Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ocon and Magnussen disqualified from the 2018 US Grand Prix [updated]


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#51 DeKnyff

DeKnyff
  • Member

  • 5,288 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 22 October 2018 - 20:17

Except for the scores of other top level professional motorsports that have no fuel flow or allocation rules.  These rules are specific to F1.  It's window dressing to appear to be eco-friendly and also a way to enforce a power equalizer with regards to the design.  The real carbon impact are the ships that transport the bulk cargo for the flyaways, the chartered freight flights for the air cargo, the fleets of trucks that transport the gear and motorhomes during the European swing and the fuel burned to fly the commercial flights to get the crew and spectators to an event.  The fuel burned and carbon emitted from the race cars are but a pimple on a gnat's bum compared to everything else.

 

 

It should be noted that the MOST fuel consumed/wasted is not by the cars themselves, but by the spectators attending the race.  Even spectators attending football use fuel even though the sport itself doesn't.

 

We all know that and it's completely irrelevant for what we are discussing. Mind you, I don't say it's wrong, I say it's irrelevant.

 

Formula 1 is a high profile useless activity: the perfect target for a campaign to get notoriety and pass a message. Yeah, a transatlantic flight uses more petrol than all twenty cars in a race, but you can't stop transatlantic flights and you can stop motor racing altogether and the world wouldn't notice. It's not a question of number of kilograms of petrol used, it's a question of notoriety, image and marketing. It's not quantitative, it's qualitative. Formula 1 is a symbol.



Advertisement

#52 stenovitz

stenovitz
  • Member

  • 124 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 24 October 2018 - 06:34

I don't know how much raising the total fuel limit from 105 kg to 110 kg for future season will prevent conservative driving. Of course combined with fuel rate limit there's a bit of logic. But F1 will always be on the limit.

Apart from that I think these limitations are disgusting in what is ment to be the full blood motorsports class.

I'm curious whether the establishment of those limits are influenced from the eco lobby - or just made in fear of the eco lobby.

Edit: I do not in any way deny the environmental impact from cars on global CO2 levels. it's a scientific fact. I'm delighted all the measures for cleaner driving for the consumption every day driving. And I even follow Formula E. But F1 should be 'the real deal'.


Edited by stenovitz, 24 October 2018 - 06:39.


#53 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,236 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 October 2018 - 14:04

The rules are fine. It just looks like Magnussen and Haas got a bit carried away while trying to catch Ocon. Magnussen was apparently told to turn the power down to save fuel with 14 laps to go. But with 11 laps to go Magnussen said he needed more power to get close to Ocon (who had been told to lift and coast for fuel 15 laps from the end). And with 9 laps to go he was allowed to turn the power up again, which he did for 4 and a half laps. Then, with 4 laps and a bit to go, he was told to lift and coast as much as possible, and soon it was critical.

#54 cheekybru

cheekybru
  • Member

  • 2,047 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 October 2018 - 15:12

https://www.youtube....h?v=5HzCNMnCgz0
Saving fuel can be a beautiful thing.


Great video thanks for sharing

#55 Morgan111

Morgan111
  • Member

  • 74 posts
  • Joined: July 18

Posted 25 October 2018 - 03:57

Sucks for Kevin, but rules are rules. Even if they are ridiculous. He and the team should have managed it better.

#56 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,416 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 October 2018 - 05:19

Sucks for Kevin, but rules are rules. Even if they are ridiculous. He and the team should have managed it better.

 

Why are the rules "ridiculous"?

 

It's not even the first time in F1 that fuel in a race has been restricted.

 

In 1984 fuel was restricted to 220L, then in 1986 fuel was restricted to 195L and in 1988 the turbos were restricted to 150L (which would be about 110kg)  and non turbos o 220L.

 

In 1986 Alain Prost won the Australian Grand Prix and the championship in a car that was telling him for the last few laps that he had no fuel left.

 

Tank size limits were dropped in 1989. Refuelling was allowed again in 1994. banned again in 2010.

 

Note that since 2010 there ware some cases of cars having to save fuel badly, Massa at Barcelona one year almost came to a stop, IIRC, while Rosberg and Hamilton both had to save fuel severely in order to finish the Malaysian GP of 2013.

 

It is interesting that in 5 years of this formula Magnussen is the only one thrown out for using too much fuel.

 

That said, I would like to see that limit removed, allowing the teams to judge how much fuel they would need. And it probably won't be a lot more.



#57 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,416 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 October 2018 - 05:29

I don't know how much raising the total fuel limit from 105 kg to 110 kg for future season will prevent conservative driving. Of course combined with fuel rate limit there's a bit of logic. But F1 will always be on the limit.

Apart from that I think these limitations are disgusting in what is ment to be the full blood motorsports class.

