How to fix Formula 1's 100kg fuel limit rule

"ncasolowork2" (ncasolowork2)
03/18/2014 at 12:19 • Filed to: None

Create a weight penalty for every 1kg of fuel added above 100kg. If your team estimates you need 105kg to finish the grand prix at full throttle apply a 4kg/1kg of fuel weight penalty. Adding an extra 20kg of weight to the car that you can't burn off as you use fuel is a significant penalty in F1. It'll motivate teams to use or get to the target number of 100kg without turning the teams loose to burn as much fuel as they want.

If you're having problems replying to this post right click on it and click on open in new tab.

DISCUSSION (25)

Jonathon Klein > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:23

Why not just give them enough fuel that they can run the race at full speed.

Joe_Limon > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:26

Why not simply disqualify teams that try going over said limit? It is a technical challenge to encourage innovation. There is significant motivation in not having to refuel in the last lap, as there is trying to go 100% for the entire race.

ncasolowork2 > Jonathon Klein
03/18/2014 at 12:31

If you want to drive the innovation of your technology and energy recovery systems you have to set some sort of target to give them incentive to continue to try and improve their ERS technology.

buford-t-justice > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:32

Give it a few races and teams will not need 100kg of fuel

McMike > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:33

I was thinking - "Just let them flow it however fast they want. You want to burn 75kg in the first 10 laps, go ahead!" Let the teams figure out when to use YellowG 3 or 10, or whatever. Sprint when you can, conserve when you can..

.....then I remembered how silly this is.

Limit the fuel or limit the flow, but don't do both. This isn't a fucking TopGear MPG challenge or your crazy brother-in-law's hypermiling stories. THIS IS FORMULA ONE!

ncasolowork2 > Joe_Limon
03/18/2014 at 12:34

That's the current rule. If you go over you get disqualified. The problem lies in the fact that at the end of the race in Australia Kevin Magnussen had to save fuel for a couple of laps before the end of the race so that he wouldn't be disqualified. This prevented him from really putting pressure on Ricciardo for 2nd on merit. This type or racing is not very entertaining.

The reality is at some tracks without a safety car and an aborted start that drivers will be sacrificing 1-2 seconds every lap for the entire race to make it to the finish. At other tracks they'll be fine, but a track like Silverstone that is mostly run wide open... that race is going to be a disaster unless it rains IMO.

ncasolowork2 > McMike
03/18/2014 at 12:35

The limit to the flow is to preserve the engines. At least that's my understanding of it. If you open up the flow the engines generate more power which means they wear out faster which is not what they want right now.

Joe_Limon > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:42

Well, I guess it depends if you want to watch drivers competing or cars/designs competing.

McMike > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 12:51

Excactly. Let the teams figure that out. Take a chance? Kablamo!

Racing should be speed and reliability arm wrestling with each other.

Jonathon Klein > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 13:03

That's true, but during last weekends race, the announcers kept talking about how the race needed a few cautions so that the drivers could save fuel and then they could run them at full power. That is definitely not the way of doing things.

ncasolowork2 > McMike
03/18/2014 at 13:26

The reliability rules are a cost savings structure. There's already way too much spending in F1. I'm all in favor of rules that prevent teams from being stupid with money.

ncasolowork2 > Joe_Limon
03/18/2014 at 13:27

The problem for me is if you're constantly having to lift that is not racing and that isn't even a car design competition.

ncasolowork2 > Jonathon Klein
03/18/2014 at 13:31

I agree. I don't want to have to root for rain so drivers have the fuel they need to finish. I also don't want to leave it unlimited and stunt the growth of the technology. If this was F1 in 2009 I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Part of what F1 2014 is about is the technology. If F1 was to write a mission statement today advanced technology would be a significant piece of it. When you've decided that your series is about technology I feel like you need to set goals to inspire growth of that technology.

Joe_Limon > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 13:44

I dunno, is a marathon not a race because its runners aren't sprinting?

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > McMike
03/18/2014 at 13:54

As far as I'm aware the fuel flow limit is there to limit power. Teams can get very clever if they're just given a certain weight of fuel and nothing else, but it's very hard to find a loophole with a homologated fuel-flow meter. Just ask Red Bull :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 13:54

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 13:58

From what I heard of the BBC commentary the fuel limit isn't actually that big of a deal. It's certainly less of a hindrance than the tyres were last year.

Given the single safety car we had during this race, most of the teams were able to run flat-out until the end. That was far from the case last year.

Oh, and apparently Melbourne is tough on fuel anyway. According to someone I heard the teams might be running with less than the 100kg limit of fuel in a couple of races time.

ncasolowork2 > Joe_Limon
03/18/2014 at 14:02

Marathon runners go the same speed for the entire race. At least they try to. If marathon runners ran for a while then walked and then ran for a while and then walked you'd have an analogy.

Wildstar > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 14:15

This will not save a dime. The teams will spend more money coming up with a fix for this alleged reliability/cost savings crap, than they would have if they were given the freedom to do as they see fit. Give them X amount of fuel, and let the team figure out how to use it. F1 is expensive. It has always been expensive. Artificial cost saving measures have never worked well in racing.

Jonathon Klein > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 14:26

But I kinda agree with Bernie for once that Technology is for LeMans, F1 is about the drivers and the pinnacle of performance, yes technology goes hand in hand with performance, but it should be looking for outright speed, not saving fuel or saving tires.

ncasolowork2 > Wildstar
03/18/2014 at 14:26

The total fuel use has nothing to do with cost savings I agree. The fuel flow that limits the amount of power the engine produces so the engine lasts longer does. The teams are certainly looking at a way to be more efficient, but I don't know that they're able to look at a way to get the engine to produce more power on the limited fuel flow rate.

ncasolowork2 > Jonathon Klein
03/18/2014 at 14:29

The saving tires bothers me a bit differently. I think it is important that strategy factor in to the event. Tires that create a 1 stop strategy create identical strategies for all the teams and that's boring. The problem is the pit delta is such that you're better off extending the life of the tires by going slowly than taking an extra pit stop. If Pirelli can find the sweet spot where teams are better off going all out (like Ferrari did at one of the races they won last year) then I think you've got the winning formula.

Joe_Limon > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 14:36

Ideally the F1 car drivers would pace themselves as well, why wear your tyres down prematurely if you are fuel limited anyway?

Jonathon Klein > ncasolowork2
03/18/2014 at 14:45

Yes I agree totally.

dmcspeedy > Jonathon Klein
03/18/2014 at 20:30

That's not new to this year though - teams have long sent out their cars without enough fuel to run race distance at qualifying pace. The equation was always about saving weight vs. having to turn the engine down toward the end of the race. This year there's a legislated upper limit to the fuel they can carry, before it was just down to the size of their tanks.