98 replies to this topic

[Mendel]

During races: Are they still using engine modes to save fuel or just to save the engines from blowing up?

 

Or did the whole use only so and so much fuel flow max during any time and only 100 kg of fuel during race thing go away?

 

I haven't heard anything about fuel flow or fuel savings all season... but are they still doing economy runs basically? How much has this changed from first two years of these turbo engines?

[MatsNorway]

No. They carry too much fuel as is. So they even do that weird rattling engine map used on the diffuser cars to reduce the fuel as fast as possible. At least on the slower tracks.

Edited by MatsNorway, 19 July 2017 - 21:29.

[LiftAndCoast]

It's still an issue, although it's not a new thing in F1 (though the fuel flow era has magnified it).

On some tracks like Canada staying within the 100kg limit is still a challenge, at other tracks they fuel up with less than the maximum 100kg to save weight but have to do fuel saving at points of the race as a consequence.

I think FOM just don't broadcast the messages anymore, because fans hate it. So if you don't hear it, we can all pretend it isn't happening.

[OO7]

It's still an issue, although it's not a new thing in F1 (though the fuel flow era has magnified it).

On some tracks like Canada staying within the 100kg limit is still a challenge, at other tracks they fuel up with less than the maximum 100kg to save weight but have to do fuel saving at points of the race as a consequence.

I think FOM just don't broadcast the messages anymore, because fans hate it. So if you don't hear it, we can all pretend it isn't happening.

Ah yes, the blue pill that some posters here were quite keen on.  "If I can't hear it, it isn't happening".

[jwill189]

Follow McLaren Honda and you will quickly learn if saving fuel is still a thing.

[Clatter]

No. They carry too much fuel as is. So they even do that weird rattling engine map used on the diffuser cars to reduce the fuel as fast as possible. At least on the slower tracks.

What makes you think they would start the race with more fuel than they require? The only time they might have fuel to dump is due to safety car periods.

[Clatter]

It's still an issue, although it's not a new thing in F1 (though the fuel flow era has magnified it).

On some tracks like Canada staying within the 100kg limit is still a challenge, at other tracks they fuel up with less than the maximum 100kg to save weight but have to do fuel saving at points of the race as a consequence.

I think FOM just don't broadcast the messages anymore, because fans hate it. So if you don't hear it, we can all pretend it isn't happening.

It's 105kg limit now.

[KWSN - DSM]

It is, and it should not be.

 

[Wuzak]

Fuel saving is an issue at a few of the tracks, but not at most.

[tokengator82]

They should just allow refueling during the pit stops

I get that f1 loves its technology but they should always always always error on the side of the racing. If ANYTHING takes away from the racing it should be changed.

If fuel conservation or even fuel flow is taking away from all out racing for the entire race..i mean it isnt like this is an endurance race..it is basically a sprint..so we should be seeing all out racing for the entirety or at least the vast majority of the race, not conservation

And hell leave it up to the teams..if they want to refuel they can if they dont they dont have to..let them have control of their fuel consumption, flow, etc

Then we would really get some strategic variety

Edited by tokengator82, 20 July 2017 - 02:41.

[Wuzak]

The biggest impediment to "flat out racing" since 2011 has been Pirelli tyres.

 

Spain, at least, was a "flat out" race.

[LiftAndCoast]

It's 105kg limit now.

Quite so, my bad.

Interestingly, Renault proposed getting rid of the maximum fuel load altogether with the 2017 cars, but leaving in place only the fuel flow limit.

Mercedes opposed this, the compromise was the 105kg limit.

[SB]

They should just allow refueling during the pit stops
 

 

No ! No ! .... and No ! 

 

Please dont bring refueling back -- reducing pit crews' safety, removing chance of alternative pit strategy (everyone would just pick the optimum one according to computer simulation , and drivers wont try to overtake on track but just awaiting the one in front to pit first and overcut.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

No. They carry too much fuel as is. So they even do that weird rattling engine map used on the diffuser cars to reduce the fuel as fast as possible. At least on the slower tracks.

Why not under fuel if that's true?

