The fuel flow meter and how it will affect this year's F1

[Valve Bounce]

Well, first of all I have to apologise for being totally ignorant on this subject as I have not followed F1 for two years (for logistal and very personal reasons).
I did hear on today's radio that Red Bull claims there have been issues with this fuel flow meter with other teams. So I would ask here: 1) Did Lewis Hamilton's and Seb Vettel's retirements have anything to do with loss of power as a result of these fuel flow meters?
2) Did any other teams experience loss of power as a result of the fuel flow meters not working properly?
3) who designed the fuel flow meter, who manufactured these meters, and were these meters manufactured under an FIA contract, or a contract run by one of the teams?

I simply cannot understand the reason for these fuel flow meters if all cars were limited to 100kg of fuel - there must be some very good reason that I don't know of.

Many of my friends here will remember that I have always advocated the elimination of all on board computers and electrical devices. Just have the battery connected to the spark and to teh starter (for safety reasons the latter).

This way, the cost of F1 teams will plummet like a lead balloon, and the F1 competition will pit the driving abilities of 30 of the best drivers in the world directly against each other. Now what could be better than that?

[pcal226]

As far as I know the failures of Hamilton and Vettel's cars (as well those of the other retirees) had nothing to do with the fuel flow sensors. The defect with the sensors (if it turns out there is one as Red Bull claims) simply means that the FIA can't accurately read the fuel flow rate into the engines. I don't think the sensors have any impact on the performance of the engines themselves.

[Doc Austin]

I think we are in for a year of over officiating and DQs.

[Valve Bounce]

As far as I know the failures of Hamilton and Vettel's cars (as well those of the other retirees) had nothing to do with the fuel flow sensors. The defect with the sensors (if it turns out there is one as Red Bull claims) simply means that the FIA can't accurately read the fuel flow rate into the engines. I don't think the sensors have any impact on the performance of the engines themselves.

Surely, if the sensors, as I have just found out from Autosport were provided by the FIA, are incorrect, and result in wrong readings, leading teams to adjust their fuel flow rates, then this must have an impact on the engines performance themselves.

The question I'd like answered is why have these sensors in the first place? What is their aim?

The argument used by Red Bull is interesting, especially as they claim some cars ran without the sensors: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ostpopular (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112968?source=mostpopular)

[pcal226]

Surely, if the sensors, as I have just found out from Autosport were provided by the FIA, are incorrect, and result in wrong readings, leading teams to adjust their fuel flow rates, then this must have an impact on the engines performance themselves.

The question I'd like answered is why have these sensors in the first place? What is their aim?

When you put it that way your right. The sensors are there so that the FIA can police the teams and ensure that they are sticking with the fuel flow rate proscribed by the regulations. Now you can argue (and I think most fans would) that the fact that there even is a rule stipulating a maximum fuel flow rate is stupid because the cars are running on a limited amount of fuel as it is. But the fact is a rule is a rule, no matter how stupid or redundant it may seem to us. The sensors are there to make sure the rule is followed. If it turns out they're inaccurate though, thats gonna be a huge deal that the FIA needs to sort out NOW. Personally I think Ricciardo has a pretty good chance of having his DSQ overturned. If Red Bull can prove that just one other team was having problems with the sensors and their accuracy, I can't imagine how the FIA would be able rule against them. Still, proving there was an issue is a pretty big if. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in FIA proceedings.

[donKey jote]

In my donkey experience, measuring fuel flow rates exactly can be extremely difficult. Anything to do with a volumetric flow meter is very sensitive to things like fuel temperatures, the position/length/material compliance of the hoses etc. Calculations based on fuel injection times are way more accurate.
Still, if the regulations say that is how it's to be done, and it's the same for all, then that's the way it's to be done, the same for all. :dozey:

[Whyzars]

In my donkey experience, measuring fuel flow rates exactly can be extremely difficult. Anything to do with a volumetric flow meter is very sensitive to things like fuel temperatures, the position/length/material compliance of the hoses etc. Calculations based on fuel injection times are way more accurate.
Still, if the regulations say that is how it's to be done, and it's the same for all, then that's the way it's to be done, the same for all. :dozey:

Extremely difficult as you say. I would imagine the tolerances would be difficult to get consistent across individual sensors as well. i would like to know how many are rejected or fail after acceptance.

