planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 477
This is something which keeps going around in my head and thought someone should discuss it

In this video Scarbs and Pirelli Head of Motorsport are talking about tyres and how they would like drivers to push more rather than conserve the tyres and fuel for the race. Then at 6:28 Scarbs mentions a suggestion he had read on twitter where if the teams have to start with the full allocation of fuel they would have to use it and therefore push

On the face of it seems like an interesting idea. What do you think?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... 6kHdz1_gug

[youtube]https://youtu.be/16kHdz1_gug[/youtube]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Indeed and that's why the tyres have been made more durable this year so the drivers can push harder rather than babysitting the tyres.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Indeed and that's why the tyres gave been made more durable this year so the drivers can push harder rather than babysitting the tyres.

I do hope so, but some of the reports I've seen from testing with some excessive sounding drop off have me a little worried that's not going to be the case. I hope I'm wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
What do you want from "pushing"? Teams start with the fuel load that they think is fastest, so forcing them to start with a higher fuel load than they think is optimal will mean that the driver may be able to run more throttle, take the car to its limit more - but that limit will be slower than if they had underfueled it.

Yes it's frustrating when you see a leader unable to push the throttle with 10 laps to go with someone hunting him down, but had he started with 10kg more fuel he probably wouldn't have ever been the race leader.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6697
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Thinking back to races like Singapore last year; where the pace was so unbelievably slow for the first 15 laps on the hyper soft tires that a GP2 car could have kept up; I think you're right. Making the series fuel-limited would mean making far more durable tires for the drivers to use. I don't think it's a bad idea though. Mandating a full fuel load and making better tires might be a successful big-picture approach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Indeed and that's why the tyres gave been made more durable this year so the drivers can push harder rather than babysitting the tyres.

I do hope so, but some of the reports I've seen from testing with some excessive sounding drop off have me a little worried that's not going to be the case. I hope I'm wrong

Barcelona I believe is quite an abrasive track?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:33 pm 
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Thinking back to races like Singapore last year; where the pace was so unbelievably slow for the first 15 laps on the hyper soft tires that a GP2 car could have kept up; I think you're right. Making the series fuel-limited would mean making far more durable tires for the drivers to use. I don't think it's a bad idea though. Mandating a full fuel load and making better tires might be a successful big-picture approach.

However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2401
Wouldn't they push hard at the start to burn off the fuel and then once they'd got just barely enough to make it to the end of the race they'd start coasting again.

Best idea would be a mandatory fuel refill about 2/3rds of the way through the race!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 174
They wouldn't have to push hard to burn off the excess fuel. They would have a fuel wasting fuel strategy in the ECU. Anytime the driver is requesting less than full power the consumption is below the 110#/hr limit therefore there is an opportunity to waste fuel. They wold keep fueling the engine on overrun, bias from MGU-H to ICE, overfuel the ICE at partial throttle.

The potential to be as light and therefore fast as possible overall is too great.


Last edited by ETM3 on Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
ETM3 wrote:
They wouldn't have to push hard to burn off the excess fuel. They would have a fuel wasting fuel strategy in the ECU. Anytime the driver is requesting less than full power the consumption is below the 110#/hr limit and there are opportunities to waste fuel. Keep fueling the engine on overrun, bias from MGU-H to ICE, overfuel the ICE at partial throttle.

The potential to be as light and therefore fast as possible overall is too great.

:thumbup:

Yep. This idea wouldn't make teams push, it would just make them come up with inventive ways to waste fuel. Remember the 'fuel burn' phase of race fuel qualifying? :uhoh:

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9670
I'm sure they would introduce a fuel map that burns fuel in a excessive manner which, frankly, isn't the way we should be going forward in these times.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2114
Location: Miami, Florida
dompclarke wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Thinking back to races like Singapore last year; where the pace was so unbelievably slow for the first 15 laps on the hyper soft tires that a GP2 car could have kept up; I think you're right. Making the series fuel-limited would mean making far more durable tires for the drivers to use. I don't think it's a bad idea though. Mandating a full fuel load and making better tires might be a successful big-picture approach.

However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...

That’s totally NOT how Red Bull won their championships. They had the Renault which was highly competitive and on par with their Ferrari and Mercedes, but the secret to their success was the first, the double diffuser and then the exhaust blown diffuser, they simply had a better aero package that while not as fast on the top end, we’re geared perfectly and could go through the t with technical bits a bit faster than the competition. While other had to taper off and carry some speed through corners, the Red Bulls could power through them and exit at a higher rate of speed. That negated their top end speed disadvantage.l, and later their cars were called into question when a Mark Webber’s car was caught making a distinct sound l, that seemed an awful great deal like traction control.

During their run of dominance, they still needed to have a certain amount of fuel after the race for FIA scrutineering, and they filled the tank with a hair over the exact amount needed just to play it safe.

