Fuel Level Cause Race Disrepute

[Lycoming]

It's not exactly a secret that the fastest way 'round a 300km race is to fuel the car such that it cannot run at max engine mode for the entire race. In this particular instance, it was exacerbated because they gambled on the rain being longer, and it didn't pay off. If some backmarker were to try what you suggest and brim the tank at the start of the race, they would probably be further behind. Even in this case, where a bit more fuel was clearly the way to go, it probably would not have given them a meaningful advantage. It certainly would not allow them to challenge the frontrunners.

[Gridlock]

Will the 2014 fuel flow rate regs impact this issue?

At first, surely all teams will be running at 100% fuel flow rate 100% of the time, ie carrying identical loads?

Put another way, if immediately some engines are able to overperform on this then the FIA has failed?

[Pup]

If the maximum allowed fuel rate will be lower than the maximum used now, which of course it will, then it can only help the situation. But the teams will still calculate the minimum fuel load required to get the job done, and the weight penalty for fuel is such that I think there will always be some fuel savings at the end of the races - just that as a percentage difference, it should be less.

[Tommy Cookers]

you can't be serious !!

at what fuel quantity would your team arrange to use all the fuel ??

80 kg ? ..... 50 kg ? ........ 25 kg ?

the FIA would like to know !

[Pup]

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you're misinterpreting my post or I'm misstating myself. When I say 'get the job done', I mean winning the race, not just getting the car around the track.

There's also the chance that I'm being an idiot, but haven't realized it. It's happened.

[Tommy Cookers]

under the current rules the engine power is strongly linked to the displacement and rpm permitted
(that's why they are limited, you wouldn't use less displacement or less rpm, just to save a little weight, would you ?)
and weakly linked to the (effectively unlimited) fuel quantity
because fuel increase beyond the stoichiometric ratio cannot be burned and will not increase power anywhere near proportionately
(saving weight by reducing this inefficient fuel use might be worthwhile in race performance eg on acceleration-rich tracks)

the whole point of the 2014 rules is that (for any given engine) power is strongly linked to fuel quantity (rate) alone
the air massflow is not limited, so will always be enough to use near-stoichiometric fuelling
that is enough air to burn all the fuel, and give power proportionate to fuel burn

any of the allowed fuel not used has a related amount of power that will not be developed
and the race time lost that way will surely be far greater than the race time gained by the (small) weight saving

[Pup]

I apologize, but I still don't follow. You seem to be making the same argument I am, but drawing a different conclusion. To me, we effectively have a rather loose fuel flow limit already - as you say, based on displacement and RPM - and next year we will have a regulated one which of course is necessary because of the turbos. OK - so in my mind, it's not a question of whether there is a limit, only what that limit will be. Therefore, assuming it's in some reasonable range, the teams should make their fuel load calculations just as they do now, and weight will play as much into the equation as before.

Are you saying that the efficiency of next year's engines is enough to outweigh the weight penalty for fuel? Forgive me if your argument seems obvious to you - I confess that I haven't been following the engine thread closely.

[1158]

Is fuel tank size limited for 2014?

I thought I read it was but now cannot seem to find it. I loath adding regulations but what if cars were weighed after they were fueled. Weight would have to be equal to dry weight plus weight of full tank. Then cars are weighed post race and can be no lighter than cars original dry weight. Teams would still have the option of under fueling but would then have to make up for that weight difference with ballast (which cannot be removed during the race but could be positioned in areas more favorable for CG).

I'm sure there are some unintended consequences of such a rule but I have been going through different potential outcomes and have not come up with one yet.

[Clew]

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.

"Just_a_fan" I think you're conveniently turning a blind eye to the fact we were robbed of an exciting conclusion to the race. The NR incident was the only other potential "scene" which could have made the race more exciting in those final laps. Please explain how you truly enjoyed the Mercs in tow at the end of the race. Even LH said NR should have been on the podium's 3rd step during post-race interview.