If their objective is to set a hard maximum of available fuel flow than why not mandate the pump inlet size and even the pump. Let the teams handle pressure regulation and other whizz bangery around injector opening times.

[SGWilko]

As I understand it, the teams could run with 150KG fuel in the tank, so long as they do not consume at a rate AT ANY TIME above 100KG/h then they are fine. They'd be a bit daft to run so heavy mind - but I wanted to dispel any misconception that teams were only to run with 100KG of fuel on board.

A lot of the issues with these meters is electrical interference - there are two frequencies to use to monitor the sensors, but if there is electromagnetic interference, you could get skewed results. The teams either need to protect the sensors from the interference sources, or comply if the FIA recommend they reduce flow.

Of course RedBull know best, and in doing so, they have taken away a very good drive from a young upcoming star in his home race.

[steveaki13]

Its great that F1 2014 is under way and already we have 3 threads discussing fuel flow rates. I am sure that's what Bernie and the FIA wanted 2014 to be about. Controversial Fuel Rates. :rolleyes:

Anyway that's what they get for introducing silly rulings that are so hard to police that no one seems to know what exactly is going on.

[Robinho]

As I understand it, the teams could run with 150KG fuel in the tank, so long as they do not consume at a rate AT ANY TIME above 100KG/h then they are fine. They'd be a bit daft to run so heavy mind - but I wanted to dispel any misconception that teams were only to run with 100KG of fuel on board.

A lot of the issues with these meters is electrical interference - there are two frequencies to use to monitor the sensors, but if there is electromagnetic interference, you could get skewed results. The teams either need to protect the sensors from the interference sources, or comply if the FIA recommend they reduce flow.

Of course RedBull know best, and in doing so, they have taken away a very good drive from a young upcoming star in his home race. I don't think that is the case. As I understand it they are given an allocation of 100kg of fuel for the race distance AND at any time during the race cannot exceed a flow of 100kg/hr. What I'm unsure of is if that would be max flow and only applies when using the throttle, so they would not burn through 100kg in an hour, or if that rate is averaged over a sector or a lap. But I think their are 2 constraints involved, the total fuel of 100kg and the max fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr

[Mia 01]

With the trottle at full the engine only gets 100 kg/hr and thats it, after one hour the theres no moore fuel. And, they got only 100 kg fuel in the car.

I f you manipulate the fuel flow your enginé could for a shorter time produce up to moore than 1000 hp.

Horner hints that some teams are doing this, wonder which teams that is. Are they slower than RBR?

[SGWilko]

So, could you allow your fuel - post meter - to collect somewhere - being delivered at the collector at a constant 100KG/h and then delivering this collected fuel to the ICE at a greater flow rate at peak load for better acceleration?

[SGWilko]

I don't think that is the case. As I understand it they are given an allocation of 100kg of fuel for the race distance AND at any time during the race cannot exceed a flow of 100kg/hr. What I'm unsure of is if that would be max flow and only applies when using the throttle, so they would not burn through 100kg in an hour, or if that rate is averaged over a sector or a lap. But I think their are 2 constraints involved, the total fuel of 100kg and the max fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr

Ah, gotcha.

[Valve Bounce]

So, could you allow your fuel - post meter - collect somewhere - being delivered at the collector at a constant 100KG/h and then delivering this collected fuel at a greater flow rate for better acceleration?

We are getting into Bunsen and his spare tank scenario here! :D

[AndyL]

These seem to be the relevant rules:



5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

and


5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.
5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.


That seems to leave a lot of questions unanswered. Surely there must be some sort of manifold between the tank and the injectors, which will inevitably act as a buffer to allow an instantaneous flow greater than the continuous flow measured at the feed from the tank. Why doesn't that contravene 5.10.5?

[Whyzars]

These seem to be the relevant rules:

[quote]
5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

and


5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.
5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.


That seems to leave a lot of questions unanswered. Surely there must be some sort of manifold between the tank and the injectors, which will inevitably act as a buffer to allow an instantaneous flow greater than the continuous flow measured at the feed from the tank. Why doesn't that contravene 5.10.5?[/quote:v08tik1k]


In a domestic system, if you need more volume to be "instantly" available then you make the fuel lines/rails thicker. Pressure/flow is unaffected up to maximum pump delivery.

