No Refueling Rule : Guesstimating The Typical Fuel Loads

[aussief1 4]

Interesting thread.

Yep. The splashing is no more an issue than it is now. Fuel tanks are designed to take care of that. A different issue will be weight distribution, as the car will have to be designed to adjust to significant change in overall mass through out the race.

I would say that, perhaps of most relevance, different engines will have different consumption rates. One can imagine all teams are working on super-efficient engines but whoever does it best will be able to carry less fuel and, thus, a lighter car from the get-go.

There are other questions too. For instance, what does the norefuling thingy mean for the quali? Also, norefueling implies pitstops are banned too? If not, using up softer tires might become a factor, iow, we might have as many pitstops are we do now.

Drivers will also have to adapt to cars that change much more than they do now during a race. This will be a huge factor in some cases. Drivers tend to be finicky... ok, are the very definition of finicky.

And, then, there is FIA's script.

Yes the larger tanks (double the size they are in 2009 cars) will be a interesting challenge for the designers of the 2010 cars. I expect a slightly longer wheelbase and teams trying to keep majority of the mass as low as possible. But it sure will be interesting.

I think the engine freeze prevents engine changes to improve fuel comsumption so I'm guessing whoever has the best fuel comsuption figures will have a big advantage along with Cosworth who are designing their engine with the knowledge of the new rules.

Qualy will be done on empty tanks once again in 2010, so no need to carry race fuel loads in Q3.

Yes for sure the car will be a comstant evolving throughout the GP.

My Dad pointed out, while I was complaining on my local radio show that no refuelling will make races like Monaco & Valencia very boring, that cars will still have to change tyres! Fair nuff but i've never seen a tyre changing calamity! Has anyone else??

As Craig pointed out plenty of mistakes. But now with no refueling, fueling being the slowest of the servicing done in a normal pit stop the pressure will now be firmly placed on the guys with the rattle guns and tyres in hand. When this is the case besure to have mistakes. you have 3 men per wheel so the chance of a mistake by 12 people in the rush to have the car released from the box as fast as possible.

Yep, I am guessing it would be something like that. It will be interesting to see if anybody runs out of fuel at the start of the season! And yes 210L seems about right for Spa, but for Monaco, for example, the fuel is more like 1.59kg per lap, 124kg of fuel in total or 170L.

It would be interesting. I presume they start collecting the data in pre-season testing and then are able to analyse it, apply it to different circuits and set ups and then refine it during the season.

I think its a good chance of having cars out of fuel in 2010. Or at least conserving fuel in the latter stages of the GP like Felipe had to do this year in the Spanish GP I think it was. Much like MotoGP them guys are on fumes come the end of a GP often not having enough to return to the pitlane after the race!!

[Dawn 0]

Tyre strategies also pretty much the same for every race?

Full tank, heavy car -Hard tyres

Light car - soft

[Kopite Girl 0]

The last tyre calamity I remember was at Indy. Michelingate. But as for changing tyres, there has been a few incidents. I'm struggling to remember at the moment, but I will.

But looking at the topic title (sorry Jay) threw me a bit. No refuelling rule. Whats the point in guestimating fuel loads or am I missing something?

[LabradoRacer 2]

But looking at the topic title (sorry Jay) threw me a bit. No refuelling rule. Whats the point in guestimating fuel loads or am I missing something?

Simple, plain curiousity. That's all. Plus, yes, carrying 3 times the fuel does make it a hazard (or so I think).

Anyway, there's no point in anything in the universe.

[Persevere 0]

Simple, plain curiousity. That's all. Plus, yes, carrying 3 times the fuel does make it a hazard (or so I think).

Anyway, there's no point in anything in the universe.

...and no re-fueling is allowed.

[aussief1 4]

Simple, plain curiousity. That's all. Plus, yes, carrying 3 times the fuel does make it a hazard (or so I think).

Anyway, there's no point in anything in the universe.

