GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,621
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Michael Leary (@Terronium-12) on April 19th, 2018 in the Formula One category.
2019 F1 Season Rules Target Harder Racing with Fuel Increase
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 29 comments
- 2,384 views
- 2,947
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
I fail to see how the increased fuel allowance will necessarily mean that all teams will be able to race at fuel engine capacity throughout the race.
Remember back in 2014, in the first season of the new turbo engines and the new regulations regarding fuel flow and 100kg maximum fuel, how many people thought we would again see teams running out of fuel and they wouldn't make it to the end of some races? The end result was that many (if not all) teams did not even take 100kg of fuel onboard as the benefits of less weight were higher than using more fuel at a higher engine mode.
Are they seriously saying that 4 years into this regulation they would still consider this to be a problem? Yes, the cars changed in 2017 to more drag/higher downforce, so the fuel consumption went up, but they also got 5kg of fuel extra. And the progress in running the same type of engines from 2014 to 2018 will surely have gained the manufacturers more than that in terms of efficiency over that time span.
But even if one of the 4 engine manufacturers does still have a problem with running its engine at full capacity throughout the whole race, they will still have the same problem, because the teams running the other engines will take less fuel onboard and will therefore be able to run the car much lighter. The gap will therefore remain.
Remember back in 2014, in the first season of the new turbo engines and the new regulations regarding fuel flow and 100kg maximum fuel, how many people thought we would again see teams running out of fuel and they wouldn't make it to the end of some races? The end result was that many (if not all) teams did not even take 100kg of fuel onboard as the benefits of less weight were higher than using more fuel at a higher engine mode.
Are they seriously saying that 4 years into this regulation they would still consider this to be a problem? Yes, the cars changed in 2017 to more drag/higher downforce, so the fuel consumption went up, but they also got 5kg of fuel extra. And the progress in running the same type of engines from 2014 to 2018 will surely have gained the manufacturers more than that in terms of efficiency over that time span.
But even if one of the 4 engine manufacturers does still have a problem with running its engine at full capacity throughout the whole race, they will still have the same problem, because the teams running the other engines will take less fuel onboard and will therefore be able to run the car much lighter. The gap will therefore remain.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I always presumed these changes are made in accordance with all the teams input. I might be wrong ofcourse. A good sign is simplifying the aerodynamics. F1 cars these days are way to vulnerable. No contact goes by without pieces falling off. We need wheel to wheel battles, like in China. Both Max and Seb were lucky they could continue, but the contact did make the race a lot more exciting! My suggestions:
- smaller cars (better overtaking)
- Restrictions on the aerodynamic packages
- less tire compounds (Supersoft) Soft, Medium, Hard, Intermediate, Wet
- Budget restictions on engines Every client team can buy a constructors engine for maximum of X amount at any time of the season.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Smaller crash impact zones?
That could be good. Something like the mooted centreline package might work.
With only three dry compounds there will be some tracks where the cars are virtually inoperable. That's the reason for the range of compounds that exists now, they're not just provided for the sake of it.
But wouldn't the teams have to spend a lot of money altering the chassis/bodywork et al to change an engine supplier? You can't just bolt a Merc engine into a Honda fitting.
- 2,947
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
- Cars were made wider to accommodate wider tyres in order to shift the balance from aero to mechanical grip. So, the current width is partly a necessity (and it looks better).
- I’m with you on aero. Should be restricted in several areas of the car, i.e. mainly...
a) simplify front wing to allow following other cars more closely
b) clean up the whole barge board area. This is basically a loophole in the regulations which nobody seems to be willing to close. The way it is, it’s just silly, and it makes the cars too effective.
- the numerous tyre compounds are necessary to create races with more than 1 pit stop.
- engine manufacturers plan for a certain number of engines for the supplied teams. They won’t produce engines of which nobody knows if they ever will be needed, just on the off-chance somebody might want to buy one on short notice.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
I think it was more to do with regs of the time more than anything else. Also the massive gulf between teams performances which has closed up for certainly most of the mid field.
Yes, refuelling will not instantly guarantee excellent racing but it's something that can be done to mix things up and we won't be watching hypermile racing anymore. A lot more of the knob at 11.
