average but it's actually a maximum for any period of use on track.

However, It is obvious that some races of close to 2 hours duration (Monaco, Singapore, etc) will require a fuel consumption rate of about 50 to 60kg/h. This is obviously much less than the maximum fuel consumption rate allowed over the period of one hour. This implies that qualifying can be run at the maximum fuel flow rate of 100kg/h which is close to twice the consumption rate of fuel that will be used during the race.

ERS use will be identical in all situations because its use is governed by both time and quantity over a single lap for any on-track period during the weekend. However, that doesn't mean to say that the time and quantity maximum figures can be easily achieved.

Presumably though even with the ERS smoothing out the peaks the rate of consumption will vary around the lap, there would be periods off throttle when the consumption would be very low so the 100kg/hour would correspond to full throttle and revs (not that revs change much with six/seven gears) but the average over a race distance would be much less even if it wasn't limited. Not that the total race limit wouldn't come into play but its possibly not as much more restrictive than the maximum flow rate as it appears at first glance.

[Marcus666]

I wonder if these events will be the benefitors of the engine change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgxuGgvf6oo

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Presumably though even with the ERS smoothing out the peaks the rate of consumption will vary around the lap, there would be periods off throttle when the consumption would be very low so the 100kg/hour would correspond to full throttle and revs (not that revs change much with six/seven gears) but the average over a race distance would be much less even if it wasn't limited. Not that the total race limit wouldn't come into play but its possibly not as much more restrictive than the maximum flow rate as it appears at first glance.

If you have the maximum of 100kg of fuel in your car on the starting grid at Monaco, it's fairly obvious that without an efficient ERS you are not going to finish the race, particularly if you go off from the lights like a bat out of hell and continue on at that pace until you eventually run out of fuel at about 3/4 distance at best.

The qualifying period has no such restrictions (neither does the race as long as you're comfortable with not finishing it). As long as you don't exceed the 100kg/h limit restriction you should be able to exceed the predicted race pace by quite some margin.

Current F1 fuel consumption is around 75 liters per 100 kilometers traveled (3.1 US mpg - 3.8 UK mpg - 1.3 km/l). Race distances are around 305km. So, if we do the math, 3 x 75 = 225, which isn't anything like the amount of fuel that actually gets put in the tank before a race!

"(not that revs change much with six/seven gears)" There will be 8 speed gearboxes in 2014.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

From the 2014 technical regulations:

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) = 0.009N(rpm)+ 5.5

These are kg/hour measurements. Qualifying lasts for one hour but the cars are not run in qualifying for anywhere near that amount of time during that one hour period. So perhaps this allows the engines to be run without any restrictions on fuel flow during qualifying?

From the 2014 sporting regulations:

29.5 No car is permitted to consume more than 100kg of fuel, from the time at which the signal to start the race is given to the time each car crosses the Line after the end-of-race signal has been given. Other than in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the stewards of the meeting), any driver exceeding this limit will be excluded from the race results.

There is no other period for which it says that the cars must use no more than 100kg of fuel.

That would be a very fun interpretation!
I assume the cars still get impounded following qualifying, so you can't change anything physical between qualifying and the race, but you could have a 'qualifying special' engine mapping and the driver turns a knob on the wheel to put it back at a normal mapping for the race.

That would give the engineers a fun area in the rules to exploit and there would be some real variety between engines.

Therefore, I predict the rule will not be interpreted that way.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That would be a very fun interpretation!
I assume the cars still get impounded following qualifying, so you can't change anything physical between qualifying and the race, but you could have a 'qualifying special' engine mapping and the driver turns a knob on the wheel to put it back at a normal mapping for the race.

That would give the engineers a fun area in the rules to exploit and there would be some real variety between engines.

Therefore, I predict the rule will not be interpreted that way.

It is the only way that the rule can be interpreted as it is written!
(They could have specified mg/sec.)

Best someone gets on with rewriting it if they want it to mean something else!

The drafting of F1 rules seems to make loopholes the norm! Unbelievable!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

It is the only way that the rule can be interpreted as it is written!
(They could have specified mg/sec.)

Best someone gets on with rewriting it if they want it to mean something else!

The drafting of F1 rules seems to make loopholes the norm! Unbelievable!

How would you interpret 5.1.5 then? A car isn't going to run a whole hour at, say 9,600 RPM. It would seem to mean an instantaneous rate that would consume 91.9 kg/h if you ran at 9,600 RPM for a whole hour. I'm sure their intent was it was an instantaneous maximum rate that would consume 100 kg/h if you ran the whole hour full throttle above 10,500 RPM.