That’s where the refueling era forced drivers to push! Those on heavier rule loads had to push to the limit to stay with those on lighter fuel loads and those with lighter fuel loads has to push hard to have the gap to maintain their position or leapfrog others when pitting.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1094
They need to reduce the time it takes to pit. It’s 23-26 seconds at some tracks. This can be achieved by increasing pit lane speed limit, reducing pit lane length and designing / redesigning some tracks so the pit entry cuts out the last corner(s). If pitting was down to 15-18 seconds I think we would get a lot more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
Johnson wrote:
They need to reduce the time it takes to pit. It’s 23-26 seconds at some tracks. This can be achieved by increasing pit lane speed limit, reducing pit lane length and designing / redesigning some tracks so the pit entry cuts out the last corner(s). If pitting was down to 15-18 seconds I think we would get a lot more.


Why do they need to do that if you don't mind me asking?

And the pit limit is there for safety reasons


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Siao7 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
They need to reduce the time it takes to pit. It’s 23-26 seconds at some tracks. This can be achieved by increasing pit lane speed limit, reducing pit lane length and designing / redesigning some tracks so the pit entry cuts out the last corner(s). If pitting was down to 15-18 seconds I think we would get a lot more.

Why do they need to do that if you don't mind me asking?

And the pit limit is there for safety reasons

I assume Johnson's idea is that with a shorter pit lane loss, teams would have less incentive to save tyres.

Not that I think it would work, mind you. But I think that's what the poster is saying.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6697
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Thinking back to races like Singapore last year; where the pace was so unbelievably slow for the first 15 laps on the hyper soft tires that a GP2 car could have kept up; I think you're right. Making the series fuel-limited would mean making far more durable tires for the drivers to use. I don't think it's a bad idea though. Mandating a full fuel load and making better tires might be a successful big-picture approach.

However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...

That’s totally NOT how Red Bull won their championships. They had the Renault which was highly competitive and on par with their Ferrari and Mercedes, but the secret to their success was the first, the double diffuser and then the exhaust blown diffuser, they simply had a better aero package that while not as fast on the top end, we’re geared perfectly and could go through the t with technical bits a bit faster than the competition. While other had to taper off and carry some speed through corners, the Red Bulls could power through them and exit at a higher rate of speed. That negated their top end speed disadvantage.l, and later their cars were called into question when a Mark Webber’s car was caught making a distinct sound l, that seemed an awful great deal like traction control.

During their run of dominance, they still needed to have a certain amount of fuel after the race for FIA scrutineering, and they filled the tank with a hair over the exact amount needed just to play it safe.

That’s where the refueling era forced drivers to push! Those on heavier rule loads had to push to the limit to stay with those on lighter fuel loads and those with lighter fuel loads has to push hard to have the gap to maintain their position or leapfrog others when pitting.

This is spot on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I suspect the tyres have a greater influence on conservation than the fuel load, tbh.

Thinking back to races like Singapore last year; where the pace was so unbelievably slow for the first 15 laps on the hyper soft tires that a GP2 car could have kept up; I think you're right. Making the series fuel-limited would mean making far more durable tires for the drivers to use. I don't think it's a bad idea though. Mandating a full fuel load and making better tires might be a successful big-picture approach.

However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...

That’s totally NOT how Red Bull won their championships. They had the Renault which was highly competitive and on par with their Ferrari and Mercedes, but the secret to their success was the first, the double diffuser and then the exhaust blown diffuser, they simply had a better aero package that while not as fast on the top end, we’re geared perfectly and could go through the t with technical bits a bit faster than the competition. While other had to taper off and carry some speed through corners, the Red Bulls could power through them and exit at a higher rate of speed. That negated their top end speed disadvantage.l, and later their cars were called into question when a Mark Webber’s car was caught making a distinct sound l, that seemed an awful great deal like traction control.

During their run of dominance, they still needed to have a certain amount of fuel after the race for FIA scrutineering, and they filled the tank with a hair over the exact amount needed just to play it safe.

That’s where the refueling era forced drivers to push! Those on heavier rule loads had to push to the limit to stay with those on lighter fuel loads and those with lighter fuel loads has to push hard to have the gap to maintain their position or leapfrog others when pitting.

This is spot on.

Agreed, good post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...

That’s totally NOT how Red Bull won their championships. They had the Renault which was highly competitive and on par with their Ferrari and Mercedes, but the secret to their success was the first, the double diffuser and then the exhaust blown diffuser, they simply had a better aero package that while not as fast on the top end, we’re geared perfectly and could go through the t with technical bits a bit faster than the competition. While other had to taper off and carry some speed through corners, the Red Bulls could power through them and exit at a higher rate of speed. That negated their top end speed disadvantage.l, and later their cars were called into question when a Mark Webber’s car was caught making a distinct sound l, that seemed an awful great deal like traction control.

