Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
danwilkie90

F1 2014 Fuel Saving, As Bad As It Sounds?

15 posts in this topic

So I keep hearing people worrying about the possible fuel saving in races next year and I've been thinking, will it really be as bad as people say?

So they will have to use 50kg less fuel during the race, but think about this:

1. They will have less drag, at least initially, which will use less fuel.

2. For 33 seconds every lap, 161 of the horsepower developed by the car will be generated by the KERS (ERS) and NOT the engine, add that up over the length of the race and that's a significant amount of strain/focus taken off of the engine/fuel.

3. It's a smaller capacity V6 Turbo which was presumably picked because it would use less fuel too.

4. No longer will teams be able to exploit exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect, so no more wasting extra fuel burning it and throwing it through the diffuser on every downshift/throttle application.

5. Tracks like Monaco will be no problem as the drivers rarely reach full throttle as it is, allowing the drivers to push the entire race without worrying about the fuel.

6. The tyres will not wear out like in recent years anymore, they will need to be much harder, much more conservative, so if there is any point in the race where a driver does need to turn the power down for a while (As they tend to do anyway), it would simply be the equivilent of a tyre degrading this year, it will be taken into account for the strategy, and even then, I imagine most fuel saving would be done after a driver has come out of the pits, while sitting in clear air, with no other drivers near enough to challenge them as the field briefly spreads out, so we won't see a train of cars one behind the other not pushing for the overtake.

In the 80's, cars ran out of fuel all the time, they must've done some level of fuel saving back then too.

Taking all this into account, I don't believe that there will be all that much fuel saving needed, certainly not as much as people are making out and certainly not in such a noticeable way that it reduces the spectacle on-track, the drivers will be able to push a lot harder than this year and may simply have to implement some of the lift-and-coast style techniques that they learned this year too, what do you think?

- Dan

Edited by danwilkie90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 80's, cars ran out of fuel all the time, they must've done some level of fuel saving back then too.

I always remember the race where Jean Alesi ignored the pit calls to save fuel/come into the pits in the 90s, then running out of fuel and sitting in the car for what seemed like ages - obviously not wanting to come back into the garage for fear of getting his buns toasted :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might get the odd car running out of fuel late in the race. Other than that I doubt most people will notice the difference.

I reckon Jean thought he could keep going on will power alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always remember the race where Jean Alesi ignored the pit calls to save fuel/come into the pits in the 90s, then running out of fuel and sitting in the car for what seemed like ages - obviously not wanting to come back into the garage for fear of getting his buns toasted :D

. Ahhh yes, remember that,Australia 1997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I keep hearing people worrying about the possible fuel saving in races next year and I've been thinking, will it really be as bad as people say?

So they will have to use 50kg less fuel during the race, but think about this:

1. They will have less drag, at least initially, which will use less fuel.

2. For 33 seconds every lap, 161 of the horsepower developed by the car will be generated by the KERS (ERS) and NOT the engine, add that up over the length of the race and that's a significant amount of strain/focus taken off of the engine/fuel.

3. It's a smaller capacity V6 Turbo which was presumably picked because it would use less fuel too.

4. No longer will teams be able to exploit exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect, so no more wasting extra fuel burning it and throwing it through the diffuser on every downshift/throttle application.

5. Tracks like Monaco will be no problem as the drivers rarely reach full throttle as it is, allowing the drivers to push the entire race without worrying about the fuel.

6. The tyres will not wear out like in recent years anymore, they will need to be much harder, much more conservative, so if there is any point in the race where a driver does need to turn the power down for a while (As they tend to do anyway), it would simply be the equivilent of a tyre degrading this year, it will be taken into account for the strategy, and even then, I imagine most fuel saving would be done after a driver has come out of the pits, while sitting in clear air, with no other drivers near enough to challenge them as the field briefly spreads out, so we won't see a train of cars one behind the other not pushing for the overtake.

In the 80's, cars ran out of fuel all the time, they must've done some level of fuel saving back then too.

Taking all this into account, I don't believe that there will be all that much fuel saving needed, certainly not as much as people are making out and certainly not in such a noticeable way that it reduces the spectacle on-track, the drivers will be able to push a lot harder than this year and may simply have to implement some of the lift-and-coast style techniques that they learned this year too, what do you think?

- Dan

Nice post !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that with next years regs an efficient engine is as good as power.

Edited by jackgarrett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always remember the race where Jean Alesi ignored the pit calls to save fuel/come into the pits in the 90s, then running out of fuel and sitting in the car for what seemed like ages - obviously not wanting to come back into the garage for fear of getting his buns toasted biggrin.png

I recall that one too, like WebRic. Would you want to go back to the pits after doing that? I sure wouldn't!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that one too, like WebRic. Would you want to go back to the pits after doing that? I sure wouldn't!!

Jean Alesi, incredible driver, such a shame he didnt have more luck. Very much like webber, in the sense had a opportunity with 2 good teams, picks the one he loves and only to see his other choice dominate the next few seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think it will be good for the racing, like the driver will have to save FUEL and he will also have to save those rubber bands called Pirelli, so all in all it should be a matter of win at the slowest speed.........How BORINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG................. Gotta be good for sleeping.

Edited by rodders47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so all in all it should be a matter of win at the slowest speed........