[Clatter]

Quite so, my bad.

Interestingly, Renault proposed getting rid of the maximum fuel load altogether with the 2017 cars, but leaving in place only the fuel flow limit.

Mercedes opposed this, the compromise was the 105kg limit.

I really don't believe both are required.

[SenorSjon]

No ! No ! .... and No ! 

 

Please dont bring refueling back -- reducing pit crews' safety, removing chance of alternative pit strategy (everyone would just pick the optimum one according to computer simulation , and drivers wont try to overtake on track but just awaiting the one in front to pit first and overcut.

 

And that is different to the current tire undercut how?

[onemoresolo]

And that is different to the current tire undercut how?

 

Tyre undercut + fuel overcut = 

[Kristian]

We've also had a Safety Car in all races bar one this year, which has helped. 

[redreni]

It's still an issue, although it's not a new thing in F1 (though the fuel flow era has magnified it).

On some tracks like Canada staying within the 100kg limit is still a challenge, at other tracks they fuel up with less than the maximum 100kg to save weight but have to do fuel saving at points of the race as a consequence.

I think FOM just don't broadcast the messages anymore, because fans hate it. So if you don't hear it, we can all pretend it isn't happening.

 

Which, of course, is what happened before FOM TV got team radio.

 

There have always been circumstances where it's better to save fuel, more so when refuelling was allowed, because if you couldn't get past somebody, it was often better to try to save as much fuel and tyre life as possible to prolong your stint and go for the overcut. When refuelling is not allowed, you have to decide how much to put in and that dictates how much fuel saving you do, but again, the difficulty in overtaking means it's worth buying a weight advantage off the start line in exchange for possibly having to do some fuel saving later in order to make the flag. In addition, the heavier you are at the start, the higher your brake wear at the start, whereas lifting and coasting helps save the brakes as you brake from a lower terminal velocity at the end of the straights, so the option of starting lighter has some nice side-benefits.

 

Plus the down-side (having to save fuel) isn't certain to happen because, quite often, you'll get a SC, or there will be an extra formation lap as there was last weekend, or it will rain, and the need to save fuel will be reduced or eliminated. For these reasons, if you start with a fuel load that allows you to push hard under green flag conditions for the entire race, you risk carrying dead weight if you don't get the full amount of green flag running.

[MastaKink]

Fuel saving is an issue at a few of the tracks, but not at most.

 

....For 3 of the engine manufacturers. 

 

 

(Just finishing that post off).   

[MatsNorway]

My bad. I thought they where required to run full tanks. So that we got racing for most of the race.. if you know what i mean

[pdac]

They should just allow refueling during the pit stops

I get that f1 loves its technology but they should always always always error on the side of the racing. If ANYTHING takes away from the racing it should be changed.

If fuel conservation or even fuel flow is taking away from all out racing for the entire race..i mean it isnt like this is an endurance race..it is basically a sprint..so we should be seeing all out racing for the entirety or at least the vast majority of the race, not conservation

And hell leave it up to the teams..if they want to refuel they can if they dont they dont have to..let them have control of their fuel consumption, flow, etc

Then we would really get some strategic variety

 

No just make all cars start with the same fuel load.

[SB]

And that is different to the current tire undercut how?

 

In the refuelling era in 90s, the disadvantage of heavier fuel low after pit stop usually "out-weight" the advantage of new tires, this encouraged drivers to just passively sit and wait . However the current tire undercut more likely to encourage drivers to offensively push a faster laptime / strategy thus more exciting race for the viewers.

[7MGTEsup]

When we didn't have re fueling fuel saving was always a thing. Especially with the turbo cars as they kept bringing the maximum fuel down to try and make N/A cars competitive.

 

There is nothing new in this just we didn't used to get the radio chatter back in the 80's and 90's drivers just had a meter on the dash and it was down to them to balance the books hence why a few often ran out.

[phrank]

No ! No ! .... and No ! 

 

Please dont bring refueling back -- reducing pit crews' safety, removing chance of alternative pit strategy (everyone would just pick the optimum one according to computer simulation , and drivers wont try to overtake on track but just awaiting the one in front to pit first and overcut.