No hazard at all. The fuel tanks are made of bullet proof Kevlar, the whole tank is crushable and will still not break. There is no hazard from having extra fuel onboard at all.

[AleHop 0]

Bridgestone is probably still working on the new compounds for 2010. I expect they'll provide two compounds out of 5 for every race but next year cars will be much heavier for 2/3 of the race and team warmers won't be allowed.

What would/should you/Bridgestone do?

[HandyNZL 1]

Bridgestone is probably still working on the new compounds for 2010. I expect they'll provide two compounds out of 5 for every race but next year cars will be much heavier for 2/3 of the race and team warmers won't be allowed.

What would/should you/Bridgestone do?

Abandon F1

[AleHop 0]

Abandon F1

That could be a very good reason for sure.

[aussief1 4]

Bridgestone is probably still working on the new compounds for 2010. I expect they'll provide two compounds out of 5 for every race but next year cars will be much heavier for 2/3 of the race and team warmers won't be allowed.

What would/should you/Bridgestone do?

Bridgestone did test some of the compounds that they are intending to use during the young driver tests. No doubt armed with this test, further changes will be made to both tyre construction and compounds for 2010.

It's a fine balance given the extra weight and therefore the need to have a harder compound and not being allowed tyre warmers to get that hard compound up to somewhere close to operating temp. You want hard compounds because they have to be durable with the added weight then you want a compound that will reach operating temp as soon as possible to give the grip.

I would like to see a bigger difference between the option and prime tyres in 2010. Giving teams the strategic choice of when to use each tyre, and in the process should give us some better racing.

[maure 1]

The last tyre calamity I remember was at Indy. Michelingate. But as for changing tyres, there has been a few incidents. I'm struggling to remember at the moment, but I will.

Strange. Wrongly screwed in tires are common. I remember laughing a couple of times at Alonso losing a tire right out of pit line, for instance, bolt flying about, etc.

[maure 1]

No hazard at all. The fuel tanks are made of bullet proof Kevlar, the whole tank is crushable and will still not break. There is no hazard from having extra fuel onboard at all.

All true. However, hazards still (and always) exist. The only thing is that there is simply more fuel to burn. So, in a way, it will be more dangerous... but not because the tank is larger per se.

Bridgestone is probably still working on the new compounds for 2010. I expect they'll provide two compounds out of 5 for every race but next year cars will be much heavier for 2/3 of the race and team warmers won't be allowed.

What would/should you/Bridgestone do?

Yep. It's all bullsht.

What FIA should do is to get rid off the monopoly over tires in F1 and allow other companies back in. In other fcking words, let the fcking competition be a fcking competition.

[aussief1 4]

All true. However, hazards still (and always) exist. The only thing is that there is simply more fuel to burn. So, in a way, it will be more dangerous... but not because the tank is larger per se.

100% Correct.

In the 15 years I have watched and loved F1 I'm yet to see a fuel tank pierced. Lets hope the record stays that way and I never see it happen.

Yep. It's all bullsht.

What FIA should do is to get rid off the monopoly over tires in F1 and allow other companies back in. In other fcking words, let the fcking competition be a fcking competition.

I do agree with you Maure. But given the current economic climate can you see any tyre company willing to a start a trye war?? I can't. So for the time being one tyre supplier is going to have to suffice. In time I welcome back multiple tyre suppliers to add that extra element of competition to the sport.

[Insider 0]

I calculate it to be................................................... full.

The fuel doesn't splash around or move much....it is in bladders with a baffle membrane which prevents that sort of thing.

Absolutely correct. Fuel shift was factored in back in the day but the effect nowadays is infinitesimal.

[yurp 0]

100% Correct.

In the 15 years I have watched and loved F1 I'm yet to see a fuel tank pierced. Let's hope the record stays that way and I never see it happen.

Exactly - in fact one could say it will be safer for the drivers since refuelling mishaps caused more singed eyebrows than anything else (we all remember those over the last couple of seasons eh Ferrari fans)

On the other hand, I still think the ban is pointless - slowing them down in a sport that's supposed to be about going fast is just plain silly.