The pump always flows more than is needed and regulators restrict the tank return lines to provide pressure. Fuel that isn't sprayed out an injector passes through the regulator and is returned to the tank.

[donKey jote]

clever sensors... ultrasound!
did I not know that.
Google GILL or translate from deutsch:
http://www.sportauto.de/motorsport/tech ... 54195.html (http://www.sportauto.de/motorsport/technik-hintergrund-durchflussmengenbegrenzer-energie-wende-beim-motorsport-ab-2014-6554195.html)
http://www.gillsensors.com/content/fuel ... ensor.html (http://www.gillsensors.com/content/fuel-flow-sensor.html)


Accuracy
52% of meters are within ± 0.1% accuracy of reading
92% of meters are within ± 0.25% accuracy of reading

[Robinho]

James Allen has a piece on the fuel flow rate. The max of 100kg/hr is measured at the rev limit of 10,500rpm and reduces with the revs in line with a formula.

[Valve Bounce]

As to accuracy of fuel flow meters, I have to take the word of RBR over the FIA . After all, RBR have had nearly 4 years' experience with fuel flow meters: they had one secretly installed in Mark Webber's car for 3 years already!!!! :disturb: : :rotflmao:

[kfzmeister]

The fuel flow rate limit is there to assure teams are not putting out more power than is allowed.

RB states that they got faulty readings during the weekend and took it upon themselves to install their own measuring device. They were warned multiple times to revert to the FIA metering device. They ignored those warnings and so were penalized.
Every other team had to use the same meter/ unit and "got on with it just fine."

Imo, RB were a little too arrogant in thinking this would fly. My question now is: Where, performance wise, are they really ranked?

Btw, both Ham and Seb had misfire issues not related to the device.

[kfzmeister]

As to accuracy of fuel flow meters, I have to take the word of RBR over the FIA . After all, RBR have had nearly 4 years' experience with fuel flow meters: they had one secretly installed in Mark Webber's car for 3 years already!!!! :disturb: : :rotflmao:

You mean Seb's? :eek:

[Hawkmoon]

Red Bull are probably correct in that the FIA mandated sensor was problematic but they were either extremely stupid or extremely arrogant to not do something when warned by the FIA that they were in breach of the regulations.

Even if you think the rule makers are wrong you have to abide by their decisions. Argue about it later sure, but do as they say now or suffer the consequences.

[Valve Bounce]

The fuel flow rate limit is there to assure teams are not putting out more power than is allowed.

RB states that they got faulty readings during the weekend and took it upon themselves to install their own measuring device. They were warned multiple times to revert to the FIA metering device. They ignored those warnings and so were penalized.
Every other team had to use the same meter/ unit and "got on with it just fine."

Imo, RB were a little too arrogant in thinking this would fly. My question now is: Where, performance wise, are they really ranked?

Btw, both Ham and Seb had misfire issues not related to the device.

Performance wise, the discussion panel here in Chanel 10 involving former WDC Alan Jones, Mark Webber and that ex bike racer, Mercedes had the edge over Renault and it was something Renault had to attend to. Somehow, RBR insisted that they had already replaced one faulty FIA metering device during practice with another, and when they found the second device and reported this to the FIA, they were instructed to re-install the first "faulty" device. There appears to have been a lot more going on than just a straight forward refusal to obey FIA instructions. No doubt, all this will come out during the appeal in Paris and any subsequent court cases if this eventuates in a failed appeal. I can see this dragging on well into the season.

Your statement that every other team had to use the same meter and got on with it just fine may not be the case. Mercedes were exceeding fuel flow readings during the race (from teh FIA report) and were told to cut back, which they did. Maybe because they would have run out of fuel if they didn't, from Magnussen's orders 5 laps from race end, who really knows? In fact, RBR contend some teams ewre running without the fuel flow meters.
at this stage, nobody really knows what the exact issues are.

[Valve Bounce]

As to accuracy of fuel flow meters, I have to take the word of RBR over the FIA . After all, RBR have had nearly 4 years' experience with fuel flow meters: they had one secretly installed in Mark Webber's car for 3 years already!!!! :disturb: : :rotflmao:

You mean Seb's? :eek:

No! I mean Mark's. It would explain all the strange starts.

[Whyzars]

James Allen has a piece on the fuel flow rate. The max of 100kg/hr is measured at the rev limit of 10,500rpm and reduces with the revs in line with a formula.

