Members area
LoginRegisterMotor Sport newsletter
Search
Formula 1Nigel RoebuckMark HughesReportsOpinionHistoryRaceVideoGalleryFormula 1Sports CarsUS SceneDriver columnsMotoGPHistoryEventsRoadTestsOpinionPodcastsHall of FameCars for saleDirectoryMagazineEditorialDigital editionCompetitionsHistoryEditorial TeamMedia PackArchive IndexContact UsSubscribeForumPhoto StoreInsuranceShop 27 March 2014 Formula 1 0Red Bull’s fuel flow appealMark HughesDaniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from second place in Melbourne was still the talk of the paddock as the F1 teams re-converged in the equatorial heat of Kuala Lumpur. The whole argument is very delicately poised as the date for Red Bull’s appeal at the FIA court has been set for April 14.
On the one hand, the team was warned about an apparent over-supply of fuel – as measured by the FIA-specified flow sensors – on Ricciardo’s car as early as Friday practice in Melbourne, was warned again in the early stages of the race and on each occasion chose not to modify the flow. Furthermore, the degree of over-supply – believed to be in the region of 0.25% – would confer a significant lap time advantage under the new regulations.
On the other hand, Red Bull maintains that its own measurements from the injectors show that at no time was the car over the 100kg/hr flow limit and that the FIA-supplied sensors had been giving inconsistent readings up and down the pitlane all weekend and could not therefore be trusted to be accurate.
Red Bull’s defence is expected to be that the use of the FIA sensor as the arbiter of fuel flow is merely a technical directive and not a regulation, citing the FIA’s own example from the Mercedes ‘secret test’ at Barcelona last year that made clear the opinion of technical delegate Charlie Whiting has no regulatory value. The only relevant regulation, Red Bull insists, is that the flow does not exceed 100kg/hr – a regulation it argues it did not break.
It’s an argument that goes to the very core of the new formula. It has been framed as a fuel flow formula, yet the device for measuring that flow is being called into question. The accuracy level of the ultrasonic device according to the manufacturer’s own data sheet is as follows:
52 per cent of meters are within +/- 0.1 per cent accuracy of reading92 per cent of meters are within +/- 0.25 per cent accuracy of readingThese tolerances – meeting targets set by the FIA – may be perfectly acceptable in most real life applications, but in the world of F1 a 0.25 per cent disadvantage or advantage is very significant. With the old naturally aspirated engines, a 0.25 per cent increase in maximum fuel flow would not have yielded any spectacular gain.
But with a turbocharged engine, that increase in flow allows you to run appropriately more turbo boost and it’s believed that the amount by which the FIA wished to see Ricciardo’s flow turned down by would have equated to between 0.2-0.3s per lap. Which would almost certainly have lost him a place to the McLaren of Kevin Magnussen – and maybe to that of Jenson Button too. It’s little wonder that Red Bull preferred its own data.
In which case, we are potentially looking at the prospect of the device at the very heart of the fuel flow principle being unfit for purpose. So, why is that regulation there in the first place? The intention when the regs were framed was that it would concentrate engine development on the same path as that being followed by the car industry – ie. torque rather than high-revs power.
The fuel flow limit essentially makes it not worthwhile revving the engine much beyond 12,000rpm even though the rev limit is 15,000rpm. The permitted peak fuel flow flattens out from 10,500rpm – and so it’s only worth going to the revs that will drop you back into the torque band.
What if that fuel flow limit were abolished but the requirement of using no more than 100kg in the race retained? Potentially it would allow you to run maps that could take full advantage of the 15,000rpm limit in qualifying, with appropriately mega boost. We would probably be looking at genuinely 1000bhp combined engine/ERS in qualifying.
Yet the engines would still need to last five races, on pain of penalty. So there’d be a certain strategic gamble in how much boost you dare run in qualifying. If the engine could withstand occasional qualifying boost yet still last five races, then that would be a fantastic engineering achievement. If it didn’t, then those teams would have to restrict their qualifying boost.
This is all just theory at the moment. But we have a very interesting test case coming up – and who knows how that might impact upon the future?
More from Mark Hughes
Success should come to Valtteri Bottas
2014 Australian Grand Prix report
Who’s got the new formula figured out?Follow Mark on Twitter
Red Bull’s fuel flow appeal27/03/14Mark Hughes explains Red Bull’s side of the fuel flow argument and what the appeal might mean for the rest of the season
0Formula 1
Schumacher at his sporting best27/03/14Paul Fearnley looks back to the 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix, one of Michael Schumacher’s greatest performances
0F1 History
Emanuele Pirro – ask your questions26/03/14Send us your questions for five-time Le Mans winner Emanuele Pirro
12Formula 1 Sports Cars Tin TopsAuthor
Mark HughesRead Mark's profile and more …
Archives Select Month March 2014 (37) February 2014 (48) January 2014 (38) December 2013 (47) November 2013 (53) October 2013 (63) September 2013 (54) August 2013 (45) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (55) May 2013 (52) April 2013 (45) March 2013 (48) February 2013 (37) January 2013 (45) December 2012 (49) November 2012 (41) October 2012 (49) September 2012 (39) August 2012 (42) July 2012 (40) June 2012 (30) May 2012 (37) April 2012 (32) March 2012 (31) February 2012 (28) January 2012 (25) December 2011 (29) November 2011 (25) October 2011 (29) September 2011 (59) August 2011 (17) July 2011 (16) June 2011 (21) May 2011 (18) April 2011 (11) March 2011 (16) February 2011 (15) January 2011 (16) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (16) October 2010 (12) September 2010 (17) August 2010 (18) July 2010 (17) June 2010 (18) May 2010 (14) April 2010 (12) March 2010 (18) February 2010 (13) January 2010 (15) December 2009 (15) November 2009 (14) October 2009 (18) September 2009 (15) August 2009 (17) July 2009 (15) June 2009 (18) May 2009 (16) April 2009 (13) March 2009 (19) February 2009 (21) January 2009 (17) December 2008 (11) November 2008 (13) October 2008 (20) September 2008 (20) August 2008 (21) July 2008 (19) June 2008 (14) May 2008 (21) April 2008 (23) March 2008 (21) February 2008 (17) January 2008 (3) PollDigital Community
RT @SkyCycling: Carlos Betancur seals #ParisNice victory as Arthur Vichot wins final stage - bit.ly/1lGlmfg http://t.co/tOEfS6a9kF
@SportmphMark 17 MarchYou can read my full race report here: motorsportmagazine.com/f1/reports/aus…
@SportmphMark 17 MarchFind out the secret of Ferrari's near-inaudible downshifts here motorsportmagazine.com/f1/whos-got-th…
@SportmphMark 14 MarchJust returned from trackside Melbourne. The new cars sound fabulous, look spectacular, drivers sawing at wheel out of slow turns. #Skyf1
@SportmphMark 14 MarchAs I arrive in Melbourne for first GP, my brother Warren has confirmed his British GT plans facebook.com/warren.hughes.…
@SportmphMark 12 March
Latest issueApril 2014F1 Revolution by Mark Hughes, Lunch with Paul Tracy, F1 Retro photo special, Peter Revson retrospective, Hall of Fame highlights, Oliver Jarvis interview, Race2Recovery on the Dakar Rally, new Chevron
SubscribeSave 23% and have every copy delivered direct to your home.
Subscribe ShopSubscribe and buy back issues, digital archives, and more.
Shop NewsletterBe kept up to date by Nigel Roebuck, straight to your inbox.
Sign up Media PackContact UsPrivacy policyTerms and conditionsFAQs© Motor Sport Magazine 2014Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement and privacy policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment