12 replies to this topic

[March817]

I was looking through the FIA website and could not find any regs concerning F1 fuel consumption.

Does F1 have max and min fuel cell capacity?
Are F1 cars limited in how much fuel they can use in a race?
What is an estimate on the fuel mileage of an F1 car while racing?

[Laphroaig]

Errr.. fuel consumption; educated guess...
Average 1 stop race around the half way point lasts about 12 secs, of which about 10 secs is refueling.
Assuming it starts at about the same fuel load as is being tanked during the pitstop:

2 x 10 secs x 12 liter/sec = 240 liters per 300 km is my guess...

[desmo]

There is no minimum or maximum fuel capaciity specified in the FIA technical regulations. Also any quantity of fuel may be used for race distance.

[BRG]

So why does no-one build a car that will run a whole race on one tank? For instance, a Ferrari built like that could have won at Silverstone (hydraulics permitting) given the inability to overtake of the pursuing cars. And somewhere like Monaco, you would be laughing as long as you started in the top six or so.

The extra weight of the larger tank could be absorbed easily without exceeding the weight limit, so there would be no problem there - you wouldn't have to fill it right up unless you wanted to. But what about the size? What difference would that make?


------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[desmo]

I've wondered the same thing myself. I can only assume that all the teams have run the numbers and come to the conclusion that it wouldn't fly. I think if a tire company would work with one of the teams to build a tire for that scenario there would be a better chance of it working. If you have to stop for tires, the whole thing is pointless.

[PDA]

And the point is that you would need to stop for tyres. efuelling only came in in the eighties when the teams discovered that stoppping halfway for new tyres was quicker than tryimg to preserve the tyres for the whole race distance. In addition, Bridgestone supply the whole field, and they are not likely to take a request to develop a special tyre very nicely. SO, tyres would be truly shot past halfway, or, if special tyres were available, they would be so hard as to cut lap times dramatically. Add to this the need to include a fuel tank of an additional 100 or so litres, and the designer has difficulty, and would have a bulky car. 100 litres of fuel weighs approx 80 kilos. This would reduce lap times by .8 to 1.0 seconds at a track like Silverstone, or as much as 3 to 4 seconds at really weight sensitive tracks like Suzuka.

The only time that I can recall anyoine going full distance was a Tyrell at Monaco with Salo on board in the rain, when consumption was much reduced. He got points.

[March817]

Thanks for the info everybody.

I think refueling was reintroduced in 1994 because Max wanted F1 to be able to run a 500 mile race. Tony George was not happy with CART in the early 90's, and before he formed the IRL there was talk of making the Indy 500 a F1 event.

I am of the opinion that part of the changes needed for F1 include a ban on refueling. Like many others I find today's F1 races extremely boring. Of course I am comparing today's F1 to the past when refueling was banned from 1984 to 1993. One of the ways to deal with the inevitable softer compounds of the coming tire war would be to ban refueling and the number of compounds a tire company can bring to the race. Forcing teams to start the race with up to 250L of fuel at about 200Kg would result in harder tires, stronger cars, and longer braking distances while still allowing for pit strategy for new tires. Of course I would also like to see a return to wide track slicks and a ban on diffusers. Oh well... maybe Max won't be reelected.

[BRG]

March817

That is a good thought about banning refuelling in order to avoid the ever softer compound spiral of the coming tyre war. If only...

------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[Yelnats]

Some info on the 1987 Benneto fuel capacities, unfortunatly in American volumes (1 Gallon = about 4 litres) which are vastly diffent from Imperial ). The data comes from a R&T road test.

Capacity = 51 American Gallons. (About 200 litres).

Mileage = 4mph (which is about 10 times as high as an economy car at cruising speed)

HP = 900, 1050 in qualifying trim.

The fuel milage surprises me because it is about twice as good as a CART car and must have been a result of the no refueling regs.

[March817]

The fuel mileage for the Benetton is better because F1 uses gasoline while CART uses methanol. Methanol has a much lower energy content per unit volume than gasoline, so to get the same power you must burn more of it. However, methanol is safer in racing applications because it is water soluble, so putting out or preventing a fire is a simple matter of diluting it below its flash point.

[Yelnats]

Methanol has about 10% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, I believe, primarily because it is less dense.

So when you fuel up at the pumps with a Methanol/Gas blend be prepared to take a hit in gas milage though in Canada our blends are less that 10% methanol so the loss is only about 1%. But I find it provides considerable ping/knock reduction for only a penny a litre more than regular gas and is about 7 cents litre cheaper than Premium.

[desmo]

The problem with methanol is that it's stochiometric ratio is roughly half that of petrol's, ~7:1 vs ~14:1. It is either going to take more pit stops or massively larger onboard fuel capacities or likely both to go over to it. Also, it is a devlopmental cul-de-sac as methanol is unlikely to be a commercially viable fuel in the foreseeable future.

[Yelnats]

Revise my above post please, I got my "Eths" and "Meths" confused!