Formule 1 is the only top racing catagory that cannot do refuelling. Refuelling means flat out racing, exciting strategies and extra spectacle and drama. My proposal is only to have mandatory smaller tanks so at least two stops are required to finish a race.

[Wuzak]

Formule 1 is the only top racing catagory that cannot do refuelling. Refuelling means flat out racing, exciting strategies and extra spectacle and drama. My proposal is only to have mandatory smaller tanks so at least two stops are required to finish a race.

 

Let's look at that statement.

 

WEC LMP1 races are 6 hours - except for Le Mans, which is 24 hours. Not going to do those on a single tank of fuel.

 

Indycar's road races appear to be around the same length as Monaco with some being around the same as a standard GP distance. Oval races are longer, varying from 250 miles to 500 miles.

 

They could be done without refueling. But because the fuel they use is ethanol, which has a much lower energy density than petrol, it would require massive fuel tanks, especially for the Indy 500.

 

An example of the effect of the fuel would be the V8Supercar experience. Switching from petrol to E85 (ie 85% ethanol) required them to add a mandatory fuel stop for sprint races (<=100km/60 miles). For the Bathurst 1000, the number of laps between stops has reduced by about 1/3.

[BRG]

When we didn't have re fueling fuel saving was always a thing. Especially with the turbo cars as they kept bringing the maximum fuel down to try and make N/A cars competitive.

 

There is nothing new in this just we didn't used to get the radio chatter back in the 80's and 90's drivers just had a meter on the dash and it was down to them to balance the books hence why a few often ran out.

Exactly so.  No-one puts in more fuel than they (think they) need.  Brabham lost the British GP in 1970 by running out on the last psrt of the last lap.  Senna ran out at IIRC two British GPs.  It has always been a balancing act between minimising the weight and having enough to last.

 

Formule 1 is the only top racing catagory that cannot do refuelling. Refuelling means flat out racing, exciting strategies and extra spectacle and drama. My proposal is only to have mandatory smaller tanks so at least two stops are required to finish a race.

Unnecessary pit stops are just another artificial way to 'spice up' the show, like the DRS that we all love so much.  But I do miss the chance that some innocent, lowly-paid mechanics might suffer terminal burns in order to make an extra spectacle and drama for you.

[redreni]

In the refuelling era in 90s, the disadvantage of heavier fuel low after pit stop usually "out-weight" the advantage of new tires, this encouraged drivers to just passively sit and wait . However the current tire undercut more likely to encourage drivers to offensively push a faster laptime / strategy thus more exciting race for the viewers.

 

Not really. Previously they would sit and wait for the car ahead to run out of fuel and pit. Now they sit and wait until the field spread is sufficient to make the undercut worth it. In both cases, you get fast laps around the stops.

 

There's no way of forcing all cars to push all the time. If you made overtaking significantly easier, you'd take away the incentive to sit behind people and wait for an opportunity to do something around the stops, but then the cars would end up, within a few laps, in race pace order at which point the ones with the most pace would not push as hard. They would only push hard enough to maintain their gap to the car behind.

 

I don't understand what the problem is. It's a race, not a time trial. You get the same number of points for winning by a small margin as you do for winning by a large margin. You can't force people to push harder than what is in their interests.

 

Also, drivers have to balance conservation of brakes, fuel, tyres etc against pace. There's a skill in that. Most of the exciting racing at the end of stints, or at the end of the race, comes about because one car/driver has fresher tyres and, possibly, more fuel than the car ahead and is therefore able to attack. If you make people run the same fuel load, that will happen a bit less, particularly at tracks where they don't need the full race allowance. All things being equal, these cars can't pass each other even if they have a lot more pace than the car ahead. It will be better to sit there and take whatever points are on offer than to make a futile attempt to get past.

[phrank]

(...)

 

Unnecessary pit stops are just another artificial way to 'spice up' the show, like the DRS that we all love so much.  But I do miss the chance that some innocent, lowly-paid mechanics might suffer terminal burns in order to make an extra spectacle and drama for you.

