Fuel Level Cause Race Disrepute

[Cam]

edit: you are correct Ben. Apologies.

[FoxHound]

Was there also not the expectation of showers in Malaysia?

Rain = lower fuel consumption = lower fuel levels.

[bhall]

It wasn't all wrong. We've seen both Hamilton and Vettel penalized for failure to bring the car back to the garage with the required 1L fuel sample for FIA tests after qualifying. Both were the result of their teams miscalculating fuel load in an attempt to save weight. But, that doesn't have anything to do with fuel-saving during a race.

I think that particular problem is born out of the need to conserve tires. Teams know they have to do it, and they know that periods of tire conservation are coincidentally periods of fuel conservation. As such, it makes little sense to fill the car with enough fuel for the driver to push every lap.

"The perfect racing car crosses the finish line first and subsequently falls into its component parts." ~ Ferdinand Porsche

"The perfect racing car crosses the finish line first and subsequently runs out of fuel." ~ Me (and Red Bull and MGP)

[Tommy Cookers]

FWIW I think that 'fuel saving' does not mean the car was under-fuelled
IIRC the tankage is limited at 195 litres and they fill to this

for max power the fuel:'air ratio can be set about 20% rich (ie 20% of the fuel is being thrown away unburnt)
but the engines are more efficient (although slightly less powerful) with a neutral or slightly rich 'fuel saving' mixture
(the rich 'max power' mixture benefits combustion consistency at very high rpm, so its use is related to that)

195 litres is not enough for the cars to run the rich mixture for the whole race
so they must run some or many laps in 'fuel saving' mode (varying with circuit and conditions etc)

so the 'fuel saving' instruction does not mean they started with less than a full tank (IMO)

in another thread someone kindly posted fuel consumption figures (almost equal for all races)
to me this fits with my view (that they use a 195 litre fill regardless of race)

[turbof1]

I think someone forgot that cars no longer have to run race-level fuel loads in qualifying.

Still has a small advantage. If you run a bit less fuel in the race, you can also lower the ride height a bit in qualy. Teams aren't allowed to change the ride height inbetween qualy and the race, so you want to do as much as you can to have the lowest ride height in qualy without scraping the plank in the race when the tank is at its fullest.

I readed somewhere that a 1mm lower height means a tenth in laptime. If that is true, then you have quite some benefit with reducing fuel level even a small bit.

[Phil]

And you were just bemoaning the teams "inability to calculate the correct fuel levels" - how do you think they would cope with refuelling for optimal stint times based around the unpredictable durability of the Pirellis?

I believe the Pirellis are as unpredictable as they are precisely because we don't have refueling anymore. Take away refueling and you have heavy cars on the grid. The unpredictable tyres give back the element of strategy to the race we would otherwise lose. If you bring back refueling, there would be less need for unpredictable tyres to spice up the race.

In regards to the thread - I also think it's not only the fuel that caused the race disrepute. It's also the element of the still relatively unknown tyres. The fuel level inconsistencies will solve itself as teams find out more about the predictability of the car, the tyres and the track conditions. This will happen naturally has the season progresses IMO.

[turbof1]

FWIW I think that 'fuel saving' does not mean the car was under-fuelled
IIRC the tankage is limited at 195 litres and they fill to this

for max power the fuel:'air ratio can be set about 20% rich (ie 20% of the fuel is being thrown away unburnt)
but the engines are more efficient (although slightly less powerful) with a neutral or slightly rich 'fuel saving' mixture
(the rich 'max power' mixture benefits combustion consistency at very high rpm, so its use is related to that)

195 litres is not enough for the cars to run the rich mixture for the whole race
so they must run some or many laps in 'fuel saving' mode (varying with circuit and conditions etc)

so the 'fuel saving' instruction does not mean they started with less than a full tank (IMO)

in another thread someone kindly posted fuel consumption figures (almost equal for all races)
to me this fits with my view (that they use a 195 litre fill regardless of race)

It also depends on the track. Malaysia is 60% on throttle, while Monaco is only 42%. 18/60=30% less throttle. Lets just make the (very naive) assumption that equals 30% less fuel needed. You will be most likely underfueling for Monaco (and they will calculate in 1 or even several safety cars), while Malaysia will indeed be more about topping the fuel tank and scraping it at the end of the race.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm angry because Merc's engineers got it wrong and ruined the Malaysian race's conclusion.

Hmmm, sounds like a Nico fan...

Nico should have had the opportunity to continue on and fight the Red Bulls or at least pass LH.

Yes, does sound like a Nico fan.