It was also have the added benefit to putting a end to these ever more dangerous 2 second stops.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- I meant in all dimensions. I don't know the specifics, but I do remember F1 cars being much smaller. At the moment the cars are too wide and long to promote overtaking. It should not influence safety of course.
- Perhaps you are right. Another idea is to allow the other brans in F1 again. Competition in tirebrands will bring lower costs and push innovation.
- it does mean manufacturers will be forced to bring costs down. Perhaps X amount in pre-season. Updates and parts, should also immediately be available for client teams max. X amount. This should level the playing field more.
I don't think refuelling adds enough to the modern-day race. With the super high pressure pitstops these days... It would also be irresponsibly dangerous. Not sure how 2 stops are more dangerous? I personally like the various strategies in 1 or more stop races.
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,535
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Spec single element front and rear wings, no winglets on the body, no diffuser, tyres that work. Properly.
Tracks that allow passing moves to be worked by drivers who know how to set them up several corners earlier.
Sillyness like refueling that doesn't address the actual problem. Not needed.
Tracks that allow passing moves to be worked by drivers who know how to set them up several corners earlier.
Sillyness like refueling that doesn't address the actual problem. Not needed.
- 2,947
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
Over a long period of time cars were 2.0m wide. Then they changed tyre dimensions (grooved tyres, etc.) and went to 1.8m. The consensus before last season was that they wanted the 'fat' tyres again, because it gives you the basis for more mechanical grip over aero (they just didn't reduce aero, they increased it - a foreseeably stupid decision). As there was no reason to change the cars' dimensions without suspension, the added width of the tyres adds to the width of the car.
If I'm not mistaken, the cars' length is not regulated, but rather follows the general philosophy of the cars' design. At some point length is detrimental to its agility. In my opinion a car's dimensions have very little influence on overtaking. Other factors dominate a lot more.
Uh, no. Actually the opposite is true. Bring in a second tyre manufacturer and you will have a tyre war that will result in 1 brand always being superior (it might change between them, but parity will only happen by accident). Each tyre manufacturer will build the tyres to their premium team's wishes (and you can be sure that will only be 1 team), putting everyone else on that tyre at a disadvantage and thereby widening the gap between top and mid-tier teams. It's a proven fact that a single tyre provider is the best solution to promote parity in the field. Tyres are just too big a factor in performance to allow unlimited development there.
You are right that it might push innovation, but that's not really the goal for F1. Pirelli was asked to provide tyres that should yield 2 or more stop races and where different compounds produce significantly different speeds on track (in order to promote overtaking, of course). Once you have 2 manufacturers, everyone will do what they think is best for their teams, but not for providing good races.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
I'm not convinced it will exactly make pitstops safer by handling flammable liquids under severe time pressure.
That is true, but the modern refueling systems were not all that dangerous. It was only potentially bad when someone ripped the hose off the system with it still attached to the car *cough Massa cough*. Also I think in the many years gap newer even safer systems have probably become available.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I definitely argue that smaller cars wont promote better overtaking. If you cant widen the tracks, you should make the cars smaller. Even the drivers admitted it was harder to overtake in corners because of the wider cars last year. I am very sure the cars length also factors in overtaking in corners. But my point is to reduce the overall dimension of the car, so that mechanical grip wont be negatively influenced.
I was actually suggesting more then 2 manufacturers for tires with a set of restrictions and rules on the compound. Way back when there was a little more leeway in the contents of oil and fuel used. But I definitely agree that using one manufacturer promotes parity.
- 8,712
It looks like they either don't really know what they're doing, or their motivations for the changes aren't what they say they are.
I expect that this notion that F1 has to be the "best" means it has to have the fastest lap times, and that is probably a bigger influence on the regs than anything explicitly mentioned.
So downforce isn't going anywhere (the changes will not be significant) and, primarily because of that, overtaking will always be difficult.
DRS is fine in theory (and it works to an extent, massive closing speeds notwithstanding), but I really dislike the idea that there are effectively designated overtaking areas. That's not racing. Allow time to be made up anywhere by allowing cars to follow much more closely before losing performance. The only way to do that is to extract less work out of the air as you cut through it: reduce downforce.
