Fuel Flow Limit

[FW17]

Why is new FOM still insisting on fuel flow limit at 100kg/hr? This has cost F1 a decent show and an unbelievable amount of resources to Honda and Renault. I think it is time that the limits are removed and replaced by a power cap on ICE and ERS.

The current engine formula is fine but the changes are needed to get the 4 manufacturers closer together with a power parity while penalizing the additional flow rate with additional engine weight.

In case if Honda it could mean 110kg/hr flow with a weight penalty of 25kgs either coming in form of additional fuel allocation or dead weight to car.

[hurril]

What would that buy anyone? Why equalise the engines and not the aerodynamics also with the same fairness argument? Why not forbid a couple of driving methods while we're at it to really stop one team from being better than any other?

Someone that wants a completely equal playing field is probably better off watching something like Formula Renault or somewhere where there's just the one car.

Also: I don't understand what it is that you think it buys to up the flow rate to 110kg/h and load the car with 25kg of dead weight. Why?

[ronanharris09]

Why is new FOM still insisting on fuel flow limit at 100kg/hr? This has cost F1 a decent show and an unbelievable amount of resources to Honda and Renault. I think it is time that the limits are removed and replaced by a power cap on ICE and ERS.

Fuel flow limits will make em struggle with efficiency which Merc and Fer has done very well.

[rekoildale]

I believe they have lifted it slightly this year with the bigger tyres downforce etc.
I agree in part but i still think lift all testing bans and have the front runners throw everthing at it, whatever they can afford then we would see some racing!!!

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

[FW17]

I don't see the sport has to become more expensive than it is, bring back open testing is just going to increase the cost.

Also: I don't understand what it is that you think it buys to up the flow rate to 110kg/h and load the car with 25kg of dead weight. Why?

Merc and Ferrari have done a wonderful job on the engine, why take away their advantage? All I am suggesting is bring the power gap closer between the engines 40 HP in case of Renault and 100 in case if Honda, while finalizing them to a lesser extent with, partly dead weight and partly higher fuel starting load.

Why by doing this it becomes Formula Renault? Do you think that a budget of 2 million and budget of 300-400 million are same?

When car manufacturers are putting out so much so much money and resources on a show business which has no road relevance, it is the responsibility of FOM to protect the brand image of the manufacturers.

[hurril]

I don't see the sport has to become more expensive than it is, bring back open testing is just going to increase the cost.

Also: I don't understand what it is that you think it buys to up the flow rate to 110kg/h and load the car with 25kg of dead weight. Why?

Merc and Ferrari have done a wonderful job on the engine, why take away their advantage? All I am suggesting is bring the power gap closer between the engines 40 HP in case of Renault and 100 in case if Honda, while finalizing them to a lesser extent with, partly dead weight and partly higher fuel starting load.

Why by doing this it becomes Formula Renault? Do you think that a budget of 2 million and budget of 300-400 million are same?

When car manufacturers are putting out so much so much money and resources on a show business which has no road relevance, it is the responsibility of FOM to protect the brand image of the manufacturers.

So you add 110kg/h with your left hand, thereby creating the possibility for Honda to to take away Mercedes' and Ferrari's advantage. Then, with your right hand, you take it away again. Then what is the point? If you want lessen their advantage just a little bit, then why not weigh down M and F or go with 105?

No point in bringing budget into this. The point is that you want to even the playing field and my reply to that is: if you want consume a sport with a 100% even playing field - then perhaps Formula Renault is for you and not Formula 1. Fact is, there is more than one competition going on in any given F1 season: there's the manufacturer's, the driver's and the team's respective fights. You want to neuter one of those fights so I offered an alternative where that is already the case.

It is not the FOM's responsibility to protect manufacturers - that is their own. Ending up last because you are not as good as the others are, is not unfair provided they all play by the same rules. Which they are (bar possible cheats and, shall we say, creative interpretations that are sorta/kinda admitted in.)