During their run of dominance, they still needed to have a certain amount of fuel after the race for FIA scrutineering, and they filled the tank with a hair over the exact amount needed just to play it safe.

That’s where the refueling era forced drivers to push! Those on heavier rule loads had to push to the limit to stay with those on lighter fuel loads and those with lighter fuel loads has to push hard to have the gap to maintain their position or leapfrog others when pitting.

This is spot on.

Agreed, good post

It does miss a big part of the picture though, that dompclarke alluded to. The Renault engine was substantially more fuel efficient than the Mercedes. The Mercedes had more outright power - although it was not a game changing amount, and has been overshadowed by the dominance in power Merc had at the start of the V6 generation - but it was far thirstier than the Renault. Even during 2011 and 2013, Vettel's qualifying laps were seldom significantly beyond those of Hamilton's. While this could be put down to Hamilton being better at qualifying than Vettel, or Vettel having time in hand, it was still nowhere near the time advantage Vettel had at the start of races.

The advantage Renault V8 got from fuel efficiency was a bigger power of balance shift than the marginal horsepower advantage of the Merc V8.

Vettel and Red Bull's entire formula for victory was built on building a gap at the start and then maintaining that gap at a safe margin. When he had a clean start, Vettel would always pull away with ease, even if Hamilton was the car directly behind. This was because he typically had 10% less fuel on board so was significantly lighter. This was the reason for Red Bull's massive pace advantage at the start of the races. Yes - they had to have the fastest car to be at the front, which meant they also had the best aero etc.. etc.. But that only got them to the front of the grid. The lighter fuel loads got Vettel his 5 second comfort zone in the first 2-3 laps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
However thinking back to the red bull championships the Renault engine was rumoured to have better drivability and economy even though being under powered, allowing then to run less fuel and use that advantage to build a lead. Dictating fuel loads will reduce variation in strategy which to me is part of F1.
All those complaining fuel saving isn't F1, it always had been. There's just more people vocal against it now...

That’s totally NOT how Red Bull won their championships. They had the Renault which was highly competitive and on par with their Ferrari and Mercedes, but the secret to their success was the first, the double diffuser and then the exhaust blown diffuser, they simply had a better aero package that while not as fast on the top end, we’re geared perfectly and could go through the t with technical bits a bit faster than the competition. While other had to taper off and carry some speed through corners, the Red Bulls could power through them and exit at a higher rate of speed. That negated their top end speed disadvantage.l, and later their cars were called into question when a Mark Webber’s car was caught making a distinct sound l, that seemed an awful great deal like traction control.

During their run of dominance, they still needed to have a certain amount of fuel after the race for FIA scrutineering, and they filled the tank with a hair over the exact amount needed just to play it safe.

That’s where the refueling era forced drivers to push! Those on heavier rule loads had to push to the limit to stay with those on lighter fuel loads and those with lighter fuel loads has to push hard to have the gap to maintain their position or leapfrog others when pitting.

This is spot on.

Agreed, good post

It does miss a big part of the picture though, that dompclarke alluded to. The Renault engine was substantially more fuel efficient than the Mercedes. The Mercedes had more outright power - although it was not a game changing amount, and has been overshadowed by the dominance in power Merc had at the start of the V6 generation - but it was far thirstier than the Renault. Even during 2011 and 2013, Vettel's qualifying laps were seldom significantly beyond those of Hamilton's. While this could be put down to Hamilton being better at qualifying than Vettel, or Vettel having time in hand, it was still nowhere near the time advantage Vettel had at the start of races.

The advantage Renault V8 got from fuel efficiency was a bigger power of balance shift than the marginal horsepower advantage of the Merc V8.

Vettel and Red Bull's entire formula for victory was built on building a gap at the start and then maintaining that gap at a safe margin. When he had a clean start, Vettel would always pull away with ease, even if Hamilton was the car directly behind. This was because he typically had 10% less fuel on board so was significantly lighter. This was the reason for Red Bull's massive pace advantage at the start of the races. Yes - they had to have the fastest car to be at the front, which meant they also had the best aero etc.. etc.. But that only got them to the front of the grid. The lighter fuel loads got Vettel his 5 second comfort zone in the first 2-3 laps.


The Renault had a better mapping from memory, allowing them to better exploit the engine cold blowing. To the point that people thought they had traction control. The combination of fuel economy, cold blowing and engine mapping gave RB the advantage. I think I read somewhere that in 2010 the difference in power was something like 30-35hp, which was indeed still a bit of a deficit, even after the changes they were allowed to do back then, all in the name of engine parity.

But it was also the 2009 aero rules that allowed them to transform this sub par car-engine combo to a formidable contender from 2009. Then in 2010 they nailed it. The whole package worked to a T.

Anyway, yes, that part of the post was correct, but not the only reason they won. It was a combination of things


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Google [Bot], sandman1347 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group