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

    • Even with the piston at TDC there was room for it to drop, but I don't think it can drop fully into the cylinder, the problem you have is that you need something pushing against the valve to hold it up so you have enough room to put the new stem seal on and the spring etc.  I used compressed air only because putting rope in the cylinder seemed a bit risky to me, I know people have done it countless times before like this. Overall it's a pain in the ass job. Honestly you'd probably be better off taking the head off because the risk of dropping something in the engine and the finicky-ness of it all is very stressful. If you are going to attempt it though i 10000% recommend a 36050 valve spring/keeper tool. I had both the traditional lever type and after doing 1 cylinder it was absolute pain to get those valve keepers in place, even with 2 people. That 36050 is amazing, you do have to push hard to get them in place but it works perfectly almost every time. Back to my actual issue I think my engine is just tired and old and the rings have gone bad. The comp numbers (cold, no oil) were: Cyl 1 -129psi Cyl 2 - 133psi Cyl 3 - 138psi Cyl 4 - 137psi Cyl 5 - 157psi Cyl 6 - 142psi   Cylinder 5 and 6 having the most carbon on them.
    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
×
×
  • Create New...