That's what they will do, or course, the whole "spirit of the rules" thing. Nevermind what they wrote.

Too bad. That would be a fun angle, to see what teams did with it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

How would you interpret 5.1.5 then? A car isn't going to run a whole hour at, say 9,600 RPM. It would seem to mean an instantaneous rate that would consume 91.9 kg/h if you ran at 9,600 RPM for a whole hour. I'm sure their intent was it was an instantaneous maximum rate that would consume 100 kg/h if you ran the whole hour full throttle above 10,500 RPM.

That's what they will do, or course, the whole "spirit of the rules" thing. Nevermind what they wrote.

Too bad. That would be a fun angle, to see what teams did with it.

Engineering gibberish written by lawyers?

Seriously though, it seems to mean that max power must be developed at 10500 rpm where your fuel flow maximum is reached. They would have to specify the sampling rates for any of it to make sense.
Any ideas on how to police the fuel flow rates for an hour against a racing engine that is constantly varying rpm? Constant mapping of consumption against rpm and extrapolating continuously to hourly rate. What is the ruling on small spikes, overrun against closed throttle?

"That's what they will do, or course, the whole "spirit of the rules" thing. Nevermind what they wrote. " [Miatanut]
I think you are right!

So much for developing new technology to use the fuel more efficiently.
Another horrible Spec!

[VIVA GT]

I don't know if I'm reading all of these comments correctly (it is first thing in the morning for me).
My understanding is that there will be a device in the fuel system limiting the flow of fuel to a maximum rate as specified. (Isn't this the same as Keith Duckworth suggested many years ago?). The fact that on part throttles, closed throttles and certain lower RPM points the fuel flow won't reach this level is immaterial, there is a maximum flow rate that must not be exceeded, much in the same way as the engines have a maximum RPM limit too, but they're not running at that speed all of the time.
If I've got this all wrong I would appreciate it if someone could explain the fuel ruling in a way that a simpleton like me can understand.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I don't know if I'm reading all of these comments correctly (it is first thing in the morning for me).
My understanding is that there will be a device in the fuel system limiting the flow of fuel to a maximum rate as specified. (Isn't this the same as Keith Duckworth suggested many years ago?). The fact that on part throttles, closed throttles and certain lower RPM points the fuel flow won't reach this level is immaterial, there is a maximum flow rate that must not be exceeded, much in the same way as the engines have a maximum RPM limit too, but they're not running at that speed all of the time.
If I've got this all wrong I would appreciate it if someone could explain the fuel ruling in a way that a simpleton like me can understand.

The strange bit VivaGT is rule 5.1.5 as posted by Marbot above and queried by Miatanut.

Police that?!

[W.A Trichlorostyrene]

Originally Posted by Marcus666

btw, Whats gonna happen with GP2? Is there a new car on the way knowing that they have changed/updated cars every 4th year.

They said a few weeks ago they will keep the same cars for the next 3 years, since the costs are high enough as they are.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by wnut

The strange bit VivaGT is rule 5.1.5 as posted by Marbot above and queried by Miatanut.

Police that?!

Thanks wnut.
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009N(rpm)+ 5.5
That is confusing (and goes against what I thought should be happening).
So, if I get this right, at 10,400 RPM the maximum fuel flow rate must be 99.1 kg/h? (10,400 x 0.009 + 5.5), 10,300 RPM 98.2 kg/h and so on?
This seems like a typical case of starting out with something relatively straightforward (an overall fuel flow limit), and then over-complicating things just for the sake of it (WTF?).
As you say, an almost impossible situation to police and a wonderful grey area to be exploited. (Surely the FIA don't do this on purpose so they can try and catch people out? They can't be that clever...)

[Marbot]

Here's an extremely good article on the subject: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...-with-ers.html

"Heat and Fuel management will be essential for the new engines and its widely reported the manufacturers are seeing upto 40% thermal efficiency from the V6 with engine revs having been reduced from 18,000rpm to 15,000rpm. It's widely agreed that with the fuel flow restrictions in place (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.) that the 2014's redline will however be closer to 12,000rpm"

"The expected output of the engine is somewhere in the region of 600-650bhp but it'll be the delivery of torque that far supersedes it's V8 counterpart with the engine giving a linear power delivery all the way to 10,500rpm where the fuel supply drops with increased revs."