Great article and a link sent me on to http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112975 on autosport which is a good one too.


Does James Allen actually provide an insight into the workings of F1 officialdom?

What do "...highly efficient down-sized road car"s have to do with F1? :eek:

If they made all these changes for a down sized road car then do we now have a down sized race car?


(Are there any opinions about whether the Celebrity Challenge Mazda 3's sounded beefier than the F1 cars seeing as they're now from the same automotive family? ) :rolleyes:



Interesting that the autosport article says that:


Even if the sensor fails it is still possible to calculate the fuel flow via readings from the fuel pressure and injector timings. This is not as accurate as the sensor, but does at least provide a reserve option.

They need to have multiple sensors installed. Go with the reserve option and give Ricciardo back his second place. Please.

I'm going out now to buy a can of Red Bull.

[kfzmeister]

Your statement that every other team had to use the same meter and got on with it just fine may not be the case. Mercedes were exceeding fuel flow readings during the race (from teh FIA report) and were told to cut back, which they did. Maybe because they would have run out of fuel if they didn't, from Magnussen's orders 5 laps from race end, who really knows? In fact, RBR contend some teams ewre running without the fuel flow meters.
at this stage, nobody really knows what the exact issues are.

Not my statement, but rather Charlie Whiting's. I haven't read anywhere that others had issues.

[Valve Bounce]

Just read the Autosport report linked by whyzars; and this is the critical sentence: "The challenge has been to ensure these sensors are both accurate and reliable, with several teams complaining of deficiencies in both areas over the Australian GP weekend".

Now if RBR can produce reports to back up this claim, then the FIA would have a lot of answering to account for.

There are other ways of limiting power produced by a turbocharged car: limit the turbo pressure with a pressure pop off valve.

Why have turbo and those energy recovery doodads on an F1 car is beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's time to bring back Max!! He'd whip this lot into shape!! :rotflmao:

[Robinho]

Autosport a reporting that several teams had issues with the devices, and subsequently complied with the FIA's advice. RB were the only ones who tried to go in alone, despite the warnings there was a zero tolerance policy on the fuel rules

[Whyzars]

Just read the Autosport report linked by whyzars; and this is the critical sentence: "The challenge has been to ensure these sensors are both accurate and reliable, with several teams complaining of deficiencies in both areas over the Australian GP weekend".

Now if RBR can produce reports to back up this claim, then the FIA would have a lot of answering to account for.

We're watching a slow motion p*ssing contest.

Red Bull could show they weren't cheating, that they were flowing less fuel. That's not what they got pinged for is it?

Read what was on the JA site, its about a potential technology revolution!!!! Trying to save the world maybe?

A team that is trying to win a race is not playing the new game the way they are supposed to. What Red Bull should've done is used less fuel because in the end, that is the goal. Every carbon atom is sacred, every carbon atom is good (queue Monte Python).





There are other ways of limiting power produced by a turbocharged car: limit the turbo pressure with a pressure pop off valve.

Why have turbo and those energy recovery doodads on an F1 car is beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's time to bring back Max!! He'd whip this lot into shape!! :rotflmao:

If you mean blow off valves, they are only for boost air pressure. This issue is fuel flow and regulated fuel pressure. The teams know to the pooftenth of a millilitre how much fuel is in each squirt. The sensor is about the scrutineers receiving the same signal from all teams and not relying on teams telling them the truth. Maybe they've been deceived in the past. :)

Max would shove their down sized road cars where the sun don't shine. I wouldn't like to guess at what he'd be wearing at the time though.

Its nice that he is remembered. :D

[kfzmeister]

It makes sense to me. FIA has mandated the Fuel flow sensor to ensure that the fuel flow is limited. The idea is to conserve fuel and to use this same area as a way of limiting HP.
The sensors are built by a company and another company oversees the calibration. The way that flow is measured is via ultra sonic frequency and there are peaks and valleys. Teams have reported too much variance in those readings/ spikes. The FIA has recognized this and made some changes in the the way they sample the readings (slowed down the time frame).
During the weekend, teams including Mercedes, have been informed that their sample readings are not within parameters and have been told to "dial back" their performance. They, and others i assume, have complied.
Red Bull did not. Over the weekend, they had enough time to comply.
Red Bull states that they can prove that they complied via their own measuring device, yet this is not the issue here. They decided to circumvent the rules, and therein lies the problem.
And, this is why i believe: 1. It is right to disqualify Daniel (and he does know what his team is doing at all times) 2. RB should/ will not win back their Australia points/ position.

