2017 More aero, more fuel saving

[NL_Fer]

When the 2017 will have more aero and wider tyres, the will probably have more drag and maybe even set more wing. Will the increased drag, also increas fuel consumption?

If so, next year wel wel maybe see more lift and coasting during the race and some more "fuel is critical" messages from the teams.

[Tim.Wright]

With the team radio chat now limited it's hard to understand what the current pace limits are but my guess is that they are still limited by the tyres and therefore have some margin with regards to the fuel use. So in theory if they make enough efficiency gains with the engine they might still be limited by the tyres instead of the fuel.

However, with a new tyre construction next year- really it's anyones guess whether the pace limit is going to be tyre degradation of fuel use.

At a guess, I'd say Pirelli will go ultra conservative and the fuel will indeed be the limit.

[Juzh]

Proposed 2017 cars will be on full throttle (and more throttle overall) for much longer periods and will naturally consume more fuel. Add to that predicted extra drag and you have nightmare scenario more or less. 100 kg will simply not cut it.

[bhall II]

There will most likely be no fuel cap next season...

When asked by Motorsport.com what would happen if the 100kg limit stayed [in 2017], [Renault's Nick] Chester said: "I think it will be a mess."

"At the [recent] tech regulations meeting, we voted to get rid of the race fuel limit."

"We still have the flow limit, so you have a green message that the cars cannot consume too much, but abolishing the fuel limit will get rid of lift and coast and having to manage fuel, which seems like a good thing for racing."

"If we stay at 100kg and go to the 2017 regulations then there will be a lot of fuel saving, and I think people will start complaining about it."

[riff_raff]

"...We still have the flow limit, so you have a green message that the cars cannot consume too much...."

Why is there such a concern about being "green" in F1 racing? I watched the Long Beach Formula E race last weekend, and it was miserable. The amount of fuel consumed during an F1 event is inconsequential.

[henry]

If the fuel capacity limit were removed it would be a further advantage to those teams with a good qualifying mode. I'm looking at you Mercedes.

They would start on the front row, having burned lots of fuel in qualification. Start lighter than the competition. Run qualification mode for the first few laps, burning lots of fuel, pull out a lead and then settle down to fuel, power unit and tyre manage to the end.

Renault have called for an end to the limit but have also called for control of engine modes that exist only to burn additional fuel to generate electricity. I guess that is one of the areas they feel they have a shortfall and can see its importance increasing if there were no fuel capacity limit.

[NL_Fer]

The fuel flow limit is pushing development of the engine in the right way. Maybe efficiency will get close to 50% which is sensational. Also the manufacturers like the showcase their ability to develop such green technology.

[henry]

The fuel flow limit is pushing development of the engine in the right way. Maybe efficiency will get close to 50% which is sensational. Also the manufacturers like the showcase their ability to develop such green technology.

Agreed.

If they just keep the fuel flow limit and do away with the 100kg capacity we are likely to get some much less fuel efficient modes, particularly in part throttle/low demand situations as they burn fuel to maximise ES charge. It will be just like the hot blown diffuser, lower overall power unit efficiency but better lap and race times.

[henry]

The fuel capacity regulation is not in the technical regulations due to be ratified at the end of this month (April). It is in the sporting regulations. I don't know when they are due for ratification, I've seen no discussion of them.

I would think that the fuel cell size is quite an early decision for the design teams. So some time soon they will need a ratified version of the sporting regs. If the regs don't change then the capacity will be fixed at 100kg. I think then we can expect an even bigger disparity between qualifying lap times and race lap times. We will probably also see more fuel saving and lower speeds at the end of straights, at least in the race.

If they do reduce lap times at Barcelona by 4 seconds I'm guessing that's going to need around 10% more energy. That seems a tall stretch for the PUs. Mercedes up from a claimed 50% to 55% to do it in the race, or simply burn more fuel, possible in qualifying but requiring a sporting rule change for the race.

The teams obviously will know this. @bhall II cited quotes above and Renault have been talking about a relaxation. But other voices may not be too keen. I can imagine some teams seeing an opportunity to close the power to aerodynamics balance and others not wanting to suggest anything that detracts from the efficiency message.

I expect a decision on fuel capacity will either sneak through unannounced or will run on until all they can do is tinker with fuel flow rates.

[NL_Fer]

Actually starting this thread, i didn't even think of refueling coming back.

But i understand, they haven't commited to it (refueling) yet?

[ESPImperium]

Id like to see a system that teams are limited to say 175kg for the race and qualifying. The top teams would use more in Quali and not have too much left for the race, where the slower teams can have less fuel saving in the race and be like a rocket. However, in qualifying, each car needs to do 5 timed laps in Q1, 3 timed laps in Q2 and 2 timed laps in Q3. Meaning that if you include in/out laps the top guys do about 20-21 laps in Qulai.

Yes the top guys would front load Quali and just circulate, but the thing is they are putting rubber down for the slower guys. And yes they could circulate and just coast for 3 or 4 laps, but thats where id bring in a personal 107% rule where each timed lap must be within 107% of your fastest. On the other side, id ban tire warmers meaning that going out takes 2 laps to get your boots to temperature. Only inters and wets are allowed to have warmers on them to my rules.

I think the aero regs need to be properly A/Bd with a good set of sporting regulations other wise they will look stupid. Sporting and tech regs need to go hand in hand to work together to add spice to a Saturday and Sunday.

[Vyssion]

...my guess is that they are still limited by the tyres and therefore have some margin with regards to the fuel use. So in theory if they make enough efficiency gains with the engine they might still be limited by the tyres instead of the fuel....

Pretty much my thoughts... Currently, the FIA regulates the fuel rates of the engines based upon the RPM speed below 10,500 RPM; however, when the engine surpasses that, the fuel rate flat lines at the maximum that the teams are allowed to run - so running an engine faster than 10,500 RPM only serves to (in essence) "lean out" the fuel mixture. I think what we will see is teams working to increase power at around 8-10,000 RPM ranges with the next generations of engines.

[bhall II]

Why is there such a concern about being "green" in F1 racing?

I imagine it helps alleviate the concerns of those who might otherwise be ashamed of reveling in such conspicuous displays of consumption.

Even so, F1 is "green" the same way eating a gallon of reduced-fat ice cream every day is "healthy."

[Cold Fussion]

Even so, F1 is "green" the same way eating a gallon of reduced-fat ice cream every day is "healthy."

Don't say that, I'm sure all those cargo 747's are powered solely by Bernie's benevolence.

[ChrisDanger]

I've heard a lot of people wondering how F1 can be green if they fly personnel and equipment all around the world every few weeks. Like as if the 100kg fuel limit is supposed to reduce F1's carbon footprint or something. We've moved from pushing aerodynamics - which has zero road relevance - to pushing IC efficiency - which has some road relevance for sure. I mean, it's totally a marketing thing, but at least it should have a positive impact on our substantial energy expenditure, even if it's confined to only 3 engine manufacturers (obviously not including Ferrari).