[FoxHound]

@ Clew

Hamilton could have gone quicker. If you can accept that we can move onto the next point.

That being the Mercedes cars would not have finished the race had they being "racing" toward the end of the GP. As it stands, Hamilton sits in 4th position in the WDC 6 points of 2nd, and Mercedes 4th, 3 points off second in the WCC.

Had they run out of fuel, Mercedes would be languishing down both pecking orders with one or even both drivers running out of fuel. Think of the implications for the team and driver had this happened?
In light of the situation, any sane team director would have made that call, especially given the tough 3 seasons preceding 2013.
So you may sit on your purist high horse and bemoan lack of racing, but this high horse would be left high and quite literally dry in Malaysia.

[raymondu999]

Is fuel tank size limited for 2014?

Fuel tank is not - fuel flow rate is, rendering the tank practically limited anyways.

Teams would still have the option of under fueling but would then have to make up for that weight difference with ballast

Which would, of course - eliminate the benefit of underfueling.

which cannot be removed during the race but could be positioned in areas more favorable for CG)

With only 7kg of leeway in static weight distribution - is there really much to be gained?

[racetodeath]

Reading in this forum is such eye candy, and I hope that I do learn more here. In my opinion so far is that the issue makes the sport more competitive and exciting. It makes the qualifying rounds more competitive and I think it makes the comparison of performance easier. I'd like to learn more from here.

[rkn]

Fuel tank is not - fuel flow rate is, rendering the tank practically limited anyways.

Will there be a limit of 100kg pr race as well?

[Clew]

@ Clew

Hamilton could have gone quicker. If you can accept that we can move onto the next point.

How can I accept something I did not see.....and asked to support all the "IFs" in the rest of your script?

Ross saying fuel level concerns caused race disrepute

[Cam]

@ Clew

Hamilton could have gone quicker. If you can accept that we can move onto the next point.

How can I accept something I did not see.....and asked to support all the "IFs" in the rest of your script?

Ross saying fuel level concerns caused race disrepute

@Clew - are you serious? No really, are you simply unsure of the reasons why the orders were given and what the 'possible' consequences were if they ignored them. I ask as it's being widely reported and discussed and I'm giving you the benefit of doubt.

Foxhound just gave you a perfect scenario whereby a 'run out of fuel' situation could of occurred. You don't have to 'see' it to understand that variables that can occur. This is why some teams play it safe. There is no 100% certainty in anything.

Also, I cannot locate a single article whereby Ross Brawn has stated publicly, as you mention "fuel level concerns caused race disrepute". Can you please show me a source.

Now what Ross Brawn did say is this:

"I had to make a decision from the pitwall about what we were going to do," he told Sky Sports F1. "Now, Niki or Toto [Wolff] might not agree with it, but I had all the facts and all the information. I had what I feel was all the information to make that decision and they didn't and I think they both recognised after the event that it was the correct decision.

"I am clear to make the decisions that I need to make and I am very happy to justify them and put my hands up if I have made the wrong decision. But somebody has to make those decisions. You can't have those decisions made by a group or a committee, there is no time and it's not effective. I won't get it right all the time but if I can get it right 70% or 80% of the time then I am doing pretty well."

Brawn said in an ideal world he would let his drivers race, but given the circumstances in Malaysia he had no choice but to employ team orders.

"I don't like having to take those decisions, but from a technical perspective we would have looked very foolish if we had run both cars out of fuel," he added. "I think what wasn't fully appreciated at the time is that we had a situation that had developed on both cars with fuel. We weren't comfortable with either car and I could just see a scenario with both drivers competing against each other in a strong way. It's difficult to marry the two - both conserving the fuel and having a full blown fight with your team-mate.

"I didn't like having to give the orders I gave in Malaysia, it is not in my sporting nature and the team have demonstrated many times in the past that we are very happy to let our drivers race each other. Over the past few years we have often done that."

It's pretty clear cut and dry Clew.

@Clew - there's been a lot of really great discussion in this thread which more than answers the questions you keep asking.