Also: reduce downforce, reduce drag, reduce fuel load, reduce corner speeds, reduce severity of crashes, reduce track butchering, reduce driver fatigue, reduce chassis loads, reduce weight, reduce size etc. etc. etc. etc.
It won't mean F1 isn't still the peak, the drivers and teams will be the same and they will try the same sly methods of cheating-but-not-technically-cheating, and all will be well with the world.
The main issue with making a severe change to the way the cars work is with the tyres, and short of giving certain teams an advantage by running preliminary tests on the new regs, it could make for an unpredictable start to the season.
I don't understand why they would remove MGU-H, except on cost / complexity grounds. It's the best feature of these hybrid regs, in engineering terms - it's part of what makes F1 peak motorsport. Put all those aero engineers to work on developing a new, ideally decoupled (using a fixed / mandated control scheme) turbine and compressor instead, let's see what it can really do - fly that internal combustion flag!
Refueling is not safe as long as human error exists, and it won't make the races any more dramatic (aside from the fireballs that might ensue), certainly not over and above the more obvious and sensible changes possible, assuming F1 can swallow the lap time issue, and it will only serve to make strategy even less transparent (I say leave that to endurance racing, where it is a bigger part of the appeal).
I expect that this notion that F1 has to be the "best" means it has to have the fastest lap times, and that is probably a bigger influence on the regs than anything explicitly mentioned.
So downforce isn't going anywhere (the changes will not be significant) and, primarily because of that, overtaking will always be difficult.
DRS is fine in theory (and it works to an extent, massive closing speeds notwithstanding), but I really dislike the idea that there are effectively designated overtaking areas. That's not racing. Allow time to be made up anywhere by allowing cars to follow much more closely before losing performance. The only way to do that is to extract less work out of the air as you cut through it: reduce downforce.
Also: reduce downforce, reduce drag, reduce fuel load, reduce corner speeds, reduce severity of crashes, reduce track butchering, reduce driver fatigue, reduce chassis loads, reduce weight, reduce size etc. etc. etc. etc.
It won't mean F1 isn't still the peak, the drivers and teams will be the same and they will try the same sly methods of cheating-but-not-technically-cheating, and all will be well with the world.
The main issue with making a severe change to the way the cars work is with the tyres, and short of giving certain teams an advantage by running preliminary tests on the new regs, it could make for an unpredictable start to the season.
I don't understand why they would remove MGU-H, except on cost / complexity grounds. It's the best feature of these hybrid regs, in engineering terms - it's part of what makes F1 peak motorsport. Put all those aero engineers to work on developing a new, ideally decoupled (using a fixed / mandated control scheme) turbine and compressor instead, let's see what it can really do - fly that internal combustion flag!
Refueling is not safe as long as human error exists, and it won't make the races any more dramatic (aside from the fireballs that might ensue), certainly not over and above the more obvious and sensible changes possible, assuming F1 can swallow the lap time issue, and it will only serve to make strategy even less transparent (I say leave that to endurance racing, where it is a bigger part of the appeal).
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
Will the fuel flow increase as well? (for higher RPMs and better sounds)
Roo
Premium
- 7,419
- Hampshire, UK
- GTP_Roo
The last thing F1 needs is for the racing to be harder, it's difficult enough as it is.
(but I'm sure that's what you were referencing)
Indycar and NASCAR suggest otherwise. The races often involve some element of fuel saving, either to save some time at a pitstop so that the car is stationary for less time, or to avoid an extra stop entirely.
The only way to prevent fuel saving would be to mandate all cars to start with much more fuel than they need and not allow refueling.
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
- 8,712
I wonder if the increase in fuel load isn't really in response to the whole oil burning issue. The cars aren't as efficient as F1 proudly claim they are - more reason not to drop MGU-H.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Roo
Premium
- 7,419
- Hampshire, UK
- GTP_Roo
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 898
- Scotland
- Gremlin100
VHS but converted to dvd a looooong time ago. I would like the modern take on the v8+ engines.
(Impossible I know)
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 898
- Scotland
- Gremlin100
"Wishful thinking" then, in place of "impossible".
And there is a limit to how often one can watch the same video, regardless of how good it sounds.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Similar threads
