25 replies to this topic

[midgrid]

Joe Saward has noticed an interesting detail in the transcript of the FIA World Motor Sport Council's decisions published today.  Is this an oversight, a bargaining tool, or is it something that could actually happen?

[Frankbullitt]

With the money involved with oil company sponsorship, I couldn't see this getting approved.

 

Shell, Petronas, Petrobas, Total, they have bring big money.

[Fastcake]

I said in another thread somewhere that it could just be setting up a provision in case the FIA needs to act in the future.

[Gyno]

Why would they need to do that?

 

It's not like the world will ever run out of oil, new oil fields are found all the time and some even containing more oil then what have been used so far in human history.

 

It's not they will run out of money either to spend on F1, thanks To OPEC cartell that drives the prices up.

Real cost of 1 barrel of oil is around 50 cent.

 

But they charge what is it now? over 100€.

 

THis is just a push to make F1 into a spec sport like GP2 gp3 and the rest of smaller forumlas.

[Gilles4Ever]

Joe Saward has noticed an interesting detail in the transcript of the FIA World Motor Sport Council's decisions published today.  Is this an oversight, a bargaining tool, or is it something that could actually happen?

Wonder if Joe reads this forum? http://forums.autosp...ions/?p=6443939

[midgrid]

Wonder if Joe reads this forum? http://forums.autosp...ions/?p=6443939

Sorry, I didn't see that thread.

[Anders Torp]

Wonder if Joe reads this forum? http://forums.autosp...ions/?p=6443939

Probably. Not that he will ever admit it, though.

[midgrid]

Update/context from Saward.

[pingu666]

i think wec had sole supplier, atleast for desiel. think it was shell stuff, but pug ran with total sponsorship.

 

the thing is the fia and fom would get a nice chunk of money, and the teams would lose out to some extent, as the partnership isnt worth so much anymore :\

[dau]

Not going to happen.

[handel]

There was some interesting info in one of the recent podcasts with Peter Windsor and Alastair Caldwell. Caldwell was on about Texaco making McLaren special fuel in the 70s I think to help the turbos not explode.

 

Sort of related...

 

[WitnessX]

I do know for a fact (thats a real fact, not a "forum fact") that there are refineries who actually make fuel for the various oil companies. Its just the actual fuel formula differs, they blend at the same (physical) place and from the same raw material stores - the tankers then just drive in and fill up at the appropriate bay.

The fuel is so well defined that there should be no difference between them:
http://www.formula1....s/8700/fia.html

The big difference is in the lubricants, especially the engine oil - thats where the oil companies can compete with others and has a direct effect on aerodynamics.

( higher temp. oil -> run engine hotter -> smaller radiators -> better packaging -> better aero)
<Racers Edge - 2014 Engines>

Edited by WitnessX, 01 October 2013 - 15:12.

[Timstr11]

motorsport-total.com brings another perspective to this rule, namely the standard fuel flow meters which will be mandatory as of next year.

Apparently the fuel flow meter does not measure all fuels the same due to the differences between the different fuels.

I can see teams bickering over half a Kg difference in weight measured.

Edited by Timstr11, 01 October 2013 - 15:07.

[AustinF1]

Probably. Not that he will ever admit it, though.

never mind.

Edited by AustinF1, 02 October 2013 - 01:53.

[packapoo]

motorsport-total.com brings another perspective to this rule, namely the standard fuel flow meters which will be mandatory as of next year.

Apparently the fuel flow meter does not measure all fuels the same due to the differences between the different fuels.

I can see teams bickering over half a Kg difference in weight measured.

My translator won't, or doesn't seem to want to - wouldn't the main diff be temperature related?

Is there a mechanism in place to ensure all fueling is done at the same temperature, someone's bound to know?

[Lee Nicolle]

With turbo engines back in the cars a control fuel actually is a good idea. They can use 'green' ethanol blend fuel like V8 Supercar. Which actually makes good power in those engines at least. And Greenpeace stunts would then be pointless.
Though economy would be an issue then.

[SenorSjon]

And the cash from oil companies is gone.

Total (RB and Lotus)

Shell (Ferrari)

Petronas (Mercedes)

Mobil1? (McLaren)

Grosjean would lose his backing and would never made it into F1.