It's another rule change for the sake of changing the rules.

[maure 1]

I do agree with you Maure. But given the current economic climate can you see any tyre company willing to a start a trye war?? I can't. So for the time being one tyre supplier is going to have to suffice. In time I welcome back multiple tyre suppliers to add that extra element of competition to the sport.

Not war. Competition...

... and competition between tire manufacturers implies it all, from better tires to better prices. It seems counter-intuitive only if one has a "left-wing" politics mindset. However, in times of crisis, the best and truly only solution is open competition, lower taxes (in this case, FIA's take), etc, etc.

Of course, regulations are a determent to competition and make it expensive. That's the reason why costs in F1 have gone up and up over the years... champagne and stage btches aside.

[aussief1 4]

Not war. Competition...

... and competition between tire manufacturers implies it all, from better tires to better prices. It seems counter-intuitive only if one has a "left-wing" politics mindset. However, in times of crisis, the best and truly only solution is open competition, lower taxes (in this case, FIA's take), etc, etc.

Of course, regulations are a determent to competition and make it expensive. That's the reason why costs in F1 have gone up and up over the years... champagne and stage btches aside.

Once again I agree. But I'm just looking at it purely from the point of view a tyre making boardroom would take, if posed with the opportunity to compete with another player in the market on the world stage. The current situation with two compounds would have to be scrapped. The FIA are not too interested in this because they control the tyres at present and not the tyre suppliers. With competition it once again becomes open competition and speeds will once again increase. A good question to Michelin would be, given the opportunity to compete in F1 ah la like the good old days between themselves and Bridgestone, would they??? Given their reasons for leaving you would maybe think they would but the corporate world is a different place now, than it was then.

[AleHop 0]

Strange. Wrongly screwed in tires are common. I remember laughing a couple of times at Alonso losing a tire right out of pit line, for instance, bolt flying about, etc.

Yes. Alonso have had a few issues during tyre changing. I remember Hungary 2006, China 2006, Valencia 2009 and a tyre warmer wraped around a wheel in 2007 but I don't remember whether it was during the race or maybe Q3.

[maure 1]

Once again I agree. But I'm just looking at it purely from the point of view a tyre making boardroom would take, if posed with the opportunity to compete with another player in the market on the world stage. The current situation with two compounds would have to be scrapped. The FIA are not too interested in this because they control the tyres at present and not the tyre suppliers. With competition it once again becomes open competition and speeds will once again increase. A good question to Michelin would be, given the opportunity to compete in F1 ah la like the good old days between themselves and Bridgestone, would they??? Given their reasons for leaving you would maybe think they would but the corporate world is a different place now, than it was then.

You've got a point, of course. FIA is the choke point and its own worst enemy here. Corporations (or any company for that matter, big or small) want to keep on ticking and for that to happen they need to continue doing business. So let them. If F1 is not a sound business opportunity, the fault is not in corporations but on the management of F1, that is, FIA. And it is FIA the one that has created an economic "microcosm" in F1 that is inhospitable to business.

Economics 101. Michelin (and others) score a loss against Bridgestone because they are not present in F1.

F1 has great advertisement potential which, in turn, makes it a phenomenal business opportunity on this account alone. Even if this is ignored, hundreds of millions of dollars are still exchanging hands for development, products, services, etc... or is there anyone left here that thinks that money is not being made in F1 despite it all? The key is that less money is being made by fewer due to incompetence and greed.

And so, regulations accrete causing the "sport" to spasm, jerk, and lock like a terminal patient. It will change when it gets bad enough or it will die.

[maure 1]

Yes. Alonso have had a few issues during tyre changing. I remember Hungary 2006, China 2006, Valencia 2009 and a tyre warmer wraped around a wheel in 2007 but I don't remember whether it was during the race or maybe Q3.

