Fuel flow restrictions

So , an idea just floated through my head .

It's suspected that the reds were using more fuel than allowed last year , and now we've got them struggling to keep up .
So , is restricting the flow actually a good idea ?

As I understand it , it is at least partially aimed at showing the sport to be "green" , and efficient in it's fuel use .
That would be more arguable if you ever heard them laud themselves for this fact , but you rarely hear about it .

It's also something that the teams work hard on anyway , as a matter of course , as nobody wants to carry more weight in fuel anyway , so better efficiency is always an aim .


So , as the idea wanders about my head , it occurs to me that with no fuel flow restrictions , but some kind of efficiency award for best placing in the "least amount of fuel used" category , it might point out the efficiency a little more poignantly in front of the public .

This all comes from the thought that Merc is ahead in both being fastest and in doing it most efficiently , and Ferrari was almost there last year , but it seems now , not so efficient , and lost down the list .

I sure some big brain could work out the math that could combine fuel use and placement , and perhaps it not just the front runners that would be able to vie for the award , which could maybe include just the air time/advertising , or actual points or money .


It's how my brain works behind the mask .
You cats think there any merit at all to the idea ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

So , an idea just floated through my head .

It's suspected that the reds were using more fuel than allowed last year , and now we've got them struggling to keep up .
So , is restricting the flow actually a good idea ?

You cats think there any merit at all to the idea ?

---

Change the rules to suit Ferrari you mean? Hell no! Worst idea you have ever come up with Baggie.

If Honda, Renault and Mercedes can work with this rule effectively, why change it. Besides, the carbon footprint of motor sport is high for a non manufacturing endeavour. The fuel flow restriction is a very responsible implementation. If removed, it would invite stern criticism from several quarters.

The other point to mention is that Ferrari was not only done for flowflow contravention, they were also suspected of burning engine oil to boost power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Change the rules to suit Ferrari you mean? Hell no! Worst idea you have ever come up with Baggie.

If Honda, Renault and Mercedes can work with this rule effectively, why change it. Besides, the carbon footprint of motor sport is high for a non manufacturing endeavour. The fuel flow restriction is a very responsible implementation. If removed, it would invite stern criticism from several quarters.

The other point to mention is that Ferrari was not only done for flowflow contravention, they were also suspected of burning engine oil to boost power.

---

So , you don't think the others would like to burn more fuel to go faster ?

My point is that you'd at least get three faster red teams , but Honda and Renault would know how to use more fuel as well one would think .

And , the reds weren't "done" for anything , only suspected .
Neither fuel flow or oil burning were proven , only suspected , and the files remain closed .

It's not about that .
It's about having a competitive field .

And , it might not be any kind of help at all in the end anyway , because presumably , it would include Merc as well .

To a degree , it comes from a desire to have more of a "let them race" attitude from the rules .
No fuel restriction but rewards for saving fuel could achieve more PR from a green point of view , as it could be shown as an extra award on the podium , and it could , in theory add an extra team into the ceremony if it wasn't one of the top three who won it .



And , trust me , I've come up with way worse plans than this .
You have no idea .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

So , you don't think the others would like to burn more fuel to go faster ?

My point is that you'd at least get three faster red teams , but Honda and Renault would know how to use more fuel as well one would think .

And , the reds weren't "done" for anything , only suspected .
Neither fuel flow or oil burning were proven , only suspected , and the files remain closed .

It's not about that .
It's about having a competitive field .

And , it might not be any kind of help at all in the end anyway , because presumably , it would include Merc as well .

To a degree , it comes from a desire to have more of a "let them race" attitude from the rules .
No fuel restriction but rewards for saving fuel could achieve more PR from a green point of view , as it could be shown as an extra award on the podium , and it could , in theory add an extra team into the ceremony if it wasn't one of the top three who won it .



And , trust me , I've come up with way worse plans than this .
You have no idea .

---

Officially not being found guilty and having been up to something they should not have, can clearly be two different things.

Whether its down to specific wording of the regs saying 'fuel flow' but hey, it didnt say 'total fuel flow' isnt a valid excuse... and is covered by 'in the spirit of the rules' for every other team on the grid.

Lets be honest, If they were guiltless, had nothing to change with what they were doing they wouldnt have instantly lost the power advantage they had overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

So , you don't think the others would like to burn more fuel to go faster ?

My point is that you'd at least get three faster red teams , but Honda and Renault would know how to use more fuel as well one would think .

And , the reds weren't "done" for anything , only suspected .
Neither fuel flow or oil burning were proven , only suspected , and the files remain closed .