 

Even worse, the controlled supplier will ask 10m for dragging fuel around the globe. I read somewhere the FIA has more control over the speed and racing with the tires and fuel supply under their command. Next will be brakes, carbon fibre tubs, wings and then we call it GP1.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Nothing will happen to alienate the petrol companies into leaving F1. 

 

I don't think they're planning for a future with an oil crisis - which could happen, but given they are being "green" with the silly engine rules there is no reason they would be more thoughtful about fuel being hard/difficult to attain.   The political problems of affiliate nations could be an issue, but again - IMO they shouldn't be racing in Abu Dhabi.

 

The only thing I can think of is fear that the turbos are going to need some sort of lubricant-temp breakdown additive, and they want to ease the way for it to be possibly ok to politically allow such a thing across the board.

[Timstr11]

My translator won't, or doesn't seem to want to - wouldn't the main diff be temperature related?

Is there a mechanism in place to ensure all fueling is done at the same temperature, someone's bound to know?

I think the main difference would be the variable compound composition of the fuels, which in turn results in variable specific weights at a given temperature.

[whitewaterMkII]

And the cash from oil companies is gone.
Total (RB and Lotus)
Shell (Ferrari)
Petronas (Mercedes)
Mobil1? (McLaren)
Grosjean would lose his backing and would never made it into F1.
 
Even worse, the controlled supplier will ask 10m for dragging fuel around the globe. I read somewhere the FIA has more control over the speed and racing with the tires and fuel supply under their command. Next will be brakes, carbon fibre tubs, wings and then we call it GP1.

Not quite sure about all that.
Sunoco is the sole supplier of fuel for NASCAR, and they pay NASCAR to do it. An estimated 8-10 mil per year on a 10 year deal.
Although Sunoco is the only fuel supplier, there are Mobil 1, Quaker State, Shell/Pennzoil and Valvoline with large sponsorship deals in place for the teams, and major teams at that.
The fuel being used in NASCAR is not per se 'pump' fuel, but kinda close. It is 15 percent by weight ethanol with a 98 octane rating. Premium fuel in California is typically at 91 octane with a 5.7 percent byweight ethanol content. Due to the fact that 15% ethanol is pretty hard on engines, and therefore it probably won't be required for some time in street cars, but being race engines with limited lifetime mileage reqs, it is feasible to use in NASCAR with that blend ratio.

[V3TT3L]

I don't think it will happen.

 

Ferrari has a BIG technical advantage with Shell taillor made Fuel and Lubricants.

Shell can do magic with Fuel addictives on Ferrari worn out engines, combined with complementary special Oils [viscosity].

So Ferrari engines are threated both inside the combustion chamber [Fuel] and outside [Motor Oil].

 

The advantage will be even bigger now that Engine and Turbo share the same oil [connected chamber].

Turbo spools in a much higher speed and temperature and Shell must find a compromisse every weekend for every engine phase life.

[fabr68]

First it was the tobacco companies, next was the tire manufacturers, now it will be the oil companies to be drawn away from F1.

Where are the teams supposed to get their sponsor money?

[Gilles4Ever]

Formula 1 teams are told FIA has no plans for single fuel supplier

With a number of teams unhappy at the prospect of losing fuel partners, sources have revealed that the FIA has now clarified that the statement made after the WMSC hearing was a mistake.

Instead of setting out on a path for there to be a fuel supplier tender, sources have revealed the FIA's secretary general Pierre de Connick has written to teams emphasising that the governing body is not pursuing that route.

Instead, the FIA statement was intended to make it explicit that any future tenders in F1 will always be handled by the governing body first - rather than it reacting after commercial deals have been put in place.

 

[Jackmancer]

With the money involved with oil company sponsorship, I couldn't see this getting approved.

 

Shell, Petronas, Petrobas, Total, they have bring big money.

 

Well, yes, but what if let's say Shell wants to sponsor all the teams?
Not saying it'll happen, but some petrol companies might have the money, and the same happens with tyres.

[SenorSjon]

Uhm no. They will pay for the tender, then ask $100/liter for standard road fuel.

[Fastcake]

Formula 1 teams are told FIA has no plans for single fuel supplier

Called it