[driveace]

You have got it exactly .RedBull were told as were Mercedes ,Mercedes complied ,Red Bull decided not to ! Now the boss Maistric,says they may pull out ,so are RB too big for their boots ,and above questioning ?
It makes sense to me. FIA has mandated the Fuel flow sensor to ensure that the fuel flow is limited. The idea is to conserve fuel and to use this same area as a way of limiting HP.
The sensors are built by a company and another company oversees the calibration. The way that flow is measured is via ultra sonic frequency and there are peaks and valleys. Teams have reported too much variance in those readings/ spikes. The FIA has recognized this and made some changes in the the way they sample the readings (slowed down the time frame).
During the weekend, teams including Mercedes, have been informed that their sample readings are not within parameters and have been told to "dial back" their performance. They, and others i assume, have complied.
Red Bull did not. Over the weekend, they had enough time to comply.
Red Bull states that they can prove that they complied via their own measuring device, yet this is not the issue here. They decided to circumvent the rules, and therein lies the problem.
And, this is why i believe: 1. It is right to disqualify Daniel (and he does know what his team is doing at all times) 2. RB should/ will not win back their Australia points/ position.

[Mia 01]

Every team got the same fuel flow meter, thats enough for me.

[steveaki13]

I saw the quote from Maistric saying that Red Bull could withdraw because of decisions being made.

That seems a really petty comment and attitude to be honest. I think that's why Red Bull are hard to warm to. They seem to often have a superior attitude a bit like the England football team fans gets accused of. Although Red Bull are the best around unlike England. :D

Anyway they say it as though F1 couldn't live without them.

BTW I do think the penalty was harsh, but why come out with threats to quit.

[Bagwan]

Red Bull will argue that they were within the rules , regarding the actual fuel flow , and that the meters were known to be faulty .

I think they will lose the case , but I hope that the end result will be that the metering idea is scrapped altogether .
As in the real world , the cars are going to vary wildly in the amount of fuel they use at any given moment , but it's when we are at the pumps that we see how much fuel was used to get there .

If the teams were simply given the assigned amount , it would be likely that they would use as close to every drop they could .

It is obvious that there is "instant karma" for anyone getting it wrong and running out of fuel , but would it work to measure what's left in all the tanks after starting with 100kg , to give the crew who got their car to the finish line on the least amount of fuel at least some extra kudos for the job , if not outright points .

Perhaps it's the green factor championship , with it's own points race .
It could make for some face time for the backmarkers and set the green image into it's own realm , a little apart from the racing .

And , if you think about it , Merc right now , might even think about turning it down a little , if they thought they could contend for a little more green flavoured press , so in today's context , at least , it might even make for closer racing .


Scrap the metering or the season will be full of appeals .

[Tazio]

I have to say that the formula has gotten a little too complicated, and intricate, and having a fuel flow meter as well as a limited amount of gasoline seems a little redundant. No doubt next season is going to see some of this mess cleaned up.
As F1 goes Red Bull is my least favorite team, but I could live with their domination as this alternative is starting to look very sketchy to me. Why can't hey just let the lads race? :dork:

[AndyL]

The flow meter, and the 100kg/h maximum flow that it's needed to enforce, has a specific role beyond what the 100kg total fuel limit does. It acts as an effective power cap, and also forces the teams to ration their fuel at least somewhat evenly over the race. Without it, these engines would probably be making well north of 1000 horsepower when running at full power. No doubt that would be entertaining but I can see a lot of reasons why the FIA would not want it. Safety, huge speed differentials between cars running in full-power and fuel-saving modes, and making suitable tyres for example.

There could also be a risk that races end up something like cycling pursuits, with a long, boring period of fuel saving much more extreme than we're seeing now, followed by a short sprint at high power. Or worse, one leading driver does his sprint at the start and another at the end, and the drivers contesting the win spend most of the race 20 seconds apart on track.

In the past of course, a boost pressure limit was used as a way to cap power. I'm not quite sure why that option was rejected this time round, given that it's obviously much simpler to enforce, and would still address most of the concerns above. I think using fuel flow instead is perhaps a way to push the engine-makers to spend their development budget in the areas the FIA finds more politically correct. With a fuel flow limit, the only ways to get more power are to improve efficiency or improve the ERS systems. It prevents "traditional" engine development and tuning that's aimed at producing more power by burning fuel more quickly.