I'm curious whether the establishment of those limits are influenced from the eco lobby - or just made in fear of the eco lobby.

Edit: I do not in any way deny the environmental impact from cars on global CO2 levels. it's a scientific fact. I'm delighted all the measures for cleaner driving for the consumption every day driving. And I even follow Formula E. But F1 should be 'the real deal'.

 

The fuel flow limit was established to limit the power output of the power units to similar to the V8s + KERS. IE about 830hp.

 

In that they failed, with the ICE alone making about that power (qualifying), with as much as 1,000hp in qualifying mode.

 

There have been many rules made to limit power in the past - capacity limits being the most used. Then there are rpm limits, boost limits, air restrictors, etc., and combinations of them.

 

 

The current rules now have the fuel flow limit, capacity limit, boost limit, rpm limit (not actually practical in this formula), compression ratio limit (18:1) and the ERS output limit (160hp MGUK) for restricting power (and costly development).



#58 subh

subh
  • Member

  • 1,191 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 25 October 2018 - 09:48

Interesting that the mistake was made on Ocon's car but not Perez's - i'm guessing that they run fuel flow just on the limit so occasionally stray over the line?


If you go back to 2014, when they sometimes used to show us fuel usage figures during the race, Pérez was always one of the drivers who was good at saving fuel. It’s probably down to driving style.

#59 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:14

As far as I can remember, funny to see two fuel offences in the same race! Because if memory serves me well, the only other occasion that there was a fuel consumption offence in the V6T era, it was Daniel Ricciardo in the first ever race for the formula, Australia 2014.
Other then that, I can't remember rules regarding the fuel restrictions being broken.

Advertisement

#60 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,758 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:20

Why are the rules "ridiculous"?

 

It's not even the first time in F1 that fuel in a race has been restricted.

 

 

Indeed it's almost as old as the sport.  The very first Grand Prix in 1906 restricted fuel to 30 litres per 100 kms, and back then having seals on the fuel tanks was pretty common.
 



#61 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:27

Sucks for Kevin, but rules are rules. Even if they are ridiculous. He and the team should have managed it better.

Yep. Regardless of how I or anyone feels about these rules, Steiner slamming the rules is mere deflection at best.



#62 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:31

The rules are fine. It just looks like Magnussen and Haas got a bit carried away while trying to catch Ocon. Magnussen was apparently told to turn the power down to save fuel with 14 laps to go. But with 11 laps to go Magnussen said he needed more power to get close to Ocon (who had been told to lift and coast for fuel 15 laps from the end). And with 9 laps to go he was allowed to turn the power up again, which he did for 4 and a half laps. Then, with 4 laps and a bit to go, he was told to lift and coast as much as possible, and soon it was critical.

To me this begs a question ... if the fuel flow is limited, why does Haas  Force India have a setting available in the race that uses more fuel than is allowed, and why did the pit wall allow him to use it? Surely they aren't going to expect us to believe they didn't know that using said setting would cause the car to exceed the fuel flow limit.


Edited by AustinF1, 25 October 2018 - 13:31.


#63 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,236 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 25 October 2018 - 11:52

To me this begs a question ... if the fuel flow is limited, why does Haas have a setting available in the race that uses more fuel than is allowed, and why did the pit wall allow him to use it? Surely they aren't going to expect us to believe they didn't know that using said setting would cause the car to exceed the fuel flow limit.

It was Ocon who exceeded the fuel flow during lap 1. Magnussen didn't exceed the fuel flow, he just consumed more than 105 kg of fuel during the race.

#64 coppilcus

coppilcus
  • Member

  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 25 October 2018 - 11:57

To me this begs a question ... if the fuel flow is limited, why does Haas have a setting available in the race that uses more fuel than is allowed, and why did the pit wall allow him to use it? Surely they aren't going to expect us to believe they didn't know that using said setting would cause the car to exceed the fuel flow limit.

Haas exceeded the total amount of fuel permitted for the race and the little bit extra they need to submit as testing sample. Force India were the ones that exceeded the fuel flow allowed, hence power from the engine, in the first lap...

As I understand it: Force India used more HP in the first lap than what fuel flow allows them to use, and Haas used more fuel throughout the race than the total amount allowed.

I guess that’s why Perez pressured the Haas quite a bit more more in the final stages of the race, obliging Magnussen to close the gap to Ocon and use more fuel, the latter could not close the gap he had with Sainz, so the pace only increased behind the Frenchman .

Edited by coppilcus, 25 October 2018 - 12:01.


#65 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:29

It was Ocon who exceeded the fuel flow during lap 1. Magnussen didn't exceed the fuel flow, he just consumed more than 105 kg of fuel during the race.



Interesting thought: then the car must have had more than 105 kgs of fuel on board + whatever needs to be left for FIA after the race.
Do the current cars have no maiximum tank size?