Just like the Professor, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haut don't know why they don't go back to the 97 style chassis and v10 engines with kers and drs. It's do able IMO with today's run offs and such. I really miss the wide chassis with the low rear wing and slicks. Looks like how an f1 car should

Ferrari_F1_1997_Schumacher_FC20156_F_Challenge_4-2011.jpg

Man IMO, that's a sexy car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because regulations are designed to meet certain safety, performance, and competition standards, not to be subjectively nice-to-look-at.

As for the V10s, make a list of the manufacturers interested in supplying one.

I know I'm biased, and I may as well admit that: I love this era of F1, and I love small engines. I watch the TV on a very, very, very low volume, and do not attend auto races of any kind, so I happen to like that they are quieter. There is the possibility that race attendance will be more accessible for some people (children, non-racing-fans) who were afraid of the noise. I know the diehard fans of anything like to think they are the only constituent out there, but it really is important for the long-term health of F1 to introduce new people to the sport. Sometimes, race-attendance is the best way to make someone a full-time follower, and making the races more pleasant to attend for people who aren't inherently interested in cars or racing isn't such a bad thing in that regard.

Still, I don't think it's worth worrying about the aesthetics of a car we haven't seen, or the sounds which we have heard. They are what they're going to be, and I'll take this competitive era of F1 and its deep, deep field, whatever the technical regulations may be. They're still the best in all of racing, for me, in terms of allowing for a little bit of clever trickery while also working to keep races competitive. It's a hard balance, and a lot of other series are far, far away from that.

So, then, comes the argument, "well, the racing won't be good!" Maybe. The entire concept, though, is to get the most through the least. That's efficient. Winning at the slowest possible speed is always the goal; some of the most honored drivers may not have always obeyed it, but it truly is the way to win. It always has been. It may be more noticeable now because the slowest possible speed to win is, indeed, getting slower, but the theory itself cannot be what causes you distress.

For me, I just want to see a sport in which top-running teams can see merits in two different strategies (numbers of pit stops, basically). Any race that features two leading cars on two different pit strategies is very fun to follow, in my opinion. We've had that caused by tires in F1 and I enjoy it a lot; keeping a model in which it is possible to win on two different numbers of stops is the most important thing to the competition, I believe.

I wonder if you guys would have liked, as I did, the IndyCar race from Mid-Ohio. Most of the top teams did a two-stop race, so they were running very slowly to save fuel. Charlie Kimball ran lights-out the whole race, which ran without a single safety car (that, too, is a sign of a GREAT race, for me), did three-stops, and made up all that time to win. He still won at the slowest possible speed to win, of course; it was just that everyone else went slower than the slowest possible speed to win. Very enjoyable race, and it would have been so had the two-stoppers won, too. Just the fact that there were two different strategies, allowed to play out without any messing-up from the safety car (a safety car would have saved fuel for the two-stoppers, who could have then run faster), made it fun for me.

Sometimes, I get the impression that that wouldn't be fun for anyone else, though. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I think I goofed there when I said "slowest possible speed" (an old Jack Brabham saying). What I meant is that everyone will be soooooo cautious of running out of fuel/ running out of rubber, that no one will be driving 10 tenths like they did years ago. A bit like the 3rd qualy session nowdays, like if you can't challenge for pole why go out or if you go out just run around the track and pull back into the pits before completing a full lap in order to save tyres.

THAT to me is not what the so called TOP FORMULA in the world motor racing is all about!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect that view; a lot of people enjoy different things from a race.

Still, while 10/10 driving may be inherently exciting (i.e. "how could going so fast ever be boring"), the races it will produce, in my opinion, rarely would be. If everyone runs qualifying laps for the duration of the race, mistakes aside, they all finish where they start. Then again, only running Saturday's hour would be a real cost-saver. ;)

I think it's a tough balance. You want to maintain strategy, performance, innovation/technology, and competition. Those four factors, in no order, all have appeal on some level to someone. Sometimes, they work together; other times, they are at odds. Take strategy and competition. Strategy can, and in my opinion does, make for a very competitive auto race with different leaders, on-track passes, and high-pressure to meet target times. On the other side, a lot of people can be alienated by strategy; they just want side-by-side, hard racing and find waiting for pit cycles to be boring. Innovation and competition can work the same way: you need some to have a competitive race, as identical cars never race well, given that there are no strengths and weaknesses to balance out over the course of a lap/stint/race/season. Too much, though, and the top teams run away without any checks, leaving many fans feeling "bored." Strategy and performance: the Mid-Ohio IndyCar race I referenced was all about strategy, and the winning strategy was the one employed by the driver going all-out at 10/10 the whole race, not those who were conservative. In most races, though, a lot of fuel/tire saving occurs and the cars never hit full levels.

So, that has to be addressed, and I think we'd all have our own views. I'd go 1) strategy, 2) innovation/technology), 3) competition (as I feel it would flow naturally from 1 and 2 without much assistance from the sanctioning body) 4) performance. Yet I know many who go the exact reverse, and probably every other possible order...

...and that's just one constituent group, the fans. There's no consensus even within the group, and yet their will is somehow balanced with that of so, so many others.

It's not an easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate when they say its for the fans, I just want some real racing, I know when iam racing karts I don't go "better turn it up for who's watching" I couldn't give a flying f who is watching, iam just doing the best I can at the time to achieve the best possible result. If that means being patient and biding my time to make a move, so be it. F1 for me, needs to go back to its roots no matter the money situation, it is the pinnacle of Motorsport. Next they'll print coupons in the pitlane notes for the smaller teams to get discounts. I mean come on.

Edited by WebRic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0