[Mia 01]

A well formulated and informative post about the issues AndyL.

[steveaki13]

I have to say that the formula has gotten a little too complicated, and intricate, and having a fuel flow meter as well as a limited amount of gasoline seems a little redundant. No doubt next season is going to see some of this mess cleaned up.
As F1 goes Red Bull is my least favorite team, but I could live with their domination as this alternative is starting to look very sketchy to me. Why can't hey just let the lads race? :dork:

Spot on Doc. 100% agree with you. :)

[Tazio]

The flow meter, and the 100kg/h maximum flow that it's needed to enforce, has a specific role beyond what the 100kg total fuel limit does. It acts as an effective power cap, and also forces the teams to ration their fuel at least somewhat evenly over the race. Without it, these engines would probably be making well north of 1000 horsepower when running at full power. No doubt that would be entertaining but I can see a lot of reasons why the FIA would not want it. Safety, huge speed differentials between cars running in full-power and fuel-saving modes, and making suitable tyres for example.

There could also be a risk that races end up something like cycling pursuits, with a long, boring period of fuel saving much more extreme than we're seeing now, followed by a short sprint at high power. Or worse, one leading driver does his sprint at the start and another at the end, and the drivers contesting the win spend most of the race 20 seconds apart on track.

In the past of course, a boost pressure limit was used as a way to cap power. I'm not quite sure why that option was rejected this time round, given that it's obviously much simpler to enforce, and would still address most of the concerns above. I think using fuel flow instead is perhaps a way to push the engine-makers to spend their development budget in the areas the FIA finds more politically correct. With a fuel flow limit, the only ways to get more power are to improve efficiency or improve the ERS systems. It prevents "traditional" engine development and tuning that's aimed at producing more power by burning fuel more quickly.Good points Andy, This whole shootin' match just doesn't seem very well thought out, and for what it's worth it doesn't fell right to me either. Hopefully my intuition is dead wrong and we have some good old fashion hard racing soon. ;) :sailor: :dork:

[Whyzars]

In the past of course, a boost pressure limit was used as a way to cap power. I'm not quite sure why that option was rejected this time round, given that it's obviously much simpler to enforce, and would still address most of the concerns above. .


They want the cars to test the force limits and run on compressed air as much as possible.

Best I can tell this is about qualifying primarily and keeping qualifying as equal to the race as possible. They are rationing available fuel pressure/volume in any millisecond to restrict the power delivery that can be produced whereas race distance and tyres are the delivery limits during the race..

What would happen to qualifying if the flow meters were not installed? How many seconds faster would a car be in qualifying than in the race?



I think using fuel flow instead is perhaps a way to push the engine-makers to spend their development budget in the areas the FIA finds more politically correct. With a fuel flow limit, the only ways to get more power are to improve efficiency or improve the ERS systems. It prevents "traditional" engine development and tuning that's aimed at producing more power by burning fuel more quickly

Absolutely.

I'm of the view that what they are doing is technically clever but its very artificial and if it backfires will cloak everyone in doo doo.

Why didn't they use a restriction at the inlet or outlet in the tank? Why didn't they mandate the fuel pump or dampener size or fuel regulator?

DJ said early on words to the effect that Mercedes are able to meet the dial back because they've got oodles of head room whereas Renault/RB do not. I tend to see this as a very solid comment especially considering that the same looks to be happening in Malaysia.

Due to flow hammering/dampening, I can't see how a single meter can be tasked for something so critical - especially considering that the design of the fuel delivery system is not standardised. I think they need to eventually install multiple meters but widen the tolerances for Malaysia lest we have another nail knocked into F1's 2014 coffin.

[journeyman racer]

I have to say that the formula has gotten a little too complicated, and intricate, and having a fuel flow meter as well as a limited amount of gasoline seems a little redundant. No doubt next season is going to see some of this mess cleaned up.
As F1 goes Red Bull is my least favorite team, but I could live with their domination as this alternative is starting to look very sketchy to me. Are you being serious? It's only been one race.


Why can't hey just let the lads race? :dork:They are. It's just a different type of driving and planning for the race is required.