The more I think about all of this, the less i understand of how matters like this are looked after, controlled etc.
It reads as if it is possible to put more than 105 Kgs of fuel on board and try to get away with it.

#66 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 6,214 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:54

The 105 kg limit is only the amount to consume. Nothing in the rules state that you couldn't put 200 kgs of fuel in. Of course there would be no sense to do that due to weight.

 

In USGP Sainz was planning to do the extra reconnaissance lap but he missed the braking point coming to the pits and went through the painted area back to the track (and therefore he had to enter the grid). Finnish commentator picked that due to that he had more fuel onboard than team had originally planned since it is not allowed to remove fuel in the grid.



#67 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 October 2018 - 13:27

To me this begs a question ... if the fuel flow is limited, why does Haas have a setting available in the race that uses more fuel than is allowed, and why did the pit wall allow him to use it? Surely they aren't going to expect us to believe they didn't know that using said setting would cause the car to exceed the fuel flow limit.

 

It was Ocon who exceeded the fuel flow during lap 1. Magnussen didn't exceed the fuel flow, he just consumed more than 105 kg of fuel during the race.

 

Haas exceeded the total amount of fuel permitted for the race and the little bit extra they need to submit as testing sample. Force India were the ones that exceeded the fuel flow allowed, hence power from the engine, in the first lap...

As I understand it: Force India used more HP in the first lap than what fuel flow allows them to use, and Haas used more fuel throughout the race than the total amount allowed.

I guess that’s why Perez pressured the Haas quite a bit more more in the final stages of the race, obliging Magnussen to close the gap to Ocon and use more fuel, the latter could not close the gap he had with Sainz, so the pace only increased behind the Frenchman .

Yep, my bad. The same question pertains to Ocon though. Why use or even have a mode on the car that uses too much fuel?



#68 beachdrifter

beachdrifter
  • Member

  • 7,257 posts
  • Joined: November 17

Posted 25 October 2018 - 14:26

Yep, my bad. The same question pertains to Ocon though. Why use or even have a mode on the car that uses too much fuel?

 

It was a software bug. They used new mapping software for the start for the first time that was lacking the mechanism that would have prevented this.



#69 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 25 October 2018 - 14:37

The 100g Magnussen used over the limit means he was on full throttle for just a few seconds too much. 100kg/h means 27,777...g/s, so 100g equals only 3,6 seconds.

One additonal big lift and coast action and he probably would have been fine.



#70 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,887 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 25 October 2018 - 16:32

That said, I would like to see that limit removed, allowing the teams to judge how much fuel they would need. And it probably won't be a lot more.


Probably not, as underfueling is a thing, and has been that for years.

#71 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 4,979 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 25 October 2018 - 21:45

It was a software bug. They used new mapping software for the start for the first time that was lacking the mechanism that would have prevented this.

Exactly. Which puts all the "excitement" over this into perspective. It was an accidental technical infringement. Nothing to see here, move along please.



#72 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,416 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 October 2018 - 00:55

Interesting thought: then the car must have had more than 105 kgs of fuel on board + whatever needs to be left for FIA after the race.
Do the current cars have no maiximum tank size?

The more I think about all of this, the less i understand of how matters like this are looked after, controlled etc.
It reads as if it is possible to put more than 105 Kgs of fuel on board and try to get away with it.

 

That is correct, there is no limit as to how much fuel the car has on board.

 

The rule is 105kg from lights out to chequered flag. This is calculated using the fuel flow sensor, and maybe some other sensors.

 

In previous fuel restrictions it has been the tank size that has been limited. That means that the car had to do the out lap and warm up lap as well as the race on the fuel put in the tank.

 

Under the current rules you can put more in to do more laps to the grid (you can do as many as you want during the 10 minute period), run the engine against the MGUK to charge the battery, if you want, on the warm up lap. 



#73 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,416 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 October 2018 - 00:56

If you go back to 2014, when they sometimes used to show us fuel usage figures during the race, Pérez was always one of the drivers who was good at saving fuel. It’s probably down to driving style.

 

Almost always Hamilton used less fuel than Rosberg.



#74 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,467 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 October 2018 - 10:29

Almost always Hamilton used less fuel than Rosberg.

 

I wish the TV companies had left that graphic as it was quite interesting to see who was using more or less fuel. Even if they showed it only a few times in the race and probably more towards the end.



#75 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,535 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 November 2018 - 10:28

Haas remains disqualified from Monza results after appeal fails.



#76 JacobRPP

JacobRPP
  • Member

  • 472 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 02 November 2018 - 12:15

 

Haas remains disqualified from Monza results after appeal fails.

 

 

That was the Grosjean incident.



#77 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,535 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 November 2018 - 12:22

That was the Grosjean incident.

 

Sorry!