You bet. Only on account of the mechanics of it, changing tires is more complex than refueling and more prone to error.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Interesting thread.

Yep. The splashing is no more an issue than it is now. Fuel tanks are designed to take care of that. A different issue will be weight distribution, as the car will have to be designed to adjust to significant change in overall mass through out the race.

I would say that, perhaps of most relevance, different engines will have different consumption rates. One can imagine all teams are working on super-efficient engines but whoever does it best will be able to carry less fuel and, thus, a lighter car from the get-go.

There are other questions too. For instance, what does the norefuling thingy mean for the quali? Also, norefueling implies pitstops are banned too? If not, using up softer tires might become a factor, iow, we might have as many pitstops are we do now.

Drivers will also have to adapt to cars that change much more than they do now during a race. This will be a huge factor in some cases. Drivers tend to be finicky... ok, are the very definition of finicky.

And, then, there is FIA's script.

Brilliant post. In fact, everything you've put into this thread has been damned good and I agree with it all.

I think the engine freeze prevents engine changes to improve fuel comsumption so I'm guessing whoever has the best fuel comsuption figures will have a big advantage along with Cosworth who are designing their engine with the knowledge of the new rules.

True to an extent. There are no major changes allowed to the lumps, but a small thing like, for example, a more effective lubricant will improve fuel efficiency. Get enough of those small items in your favor and you can have cars with drastically different fuel mileages and still conform to the idiotic engine rules. Also consider the effect that more efficient downforce settings have; less drag will help the figures. Lastly, there's the driver's foot.

[yurp 0]

Regards fuel loads in qualli - it'll be far less interesting - I believe I posted this a few months back when they decided on no refuelling...

We all know that they'll have full tanks at race start, so making them do qualli on race fuel would be pointless (though FIA may still chose to do so).

Why? Because they'll all be full - there won't be anyone going on lower fuel for first race stint in order to get pole in qualli. They can't. They'll be way less strategy in general, both in qualli and the race.

The alternative is to go back to quallifying on fumes (equally possible, and equally devoid of stratgical thinking).

Either way, pole to finish wins are more likely, since qually will be completely levelled in terms of what fuel they're carrying (i.e. lot's or none).

EDIT - Yet another reason refuelling ban will end up making more boring races.

As I keep saying - it'll be fun for the first half of the season while everyone adjusts and c#cks up a few times, after that, it'll be boring again.

Rule change for the sake of it.

[riseofstars 0]

Regards fuel loads in qualli - it'll be far less interesting - I believe I posted this a few months back when they decided on no refuelling...

We all know that they'll have full tanks at race start, so making them do qualli on race fuel would be pointless (though FIA may still chose to do so).

Why? Because they'll all be full - there won't be anyone going on lower fuel for first race stint in order to get pole in qualli. They can't. They'll be way less strategy in general, both in qualli and the race.

The alternative is to go back to quallifying on fumes (equally possible, and equally devoid of stratgical thinking).

Either way, pole to finish wins are more likely, since qually will be completely levelled in terms of what fuel they're carrying (i.e. lot's or none).

EDIT - Yet another reason refuelling ban will end up making more boring races.

As I keep saying - it'll be fun for the first half of the season while everyone adjusts and c#cks up a few times, after that, it'll be boring again.

Rule change for the sake of it.

They will qualifying on fumes. The fastest car will be on the pole.

[yurp 0]

They will qualifying on fumes. The fastest car will be on the pole.

I agree this is the most likely. Fumes is better than full tanks I suppose.

Neither choice is particularly exciting though as I explained above.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Bah. Without the threat of not racing, qualifying is a pointless. The whole idea, for our younger forum members, is to qualify for the race. Fail to qualify, fail to race.

What we have now is simply a mechanism for determining starting order. Who the hell cares what shape that mechanism takes? Heavy fuel loads, light fuel loads, one lap, three seesions, it's all bunk. Draw pieces of paper with your grid position on it from a hat for all I care.

Qualifying is a humbug.