It looks to be a far more complicated an issue than I first thought. It looks like they are concentrating on engine performance that is well below peak rpms.

[Mike E]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109133

And some interesting info about noise. Has there ever been so much speculation about how a new engine formula will sound?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Has there ever been so much speculation about how a new engine formula will sound?

I don't think so, but we're in the multimedia era now, so it's open season for opinions pretty much all of the time.

Going back to the fuelling business, it seems, according to the above article, that there is little to be gained by going much over 10,500rpm and certainly not beyond 12,000 rpm. I suspect that the 15,000rpm limit was brought in as a 'softener' while the real rpm limit was actually going to stay at the original figure of 12,000. The FIA could have said that the rpm limit was going to stay at 18,000rpm, but that doesn't mean to say that you need to go anywhere near that limit in order to remain competitive with 100kgs of fuel.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Apparently, this is what the Mercedes 2014 engine is going to sound like.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109133

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Apparently, this is what the Mercedes 2014 engine is going to sound like.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109133

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Apparently, this is what the Mercedes 2014 engine is going to sound like.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109133

Well sort off... Once in the car my guess is that these engines will sound pretty good, and we will get used to them in no time ...

I remain the optimist !

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I don't think so, but we're in the multimedia era now, so it's open season for opinions pretty much all of the time.

Going back to the fuelling business, it seems, according to the above article, that there is little to be gained by going much over 10,500rpm and certainly not beyond 12,000 rpm. I suspect that the 15,000rpm limit was brought in as a 'softener' while the real rpm limit was actually going to stay at the original figure of 12,000. The FIA could have said that the rpm limit was going to stay at 18,000rpm, but that doesn't mean to say that you need to go anywhere near that limit in order to remain competitive with 100kgs of fuel.

I think they will say the rule specifies an instantaneous rate, so qualifying and race will be the same, but this does point to an area where there could be some interesting competition and differing approaches. Might be fun.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I don't think so, but we're in the multimedia era now, so it's open season for opinions pretty much all of the time.

Going back to the fuelling business, it seems, according to the above article, that there is little to be gained by going much over 10,500rpm and certainly not beyond 12,000 rpm. I suspect that the 15,000rpm limit was brought in as a 'softener' while the real rpm limit was actually going to stay at the original figure of 12,000. The FIA could have said that the rpm limit was going to stay at 18,000rpm, but that doesn't mean to say that you need to go anywhere near that limit in order to remain competitive with 100kgs of fuel.

I can remember a considerable amount of discussion (and excitement) about the potential sound of H16s and V12 with the approach of the 3 litre formula. In the end the Repco V8 didn't sound as good but won races.

Regarding the RPM allowance over the optimum fuel use level, surely this is a fairly obvious answer to the current problem of running up against the rev limiter when using DRS?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think they will say the rule specifies an instantaneous rate, so qualifying and race will be the same, but this does point to an area where there could be some interesting competition and differing approaches. Might be fun.

I'm sure that there will be more than just one way of skinning this particular cat.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

I can remember a considerable amount of discussion (and excitement) about the potential sound of H16s and V12 with the approach of the 3 litre formula. In the end the Repco V8 didn't sound as good but won races.

Surely the engine with the best noise wins everything?!

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Regarding the RPM allowance over the optimum fuel use level, surely this is a fairly obvious answer to the current problem of running up against the rev limiter when using DRS?

Could be. It could also be a much more than generous in-built reliability margin.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

I can remember a considerable amount of discussion (and excitement) about the potential sound of H16s and V12 with the approach of the 3 litre formula. In the end the Repco V8 didn't sound as good but won races.

So you're not called old for nothing!

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Regarding the RPM allowance over the optimum fuel use level, surely this is a fairly obvious answer to the current problem of running up against the rev limiter when using DRS?

I would think this would be something they would use for passing. Run the engine a bit faster for more power, but it would also be running too lean. Because you wouldn't do that for long, you wouldn't melt down. Maybe some engines will run better that way than others, which is a place there could be some competition. Maybe that's also part of the "heat management" challenge comments.

Could prove interesting!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Could prove interesting!

It could. It was also interesting that the article said (below the image of the Mercedes engine) that intercooling was only an option.

Personally, I think that it's much better to have some of the engine features fixed i.e. all of the stuff that has already been done to death, like engine configuration, etc. At least then it's easier to have a better idea about which of the new bits is actually making the difference.