This thread appears to have appeared because someones fave driver got the wrong end of a team order, which is ok as we all get annoyed when that happens. But think on this - if the fuel and tyres allowed drivers to push hard all race then Nico would still have been behind Hammy so changing the system won't change Mercs' views about their drivers.

I remember the days of 20-lap-consistent tyres and refuelling. Terribly tedious, processional "racing". It was great f you were a Michael / Ferrari fan becuase with their bespoke tyres and endless testing they had the perfect car. Today, with everyone on the same rubber and limited testing I doubt the racing would be any better than it is now although it would be better than it was then for sure.

[Stradivarius]

I think that particular problem is born out of the need to conserve tires. Teams know they have to do it, and they know that periods of tire conservation are coincidentally periods of fuel conservation. As such, it makes little sense to fill the car with enough fuel for the driver to push every lap.

"The perfect racing car crosses the finish line first and subsequently falls into its component parts." ~ Ferdinand Porsche

"The perfect racing car crosses the finish line first and subsequently runs out of fuel." ~ Me (and Red Bull and MGP)

I think you are completely right about this. The uncertainty regarding how much you need to conserve your tires results in an uncertainty of what is the optimal ammount of fuel with which to start the race.

One possible reason why Mercedes ended up with less fuel than expected is that they didn't have to be as careful with the tires as they thought. So they may have decided to go aggressively in the beginning and maintain the advantage of a lower fuel load, and pay the price at the end. In the event that you need to save fuel, the optimal time of doing so is at the end of the race. Not only because the decisions usually fall before or at the last pitstop, but also because fuel saving at the end of the race reduces the average weight through the race. If you purposely start a race low on fuel in order to enjoy a lighter car, it makes no sense to do most of the fuel saving at the beginning. This will only mean you have a disadvantage of having to save fuel at the beginning, and after that you don't have the weight advantage anymore. So the optimal approach is obviously to do most of the fuel saving as late in the race as possible.

Another reason is of course that Mercedes miscalculated the fuel consumption, but I find it more likely that they were gambling on safety car or rain. There is a fundamental difference between a miscalculation and a gamble that fails. Even if Mercedes where not running the optimal fuel ammount, it doesn't have to be the result of a miscalculation or a misjudgement. If there was a new race in Malaysia the day after the actual race, Mercedes might still have chosen the same fuel load. Either because they simply consider it likely to be a safety car and/or rain which would make their fuel load apporpriate. Or simply because they want to gamble and maybe win the race if they are helped by the rain and/or the safety car. At the end of the day, Mercedes didn't seem to risk much by running low fuel loads, as 3rd and 4th seemed to be their optimal result.

[Cam]

One possible reason why Mercedes ended up with less fuel than expected is that they didn't have to be as careful with the tires as they thought.....Another reason is of course that Mercedes miscalculated the fuel consumption, but I find it more likely that they were gambling on safety car or rain.

I can think of a third. It's possible Mercedes simply thought Red Bull were carrying the same amount of fuel as themselves - and were equally surprised to see Webber and Vettel drive off into the sunset.

Personally, I dont think Mercedes miscalculated. A strong 3 & 4 is not a failure. By all accounts the RedBulls (Vettel at least) were simply too quick for the win, no matter what fuel load - so how else could they have beaten them? A safety car or rain, would be the only option - agreed.

I think that particular problem is born out of the need to conserve tires. Teams know they have to do it, and they know that periods of tire conservation are coincidentally periods of fuel conservation. As such, it makes little sense to fill the car with enough fuel for the driver to push every lap.

Agreed.

[bhall]

FWIW I think that 'fuel saving' does not mean the car was under-fuelled
IIRC the tankage is limited at 195 litres and they fill to this

[...]

I can't find anything in either the sporting or technical regulations that details a maximum fuel cell capacity.

[Websta]

And you were just bemoaning the teams "inability to calculate the correct fuel levels" - how do you think they would cope with refuelling for optimal stint times based around the unpredictable durability of the Pirellis?

I believe the Pirellis are as unpredictable as they are precisely because we don't have refueling anymore. Take away refueling and you have heavy cars on the grid. The unpredictable tyres give back the element of strategy to the race we would otherwise lose. If you bring back refueling, there would be less need for unpredictable tyres to spice up the race.

In regards to the thread - I also think it's not only the fuel that caused the race disrepute. It's also the element of the still relatively unknown tyres. The fuel level inconsistencies will solve itself as teams find out more about the predictability of the car, the tyres and the track conditions. This will happen naturally has the season progresses IMO.