It's not about that .
It's about having a competitive field .

And , it might not be any kind of help at all in the end anyway , because presumably , it would include Merc as well .

To a degree , it comes from a desire to have more of a "let them race" attitude from the rules .
No fuel restriction but rewards for saving fuel could achieve more PR from a green point of view , as it could be shown as an extra award on the podium , and it could , in theory add an extra team into the ceremony if it wasn't one of the top three who won it .



And , trust me , I've come up with way worse plans than this .
You have no idea .

---

Sorry mate, l don't buy it. Ferrari created this situation, they should work their way out of it. The fact that their contravention was hushed up with no huge monetary fine or proper exposure of what they did , is already very lenient. They should not be, also rewarded for breaking the rule with a rule change to give them a chance to compete equally with those that did not.

BAD IDEA dude.

Having their misdemeanor covered up by a NDA with zero punishment is already a let off and a complete farce... and now you want Ferrari to be given carte blanche over every other team with a different technical rule/s in the interest of close competition? You are having a laugh! :D:D:D

If thats not what you mean and if the fuel flow restriction was lifted for everyone, Merc would most likely still continue to dominate.

Fuel flow rate restrictions is one of those really stupid 2014 "design by committee" rules along with the idiotic token system that was meant to put the brakes on engine development since 2014. When I heard of the later rule early on, I immediately feared that such rule would lock-in the power advantage for whoever builds the best engine for 2014, and lo and behold exactly this happened. Remember how the token system prevented other manufacturers from responding to Mercedes's power advantage since 2014? This went on for about three seasons, sealing in the Mercedes advantage for many many seasons. The effects can be felt even now.

I think that restricting the fuel flow belongs in the same set of stupid decisions. Mind you, I am NOT saying here that Formula 1 cars should carry whatever load of fuel. For many decades, excluding the refueling era, F1 cars carried only 150 liters of fuel. After 2013, they can carry only 100 liters. There should be no issue with that. But restricting the rate of fuel flow, the FIA "geniuses" deprived the F1 teams from executing all sorts of really interesting strategies, such as burning more fuel at one stage of the race at the expense of burning less fuel and having less power at other stages of the race. Heck, some teams could sometimes throw dice and bet on a risky strategy that nets them a possible win at the risk of running out of fuel. The fuel flow rate rule deprived F1 of such possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

Fuel flow rate restrictions is one of those really stupid 2014 "design by committee" rules along with the idiotic token system that was meant to put the brakes on engine development since 2014. When I heard of the later rule early on, I immediately feared that such rule would lock-in the power advantage for whoever builds the best engine for 2014, and lo and behold exactly this happened. Remember how the token system prevented other manufacturers from responding to Mercedes's power advantage since 2014? This went on for about three seasons, sealing in the Mercedes advantage for many many seasons. The effects can be felt even now.

I think that restricting the fuel flow belongs in the same set of stupid decisions. Mind you, I am NOT saying here that Formula 1 cars should carry whatever load of fuel. For many decades, excluding the refueling era, F1 cars carried only 150 liters of fuel. After 2013, they can carry only 100 liters. There should be no issue with that. But restricting the rate of fuel flow, the FIA "geniuses" deprived the F1 teams from executing all sorts of really interesting strategies, such as burning more fuel at one stage of the race at the expense of burning less fuel and having less power at other stages of the race. Heck, some teams could sometimes throw dice and bet on a risky strategy that nets them a possible win at the risk of running out of fuel. The fuel flow rate rule deprived F1 of such possibilities.

---

If the engineers put thier mind to it, l am sure they could design an engine that would use even less fuel than 100 liters. I don't see this as a restrictive problem for F1 cars. With 100 liters they are just as fast as the big three liter vee 12 engines of the Shumacher era, consuming a fraction of the fuel used in the refuelling days. This is progress. Hence it is quite daft to say undo this progress and allow the F1 cars to pollute the atmosphere without restriction for our enjoyment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

If the engineers put thier mind to it, l am sure they could design an engine that would use even less fuel than 100 liters. I don't see this as a restrictive problem for F1 cars. With 100 liters they are just as fast as the big three liter vee 12 engines of the Shumacher era, consuming a fraction of the fuel used in the refuelling days. This is progress. Hence it is quite daft to say undo this progress and allow the F1 cars to pollute the atmosphere without restriction for our enjoyment.

---

in the end they all use their 100 liters per race, no matter how much fuel flow is allowed. so that makes no difference on anything except peak performance.