They are not unnecessary or artficial, or would you call tire changing also unnecessary and artifical? Refuelling for is an integral part of motorsports and, like I said, can be done in any other form or autosports, but in F1 it is suddenly extreme dangerous?

[7MGTEsup]

They are not unnecessary or artficial, or would you call tire changing also unnecessary and artifical? Refuelling for is an integral part of motorsports and, like I said, can be done in any other form or autosports, but in F1 it is suddenly extreme dangerous?

 

Re fueling only came back to spice up the show in 1994, before that cars carried their full fuel load for the race. Brabham tried re fueling in 1982 to make the cars lighter at the start of the race but the BMW engine was so unreliable at the time it very rarely happened.

 

So to sum up re fueling wasn't a thing in formula 1 for a long time before it became mandatory in 1994 to 2010. 

[Henri Greuter]

Re fueling only came back to spice up the show in 1994, before that cars carried their full fuel load for the race. Brabham tried re fueling in 1982 to make the cars lighter at the start of the race but the BMW engine was so unreliable at the time it very rarely happened.

 

So to sum up re fueling wasn't a thing in formula 1 for a long time before it became mandatory in 1994 to 2010. 

 

In 1982 it became also interesting for the turbocharged engined teams to consider refuelling because their engines became ever stronger and stronger as long as they could cram the fuel in the cars. At that time there was no fuel limit yet. Neither for 1983, But in 1983 those power outputs became even higher and higher, requiring even more and more fuel. And that became a problem too by that time.

I have no idea how much fuel was used in 1983 by the different teams but given the problems during 1994 for some teams to finish races, it was way beyond 220 liter!

 

Then we got the ban on refuelling as well as the maximul fuel capacity of 220 liter from 1984 on... (and even further reduced during the turbo yers, ironically dropped again once atmo's became mandatory. Had fuel limitation remained during the atmo years as well, that might have prevented the arrival of thos 20000 rpm screamers that could waste as much fuel as they were capable of.

One engine in particular truly suffered from those fuel restrictions rules during the turbo years:  the Alfa V8.....

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 July 2017 - 10:24.

[PiperPa42]

Follow McLaren Honda and you will quickly learn if saving fuel is still a thing.

Why are they saving fuel? Do they need 105kg to run half the race:)

[redreni]

Re fueling only came back to spice up the show in 1994, before that cars carried their full fuel load for the race. Brabham tried re fueling in 1982 to make the cars lighter at the start of the race but the BMW engine was so unreliable at the time it very rarely happened.

 

So to sum up re fueling wasn't a thing in formula 1 for a long time before it became mandatory in 1994 to 2010. 

 

There was a time when refuelling was permitted but rarely done. Then it was banned. Then the ban was lifted. Then the ban was reinstated. At no time was it mandatory. I believe Tyrrell even scored a point in the late 90s at Monaco (in the wet) on a no-stop strategy during the period when refuelling was the norm.

 

Refuelling isn't necessary in the sense that it is banned now and F1 still exists. The less artificial option would be to let people choose whether they want to refuel in races or not.

[BRG]

They are not unnecessary or artficial, or would you call tire changing also unnecessary and artifical?

For decades, cars would run whole races on one set of tyres.  At Le Mans, the leading cars often run for a couple of hours at full speed on the same tyres.  So, yes, it is artificial and unnecessary to have cheese tyres that last ten minutes.  I want to see GP racing where no-one bothers the pit crew all race.  Full tank, good tyres, let's go racing!

Edited by BRG, 21 July 2017 - 16:03.

[KWSN - DSM]

I think that F1 very specifically should be a 'sprint' - There should be no mandated refuelling, there should be no mandated tire changing - F1 is about racing from A to B as fast as possible, no stops - There should be fuel enough to allow drivers to go flat out every single lap if they so chose.. they should balance aggression with how much they wear the tires out.. they should not have all that pesky aero, they should be hard to race, they should punish mistakes...

 

This is all based on rose-tinted glasses, and a belief in something which likely never really existed - But THAT is what F1 should be.

