F1technical.net

tuj wrote:Well they get 2/3rds less fuel and they aren't making 2/3rds less power, that's for sure. Fuel management will be a challenge, I'm convinced of that.

I'm with Juzh - we'll see only slightly more fuel management compared to the last few years. The V6s will be making ~~15% less power at a higher level of efficiency.

I personally don't think that it will be too noticeable, unless a team miscalculates or has an ERS failure. The first few races may be "careful", but as soon as a team believe it has an advantage it will attack.

Thanks for the great discussion on this topic - I have learned more than expected so far, please keep it up!

The fuel mass limit per race is a great way to regulate performance while still allowing creativity by designers. However, it would be great to see engine regulations that allow VVT systems. VVT systems would be no more costly than the energy recover systems currently allowed.

these cars are (part-time) hybrids (but the term hybrid is to be avoided by constant use of the 'recovery' mantra)
they are allowed within the fuel rate regime 'free' fuel ('claimable' by rpm whenever surplus to driving power needs)
at most tracks they will be again burning fuel to generate some energy that will be called ERS recovered energy (as with KERS)

their intent of these cars is to boost covert hybridisation ie part-time electric driving
at present hybrids and EVs receive a large taxpayer subsidy, this must phased-out there is mass hybrid/EV takeup kicks in
(VVT/VVM of course receive no encouragement)

65 years ago SI engines with power recovery turbines went into large scale production
showing an average 10% power gain without increase in fuel consumption
they had a transparent and (relatively) lightweight and inexpensive mechanical link for this recovery
not a 'smoke and mirrors' complicated, expensive electric system that doesn't do quite what it says on the FIA can
however ingenious and lovely it is to the shareholders/stockholders

Tommy Cookers wrote:
65 years ago SI engines with power recovery turbines went into large scale production
showing an average 10% power gain without increase in fuel consumption
they had a transparent and (relatively) lightweight and inexpensive mechanical link for this recovery

Could you point us towards the details of these engines that you are referring to ?

the engine mentioned is the 'Turbo-Compound' version of the Wright 'Duplex Cyclone'
(note that R-3350 is the pan-military designation for any DC, ie not specific to the TC version)

also earlier work done by the NACA showed that backpressure running would gain about 20% power for a fixed fuel quantity

posts of mine made in the top ot the page thread 'Formula One 1.6l V6 ....' at 1316 and 1336 on 24 Dec 2013 have links to all this
(note also - all these engines mentioned of course have mechanically driven centrifugal supercharging and seperate PRTs)

Good article on f1fanatic on why the fuel limit will be critical in 2014:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/01/15/n ... t-f1-rule/

From that article, these are numbers from a Williams V8, presumably with the Renault engine.

Those include the in and out laps, but the effect of those two combined should be 2-3% only. Montreal and Catalunya must be errors in the data, there is no reason why they should be so far off the trend (and they are not in the table below)
Similar but not identical data come from a previous disclosure of fuel consumption figures from Renault regarding the RS27. The last column, average L/100Km translates to next year's rule limit (100Kg/rce) by multiplying by a number between 3.05 and 3.10 depending on the circuit. Notice that those are liters, not kilos; of course the density of next year's fuel is still an unknown.

I agree with hollus that there seem to be a few issues with the chart from the f1fanatic article above. These are my own calculations based on the data provided by Renault in 2012 and it's note even remotely close to the "60% less fuel per race" claim made in the article.

tim|away wrote:...not even remotely close to the "60% less fuel per race" claim made in the article.[/url]

F1fanatic simply made an error in the calculation and/or the wording. They write "...forcing teams to use up to 60% less fuel...", but in reality they mean "using 40% less".

These 60% comes from 100kg (2014)/ 165kg (Catalunya) = 60,6%, so about 40 % less.

Your numbers, tim, look way more reasonable.

These fuel per race comparisons must be considered in context. The designers and race engineers will make sure their cars use every last drop of fuel available to them. If they are allowed a generous amount of fuel under the rules, then there is no incentive for them to use the fuel efficiently if it hinders performance.

The fuel (lubricant) composition is still the same in 2014? No rule changes?

I haven't heard of any composition changes, and I didn't see anything highlighted in the latest regs, so I'd presume that they remained the same. The lubricants themselves undergo a similar development as the cars though, so they will not be the same, mainly due to the higher temperatures and lower rpms that they will have to handle.

Fuel is pretty easy to enforce and is done quite comprehensively down to the kiddie karting series.

http://www.foxvalleykart.com/fuel1.html

riff_raff wrote:These fuel per race comparisons must be considered in context. The designers and race engineers will make sure their cars use every last drop of fuel available to them. If they are allowed a generous amount of fuel under the rules, then there is no incentive for them to use the fuel efficiently if it hinders performance.

If the amount of fuel is not relatively generous –as may be the case this year-, could this give rise to some strange strategies? Tires have been the salient pacing factor but with the possibility of refreshing them with a pit stop. If fuel became the pacing item, a hare car running at the fastest pace with sufficient fuel to finish the race would be at risk of an incident that would bunch the field. This could lead to the tortoise cars running a reduced pace but still staying on the lead lap having both position on a restart and fuel to run faster than the hare car.
Query, would it make sense for a competitive team to split their entry into hare and tortoise strategies, or for midpack cars to run a tortoise strategy?