F1technical.net

Given that the teams now have to start an event with enough fuel to finish a race without safety periods, any race with a long safety car period will leave the cars with significant excesses of fuel.

Fuel weighs a great deal, so it would greatly benefit the teams were they to have some method to dump or rapidly burn off excess fuel after a long safety period.

One would think that dumping fuel directly onto the track would be strictly forbidden, but allowing unburnt fuel to travel through the engine and vaporize out the tailpipe would be a far less clear violation.

Does anyone know if such systems exist or if such systems would even be legal?

Further, could enough fuel be legally dumped quickly enough to provide a significant weight benefit?

You don't have to dump the fuel, but just re-program the engine ECU to run rich.

But I believe that's not the problem. Rumors are that at least two teams have minimal fuel tanks, and may not have enough capacity. One theory as to the cause of Vettel's spark plug problem in Bahrain was that the Red Bull has to run as lean as possible because of a very small fuel cell.

DaveKillens wrote:You don't have to dump the fuel, but just re-program the engine ECU to run rich.

I don't think any typical "running rich" configuration would permit enough fuel to be dumped.

Consider that the teams will almost certainly find themselves in situations this season in which they would greatly benefit from dumping ten or more KGs of fuel in a very short period of time. The faster they can dump the fuel, the more benefit they will receive. I don't think any standard rich setting could accomplish such a fast fuel dump.

As I suggested above, the ECU could potentially be programmed to dump unburnt fuel through the engine and out the exhaust. While easily doable in years past, I'm not at all sure that this is possible with the current generation of ECU.

All current F1 ECU's are now completely standardized, so it simply may not be possible to program the standardized ECU to do something of this sort. The available parameters may not allow that level of flexibility.

The current ECU's have more flexibility than you currently imagine, as they have many maps to go through if needed, from the leaner to richer mixtures of the spectrum.

There should always be enough fuel to finish a race despite no SC even in the very last third stint, in case there is one in the last few laps or whatnot, IMO. And if there isn't one just turn up to a richer mixture just for the added hp.

Dumping fuel is not following the sports responsibilities in regard to energy conservation or environmental issues.
It would not be acceptable to the FIA.

Sorry guzzler-teams fans, that's completely illegal.

Just one longer or two shorter Safety Car outings, and your tankers are done! They'll be left over with enough fuel for next qualification. Now, isn't that sensible?

Or let me rephrase myself - "Kate does the field"

manchild wrote:Sorry guzzler-teams fans, that's completely illegal.

Just one longer or two shorter Safety Car outings, and your tankers are done! They'll be left over with enough fuel for next qualification. Now, isn't that sensible?

Or let me rephrase myself - "Kate does the field"

Liz is the new girl. She is a luscious lady

Right, sorry! I was still dizzy after sleep.

"Luscious Liz does the field"

BTW, perhaps Vettel didn't made up that name?

http://www.myspace.com/lusciousliz

RED BULL'S MORNING SHOW AND LOUIS' RUN PITY ENDED AND KATE AIN'T PRESENT

mx_tifosi wrote:The current ECU's have more flexibility than you currently imagine, as they have many maps to go through if needed, from the leaner to richer mixtures of the spectrum.

There should always be enough fuel to finish a race despite no SC even in the very last third stint, in case there is one in the last few laps or whatnot, IMO. And if there isn't one just turn up to a richer mixture just for the added hp.

Yes, but fuel can only be effectively turned into power up to a certain point. After that point, the extra fuel could not be burned quickly enough. If there is a long safety care period, a car could have a truly massive and completely worthless surplus of fuel. Worse than worthless, the fuel surplus would drastically hurt lap times.

They start the race with what? 160 KG of fuel? An especially long safety car period could result in a 10 or 20 KG surplus of fuel that would need to be removed in a mere handful of laps. One certainly must wonder if so many liters of fuel could be burned in such a short period of time. I tend to think they could not.

In F1 terms, 10KG is a massive amount of needless mass, especially when one considers that the teams have been known to spend $100K to lose 100 grams.

My point is that such a situation is bound to happen a few times this season. I cannot imagine that the teams haven't considered this eventually and methods to quickly dispense of large amounts of needless fuel.

It was pointed out above that it would make some rather bad press if teams were to admit to dumping huge amounts unburnt fuel. I agree, and perhaps that's why this possibility is not being openly talked about by the teams. Just because it would make bad press doesn't mean there aren't systems to quietly accomplish the deed.

I hope not, because if they are and the green lobby latch onto it, the backlash in the media would be dynamite for FIs future.

Is running "lean" simply turning down the revs on the motor?

Or is it a case of different air fuel mixtures?
Im leaning towards the latter but have been told in no uncertain terms that F1 engines run "lean" by lowering engine revs.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Is running "lean" simply turning down the revs on the motor?

Or is it a case of different air fuel mixtures?
Im leaning towards the latter but have been told in no uncertain terms that F1 engines run "lean" by lowering engine revs.

I think that teams will have a certain amount of leanness calculated into their fuel budget. They will also have trigger points where safety car periods will run on rich fuel. This has nothing to do with revs as rich applies to the amount of fuel injected into each cylinder per working stroke. Let's assume hypothetically that normally a safety car period would run with an under stoichiometric factor of 0.9 for five laps. For the next five laps lets assume they switch to 1.1. So at the end they would be exactly on the same fuel curve they were before. All that may happen at very rich stoichiometric settings is that flames may appear at the exhaust to burn the excess fuel and that rear end components must be designed for that "afterburner" effect.

I don't see why everyone is assuming that admitting to burning off fuel would cause a PR backlash. Last year it was common in qualifying to go through a "fuel burning" phase to get rid of the weight and it was regularly referred to as such in interviews.

rjs wrote:I don't see why everyone is assuming that admitting to burning off fuel would cause a PR backlash. Last year it was common in qualifying to go through a "fuel burning" phase to get rid of the weight and it was regularly referred to as such in interviews.

Burning off is one thing.
I was refering to the suggested fuel dumping.

Thank you whiteblue

This is parrallel to my thinking. You dont mind if i cut and paste this onto another thread do you?