 

Sportscars should be distance, pit strategy, tires, fuel - being distinctly different from F1.

 

Usain Bolt do not stop to replenish fluids and top up during a race - Ghirmay Ghebreslassie does.

 

[ArrowsLivery]

Refueling usually screws up close racing as drivers would rather get ahead by fuel strategy than by passing the car ahead. That is why refueling has no place in F1.

[redreni]

I think that F1 very specifically should be a 'sprint' - There should be no mandated refuelling, there should be no mandated tire changing - F1 is about racing from A to B as fast as possible, no stops - There should be fuel enough to allow drivers to go flat out every single lap if they so chose.. they should balance aggression with how much they wear the tires out.. they should not have all that pesky aero, they should be hard to race, they should punish mistakes...

 

This is all based on rose-tinted glasses, and a belief in something which likely never really existed - But THAT is what F1 should be.

 

Sportscars should be distance, pit strategy, tires, fuel - being distinctly different from F1.

 

Usain Bolt do not stop to replenish fluids and top up during a race - Ghirmay Ghebreslassie does.

 

 

The main difference between F1 and other formula racing is that the races are longer. Many sportscar races are shorter, in both distance and time, than an F1 Grand Prix.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but I can't agree that "there should be fuel enough to allow the drivers to go flat out every single lap" if, by that, you mean they should be forced to carry more fuel (and, therefore, more weight) than they want. Apart from anything else, it's likely to make race times slower. It's also unnecessary to interfere with what the teams want to do. Strategies do, admittedly, tend to converge, but when F1 goes to a new track there is bound to be a decent spread of different race fuel loads chosen which gives a weight advantage to the lighter runners at the start (and, to an ever-diminishing extent, throughout the race), and a potential power advantage to the heavier runners later on as the others have to save fuel. I wouldn't want to interfere with that.

 

Without these kinds of variables, I don't know where anyone imagines racing for position is going to come from? You'd just end up with cars circulating in qualy order with the gaps getting bigger and bigger. No matter what you do to the aero, nobody's going to overtake the car ahead if they can't keep up.

[redreni]

Refueling usually screws up close racing as drivers would rather get ahead by fuel strategy than by passing the car ahead. That is why refueling has no place in F1.

 

Drivers will get ahead any way they can. The last year F1 had on Bridgestones showed exactly how much extra on-track overtaking you get when you ban refuelling. Very little. It was the cheese tyres that increased the quantity (though not the quality) of overtaking moves.

[pdac]

They are not unnecessary or artficial, or would you call tire changing also unnecessary and artifical? Refuelling for is an integral part of motorsports and, like I said, can be done in any other form or autosports, but in F1 it is suddenly extreme dangerous?

 

It's artificial if you mandate it by forcing small tanks. If teams could choose to have a small tank and refuel often or have a large tank and have less pit stops then that would not be so artificial (although, as we all know, every team would do the same thing because they all think the others will get one up on them if they don't follow what they are doing).

[travbrad]

Follow McLaren Honda and you will quickly learn if saving fuel is still a thing.

 And they are really great at it.  Sometimes they just pull the car over and park it.  Very eco friendly.

[Henri Greuter]

Drivers will get ahead any way they can. The last year F1 had on Bridgestones showed exactly how much extra on-track overtaking you get when you ban refuelling. Very little. It was the cheese tyres that increased the quantity (though not the quality) of overtaking moves.

 

 

now you ignore the fact of aerocrap on the cars that avoided close distance racing between cars, tires good or bad, yes or no refuelling had little to do with that.

 

 

Henri

 

 

Edit: And that aerocrap still makes normal close racing impossible and everyone depending on an artificial tool as DRS ...

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 July 2017 - 18:58.

[redreni]

now you ignore the fact of aerocrap on the cars that avoided close distance racing between cars, tires good or bad, yes or no refuelling had little to do with that.

 

 

Henri

 

 

Edit: And that aerocrap still makes normal close racing impossible and everyone depending on an artificial tool as DRS ...

 

Right, so it was aerocrap? Not drivers preferring to wait for the fuel stops? I agree entirely.

