Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As already said, fuel flow limits, limit the peak horsepower

If they were allowed to double the fuel flow, they would get a significant increase in HP. Think about if they did this for half a lap to overtake someone. They could still make it to the end and overtake someone with an advantage. But then the person in front could also increase the fuel flow to defend. So it limits max HP, but also has implications on fuel usage

Well back in the day (Mid eigthies) they had fuel limits with no boost or fuel flow limits. Which made Sunday nice and safe but less so on Friday/Saturday when it was basically a free for all. Not sure how they cap horsepower now (by limiting boost) but a fuel flow limit does that in no uncertain terms.

The power is capped by the fuel flow.

Edit: damnit, beaten

Edited by chus13
The problem was solved by 100kg of fuel why solve the problem again?

100kg of fuel won't restrict the power like a air intake restrictor would, it would only restrict how much power they could use at anyone time.

Allow refueling and whatever power you want to run. This current rule set is silly.

If f1 were the green ambassador that it jinks it is, they wouldn't be flying 1000s of tons of equipment round the world on 747s.

I don't know when it became about fuel conservation, but I don't like it.

FIA President Jean Todt has suggested that the sport's governing body would be open to making Formula One engines louder and less fuel-efficient if that is what spectators want.


Todt's comments were made during an interview with Italian national broadcaster Rai after a lot of criticism for the FIA's decision to move to V6 engines this year occurred following the season opener in Australia last week.


"There should be calm before reaction," Todt told Rai.


"The noise is obviously different now and if there is a problem with it we can look at a way to make it noisier.


Todt added that he does believe that the amount of fuel-saving that is necessary to get to the end of races this year seems excessive.


"I do not want F1 'economy runs', the permitted amount of fuel, 100kg, was proposed by the teams. For me it is not a problem if they want it to be 100kg," Todt added.


However, the former Ferrari boss dismissed suggestions that the fuel-saving measures the teams used in Melbourne was responsible for few passing opportunities arising.


"Instead it is the aerodynamics of the cars and the circuit in Melbourne, for example, has never been very good for overtaking," Todt maintained.


"I am convinced that very soon we will see a lot of overtaking. So let's wait before making judgments."



http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9229671/FIA-open-to-changes-Todt



good news?


Interesting that the fuel meter isnt in the technical regulations! It is covered in a technical directive from Charlie Whiting so not a rule, just Charlies opinion on things. So pretty big loop hole, when the clarifications even talk about when the meter is faulty you can use injectors etc as a means

Talk is by the FIA meter Dan would have slowed to a pace that would have seen him come home 5th

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations:

5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

FIA President Jean Todt has suggested that the sport's governing body would be open to making Formula One engines louder and less fuel-efficient if that is what spectators want.

Todt's comments were made during an interview with Italian national broadcaster Rai after a lot of criticism for the FIA's decision to move to V6 engines this year occurred following the season opener in Australia last week.

"There should be calm before reaction," Todt told Rai.

"The noise is obviously different now and if there is a problem with it we can look at a way to make it noisier.

Todt added that he does believe that the amount of fuel-saving that is necessary to get to the end of races this year seems excessive.

"I do not want F1 'economy runs', the permitted amount of fuel, 100kg, was proposed by the teams. For me it is not a problem if they want it to be 100kg," Todt added.

However, the former Ferrari boss dismissed suggestions that the fuel-saving measures the teams used in Melbourne was responsible for few passing opportunities arising.

"Instead it is the aerodynamics of the cars and the circuit in Melbourne, for example, has never been very good for overtaking," Todt maintained.

"I am convinced that very soon we will see a lot of overtaking. So let's wait before making judgments."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9229671/FIA-open-to-changes-Todt

good news?

Not good news. it would be totally unfair to the teams that have done the best development work under the engine regulations over the past 3yrs!

To make them louder would mean opening wastegates, changing the characteristics of the powertrain and especially the MGU-H energy recovery.

To allow them to use more fuel also just helps those who haven't done as good a job of making their engies fast and efficient. 100kg per race was the concensus limit they were working to. It should remain. Australia is the 2nd highest fuel consumption track on the calendar (Canada is No1 in terms of kg/lap) and no teams had real problems making it to the end even in the very first race under these rules - even the ones who were using excessive fuel flow at times mad eit no worries :P IMO the fuel limit is not a problem.