Refuelling did not really spice up racing all that much. It certainly added strategy, but fairly inflexible strategy - I really like the adaptable strategies that come from the Pirellis, but I do dislike most of the other things that these tyres bring before I get my ass chewed. It also didn't eliminate drivers running out of fuel. I recall Vettel running out of fuel completely in Valencia 2009, and I am sure there are many other examples. The various examples of running out of fuel during qualifying last year are an example of how teams will still manage to make the "mistakes" that you were talking about earlier.

Refuelling also doesn't generate the close racing that we see with the Pirellis - however contrived you feel the racing we see is, personally I am not all that convinced by some of the drivers moaning.

[Phil]

Refuelling did not really spice up racing all that much. It certainly added strategy, but fairly inflexible strategy - I really like the adaptable strategies that come from the Pirellis, but I do dislike most of the other things that these tyres bring before I get my ass chewed. It also didn't eliminate drivers running out of fuel. I recall Vettel running out of fuel completely in Valencia 2009, and I am sure there are many other examples. The various examples of running out of fuel during qualifying last year are an example of how teams will still manage to make the "mistakes" that you were talking about earlier.

Refuelling also doesn't generate the close racing that we see with the Pirellis - however contrived you feel the racing we see is, personally I am not all that convinced by some of the drivers moaning.

I think my point has been misunderstood. I didn't say the racing during refueling was better - more to the point, I was saying that when the FIA banned refueling, there was a need to bring in an element that would make the races interesting. The rule that two different tyre compounds must be used and perhaps the limited working window of the tyre. If we didn't have those two elements, with cars being fueled to complete the race, you'd have the boring scenario of the quickest car pulling away and rarely finding itself in traffic. By having to use two different tyre compounds, you are forcing the teams to still do pit-stops and bring the quicker cars into traffic. The unpredictability of the tyres just enhances this even more.

During the refueling days, we had this element by the nature of drivers being fueled for stints. You would have the guys doing fewer stops, being usually heavier and therefore slower - and the guys who did more stops but because they were fueled lighter, were quicker and usually found themselves behind the guys doing fewer stops at some point during the race after pitting. It was the strategy of the 'fewer-stoppers/slower cars" to defend hard / keep the lower-fueled cars behind and it was detrimental to the drivers on lighter-fuel stints to pass the traffic in order to make their strategy effective. Depending on the track, some tracks where passing would be easier, stopping more might be advantegous, other tracks where overtaking is difficult, it would not. I'm not sure one can say this was more boring than the gimmicky racing we have now days. The Pirelli tyres are only what they are because they spice up the racing in light of the current situation of cars being fueled to the end.

Because the tyres are by far the weakest point of todays F1, you have the issues of underfueling and drivers moaning about them tip-toeing around the circuit not to break the tyres. If you take away the sensitive tyres and make them more robust, the racing will become more predictable, but also more boring in the sense that the quicker driver/car will pull away during the race.

I guess one could also ask the question, what the definition of boring is. Is it the amount of overtakes (although most of them happen in the DRS zone) or lack there of? Because I think the strategy of a race or two drivers battling but not able to pass to be equally exciting - just not in the mainstream sense.

I don't quite agree with the notion that everytime refueling is brought up, the link is made to the Ferrari/Schumacher dominance era. I think we've had quite a bit of exciting races after that (and before they banned it) and I'm sure we've had equally exciting races before that too (though not only because of refueling). I think it's important for the sport for it to be somewhat authentic / real racing and not make things too artificial. IMO - we've had some good races the past 3 seasons, a lot of it down to the tyres I admit - but there must be some boundary to how far you limit the racing down to the tyres.

[Pup]

Forcing the teams to use multiple compounds wasn't done to spice up the racing - it was done to make people pay attention to the tires. It's a marketing ploy and it's how they get a single provider to give them tires for free.

And while there may be a small bit of truth to the story that Pirelli makes shoddy tires because they were asked to; anyone who thinks that Pirelli would willingly put their best effort up against Michelin's in a fair fight would also eagerly buy several bridges that I have on offer.

And there really isn't much variation in tire strategy these days. Yes, if you know that you're going to be mid-pack stuck-in-traffic, you can get away with starting on the hard compound. But you've never seen a front runner start on hards and you never will. The reason is that on heavy fuel and 1st stint pace, the hards wear out just about as quickly as the softs. So not only would they sacrifice qualifying pace, but they'd also lose the starting advantage of the softs and the wear advantage of the hard tire later in the race.

[mx_tifoso]

Was there also not the expectation of showers in Malaysia?

Rain = lower fuel consumption = lower fuel levels.

Somewhere in here someone has already covered that possibility. Summed up; it meant that the race strategy was a gamble because they bet on rain, and it didn't end up raining so they lost out.