Creating exceptions the way you want to (with different fuel flow rates and minimum weights) is completely unfair in the first place and creates grounds for make believe bad performance. There has been cases, at least accusations, of this sort of thing in the WEC.

[ronanharris09]

Or, maybe turn the fuel flow rate up a little to 135-150/h, but allow then to refueling. . .

[zac510]

A fuel flow limit, an air flow restrictor and a horsepower limit are all the same thing in my opinion.

[hurril]

A fuel flow limit, an air flow restrictor and a horsepower limit are all the same thing in my opinion.

Then your opinion is also that all the engines have the same power at this point.

[zac510]

A fuel flow limit, an air flow restrictor and a horsepower limit are all the same thing in my opinion.

Then your opinion is also that all the engines have the same power at this point.

Not at all! How do you come to that conclusion? My point really is that, in regulatory terms, these 3 things, or specifically a horsepower limit and fuel flow limit as FW17 referred to, are just variations of regulation that achieve the same thing and don't preclude the manufacturer from doing a bad job (but you described this so well in your own post).

In any case FW17's idea for increasing the limit for Honda is a short-term knee-jerk goal. If the FIA increase the limit, then Honda make a genuine improvement, then you have to adjust the limit again. They really should pursue longer term goals than one that's only good for a couple of races.

[hurril]

A fuel flow limit, an air flow restrictor and a horsepower limit are all the same thing in my opinion.

Then your opinion is also that all the engines have the same power at this point.

Not at all! How do you come to that conclusion? My point really is that, in regulatory terms, these 3 things, or specifically a horsepower limit and fuel flow limit as FW17 referred to, are just variations of regulation that achieve the same thing and don't preclude the manufacturer from doing a bad job (but you described this so well in your own post).

In any case FW17's idea for increasing the limit for Honda is a short-term knee-jerk goal. If the FIA increase the limit, then Honda make a genuine improvement, then you have to adjust the limit again. They really should pursue longer term goals than one that's only good for a couple of races.

But they don't achieve the same thing just because they are all similar in one sense, that wold bea conflation of antecedent(s) with their consequent. Limiting the power to a given level would mean that they all have the same power, limiting the air flow would mean that they all have _almost_ the same power, limiting the fuel flow means that the power levels can different quite a lot - how much comes down to development of the respective engines. So you see, they are not the same thing; saying that the are has the implication that the power would also be the same.

[zac510]

Right I think I know what you mean. When you say applying a power limit, you are saying that it would be set to a level lower than the best engines can currently achieve, thus they would effectively become normalised to a single power level.
On the other hand, if the power limit was set to exactly what the most powerful engine has now, the hierarchy would not be changed and the engines would not have the same power level.

[FW17]

AOC Le Mans 24 hr allows for BOP

So why cant FOM?

Or should I watch Formula Renault again?

[ojlopez]

To me a fuel flow limit does not make sense. Fuel allocation should stay the same and if you want to burn it in two minutes or two hours, that is your decision. That way we would see higher revving engines and more noise I think.

[rscsr]

To me a fuel flow limit does not make sense. Fuel allocation should stay the same and if you want to burn it in two minutes or two hours, that is your decision. That way we would see higher revving engines and more noise I think.

I don't underestand how it can't make sense. In my opinion it is the only sensible limit an engine formula should have. Why would anyone limit the capacity on engines, when you would only use a bit more metal in the production of it?
Or why should there an air restrictor on an engine, when air is available in unlimited amounts?

Why would the engines be any higher revving when you get rid of the fuel flow limit? They would most likely even run at lower revs since they currently run at the lowest revs (where they get max fuel flow) and engines usually run more efficient the lower the revs.
And please don't forget this. The most time effective way around a track is to use as much energy as possible when you are the slowest. And because you are still energy limited (due to the 100kg fuel limit) you would see way way more lift & coast because it is always better to use all energy you get for that straight and then just lift off until you begin breaking.