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations:

Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

Thats wrong Harry,

A Technical Directive IS NOT the technical regulations!!!! Thats the point I am trying to make.

You would be brave or have to have good reason to go against a technical directive, but it is more Charlies opinion as FIA front man of the technical regulation and is openly able to be contested.; as RBR are doing.

"Technical regulations" say "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h "

Technical Directives are NOT BINDING and issued as means of clarifications. The International Court of Appeals will have the final say, but they will firstly look at the Technical Regulations and see if there is ample compliance with those in consultation with the regulations.

"Opinions" given by the FIA outside of the Technical Regulations are meant for guidance and they are only guidance they do not constitute part of the Technical Regulations. A Technical Directive may come from the FIA but up to the ICA to see if RBR were in compliance with the Technical Regulations, not a technical directive

In the original German interview Mateschitz is first asked what could theoretically prompt an exit from F1 for Red Bull, THEN asked about the incident in Melbourne.

They switches around these 2 answers (and omits the questions) to make it sound as if Mateschitz threatened to quit F1 over Melbourne, which he didn't.

In fact if you read the rest of the interview it's quite obvious that he is committed to F1.

Thats wrong Harry,

A Technical Directive IS NOT the technical regulations!!!! Thats the point I am trying to make.

You would be brave or have to have good reason to go against a technical directive, but it is more Charlies opinion as FIA front man of the technical regulation and is openly able to be contested.; as RBR are doing.

"Technical regulations" say "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h "

Technical Directives are NOT BINDING and issued as means of clarifications. The International Court of Appeals will have the final say, but they will firstly look at the Technical Regulations and see if there is ample compliance with those in consultation with the regulations.

"Opinions" given by the FIA outside of the Technical Regulations are meant for guidance and they are only guidance they do not constitute part of the Technical Regulations. A Technical Directive may come from the FIA but up to the ICA to see if RBR were in compliance with the Technical Regulations, not a technical directive

Firstly, it's 100kg/hr at 10,500rpm and above. below that the fuel flow limits are lower. So there are times where even if you are flowing 100kg/hr you could be breaking the rules.

Secondly, the Technical Regulations do stipulate that the homologated sensor to measure the temp, pressure and flow must be fitted and must log to the FIA data logger, as per my previous quote from the Technical Regulations.

Finally, regarding the validity and role of Technical Directives, according to JAonF1:

...Technical Directives from the FIA’s Charlie Whiting and Jo Bauer. These are private documents circulated only to the technical heads of teams which give permissions and instructions from the FIA, essentially amendments to technical regulations. The public and media do not get to see them but effectively they supersede the F1 Technical Regulations

Not just one blokes opinion that teams may choose whether or not they bother listening to.

But even if what you say was accurate, the problem you have is that the only method for measuring fuel flow mentioned in the Technical Regulations is the homologated sensor, which RBR totally ignored. There's nothing in the Technical Regulations to say they can choose an alternate method of measurement - that's only in the Technical Directive, which you say means nothing!

In reality the Technical Directives are exactly what they say they are - an official, authoritative instruction from the FIA.

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol, not arguing.... Read the 2014 regs...JA is wrong too....it does not legally supersede the technical regs....its meant for clarifications that teams can take or leave....its wise to take

Copy and paste from FIA WEBSITE

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.
5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature
and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA
data logger.
RBR are arguing that their data shows they are compliant with these technical regulations.

yes that's what I quoted from the technical regulations earlier. NB "5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure...the flow of the fuel". The homologated sensor is the only method for measuring fuel flow permitted or recognised under the Technical Regulations, the other method RBR used without permission is the one outlined in the Technical Directive to be used when the sensor fails.

FIA Technical Directives are just that - directives issued by the governing body. They have always been used to enforce rules.

* EBD's were banned under an FIA Technical Directive.

* Off throttle blowing was banned under an FIA Technical Directive.

I could go on and on, but the picture is pretty obvious - FIA Technical Directives are binding and a legitimate part of the regulations governing the sport. If you ignore them, you get disqualified...

Edited by hrd-hr30

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...