 

Refuelling or not makes very little difference. If drivers can't overtake, they won't overtake. If they can, they will. If there's refuelling, it makes no odds because it hardly makes sense to wait for the stops to go from fifth to fourth, if you have an opportunity to get up to fourth on track and then still have an opportunity to make further places when the fuel stops come.

 

Sitting back and trying to eek out your stint length by one lap is a tactic only employed in refuelling races by drivers who realise they cannot get past the car ahead. In a similar situation in a non-refuelling race, the driver behind would likely be stuck there until the end of the race.

[Henri Greuter]

Right, so it was aerocrap? Not drivers preferring to wait for the fuel stops? I agree entirely.

 

Refuelling or not makes very little difference. If drivers can't overtake, they won't overtake. If they can, they will. If there's refuelling, it makes no odds because it hardly makes sense to wait for the stops to go from fifth to fourth, if you have an opportunity to get up to fourth on track and then still have an opportunity to make further places when the fuel stops come.

 

Sitting back and trying to eek out your stint length by one lap is a tactic only employed in refuelling races by drivers who realise they cannot get past the car ahead. In a similar situation in a non-refuelling race, the driver behind would likely be stuck there until the end of the race.

 

Of course you are entirely correct that waiting with overtaking because the car ahead might have to make an earlier stop did indeed take place.

 

That was what made the Ferrari so good in 2004, the Bridgestones could last a few more laps than the Michelins so MS, if he couldn't pass, he then made the q-laps once the car ahead of him was gone, made his own stop then and was gone ahead.

 

 

But for me, the lack of genuine overtaking in general, no matter how good or how bad the tires were, yes or no refuelling, if drivers can't remain close to an car ahead of them because that car ahead creates so much turbulence that it upsets their own handling, that is pretty much the problem that nullifies all ather problems. Both cars on bad tires or good tires, on equal fuel loads makes little to no difference by then anymore.

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 July 2017 - 21:22.

[KWSN - DSM]

Which is why the cars this year is a complete failure making anything spectacular wise - Give the cars too little aero - then we can have overtaking again.

 

[Fatgadget]

If fuel saving no longer an issue, it means fuel allocation needs further tightening up.

[ArrowsLivery]

There is a general lack of on track racing with refueling. The field tends to spread out a lot more.

[Wuzak]

I think that F1 very specifically should be a 'sprint' - There should be no mandated refuelling, there should be no mandated tire changing - F1 is about racing from A to B as fast as possible, no stops

 

Refueling was not mandatory when it was allowed. And tyre changes have only been mandatory since 2009 (2 compound rule). 

 

But in each case stops were made - because it was, more often than not, faster to do one or more stops for fuel and/or tyres than to do the ace non-stop.

 

So by mandating no stops you are not getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

 

In any case, it is not the aim to get there in the fastest possible time - just have to be faster than the next guy.

[KWSN - DSM]

Refueling was not mandatory when it was allowed. And tyre changes have only been mandatory since 2009 (2 compound rule). 

 

But in each case stops were made - because it was, more often than not, faster to do one or more stops for fuel and/or tyres than to do the ace non-stop.

 

So by mandating no stops you are not getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

 

In any case, it is not the aim to get there in the fastest possible time - just have to be faster than the next guy.

 

I am not mandating no stops, I am mandating no mandated stops, and no mandated tire changes. When Brabham started the refueling and tire changes, it had been allowed in the rules for a long time (I want to say 1966 but not sure where i have that from). When Renault trotted the Turbo out, it had been possible for the teams to do that for a long time (same year of 1966).

 

[SophieB]

@tgruener
Good news for all F1 drivers: fuel limit of 105 kg per race likely to be scrapped in 2019. Days of excessive lift & coast will be over soon. AMuS exclusive: https://t.co/UIXWrYnhDO

[Yoshi]

@tgruener
Good news for all F1 drivers: fuel limit of 105 kg per race likely to be scrapped in 2019. Days of excessive lift & coast will be over soon. AMuS exclusive: https://t.co/UIXWrYnhDO

 

Finally