Why doesnt F1 just control fuel consumption

[Bigdaddytwon]

I've just finished doing some reading on the hisory of F1. And i came away with one thought. Instead of finding contrived ways to reduce speed, why not just limit the amount of fuel a team can use.

This would force teams to reduce the amount of energy used during a race by
a) more efficient engines (less HP)
b) more efficient tires (less grip)
c) less drag (less wing)

reducing fuel consumption seemed to work well for reducing power in cars during the 70's.

The one thing is you would have to limit pit stops, or just set a minimum fuel capacity, so teams were'nt just building monsters and stopping for gas every few laps, then sprinting ahead.

It also seems like this would provide the most value added for vehicle manufacturers, as HP/L in F1 is pretty much rediculous and can't have much transfer to road cars. As well as outside of a few supercars and more and more performance cars, downforce is not as important as drag coefficient.

This would also open up the way for stored energy (hybrids) to be further developed in racing situations.

and theres a simple way to keep the speeds down in future years, just reduce the allowed fuel per race, and teams will be forced to give up more wing, tire and HP in order to last the race.

The one major problem i can think of is that some teams would really try to push their fuel stints even further, and fans may react negatively to their favorite driver retireing because he ran out of gas. Perhaps a pit penalty (like a stop/start) could be enacted for going over the alloted fuel,
1 sec / 4l etc

Tell me what you think of it. I just think this could provide a better avenue for technical gains in F1 to benefit the participants more through selling that proprietary know-how to road car manufacturers.

[SPEEDCORE]

During the turbo era the engines were much smaller and they had bigger tanks and they ran on slicks. it be much simpler to make the teams use smaller engines than go on a fuel consumption rule. Also this idea would need $$$ in R&D soo it doesnt make F1 any more cost effective.

[biff19_a]

nice idea.. they did that with group C racing
The problem is that while it will slow the cars down alittle the show itself.. IE passing.. still wont happen. There is one thing that everyone who is against refuelling dont think of.
Lets me give an example.. Ferrari first and second.. now this time they dont have to stop.. so they are first and second the whole race.. there is no mix up in the order... no changes they jsut dissappear into the distance.. passing back markers along the way.. its the same as now but he at least when they come out of a pit stop once every so often they get caught up in a battle for position. Like the Italian GP where Michael had to actually pass Button for second.

[Bigdaddytwon]

i still think they could pit.. i mean even if you improve the fuel economy you're not going to carry enough fuel for an F1 car to run a whole race.

second of all, an engine which is more biased towards efficiency would need to be a much less stressed engine (lower RPMs). what would probably happen though is that they would optomize the engine strength for lower RPMS, so similar cost to today, its just that you're using smaller input forces, which would cut down some on the material cost, but this would only be slight.

With limiting fuel you may also see more passing, with some drivers choosing to run at a slightly slower pace in order to conserve fuel. Waiting for the others to over use their fuel and have to make extended pit stops for going over the fuel allotment.

I think the problems of speed control and price control are wholly seperate issues, unless you go to spec parts that are cheaper, at which point you can find me watching the Toyota Atlantics series.

[SPEEDCORE]

Originally Posted by Ronin005 they might of been smaller but they had more hp and a Turbo. if you have the same exact cars one with a turbo and one with no turbo the one with a turbo will consume fuel at a faster rate.

But thats my point they arent exactly the same. So your not comparing apples with apple. I own a 2l turbo car and it doesnt consume as much fuel as a V8 5l with about the same power output.

[he7lius]

I think that instead of these stupid rules of reducing the engine size, downforce, etc, i think there are 3 things that could be done which wouldn't cost a lot to implement but would reduce the speed of the cars.

1) Only one pit stop available during the whole race.
2) Only one set of tires for the whole race (unlimited for qualifying)
3) Increase the weight of the cars by 100/150 kg.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport but with a 2.4 engine and 25% less downforce I think it will be pathetic, especially since GP2 is coming now with cars which have 600bhp.

[FerrariKiller]

I think that would be a great idea. I have thought that they should make each car start each race with the same fuel load in order to make the opening stint of the race longer, because it's more exciting. I don't like it when cars are pitting on lap 8 and then everybody is racing the clock trying to pass eachother in the pits instead of on the track.

[mindgam3]

Or if they took it back to the old format of one hour (or maybe even change it to 30/40 min) and allowed the cars to refuel after then i think it would solve most issues.

I definately agree with he7lius's 3 points though. Changing the engine or aero is only going to decrease the excitement of the spectacle that is F1.... what would be the point in that. People talk about this because of safety, but F1 drivers and teams have always known how dangerous motorsport is and take this into account when they enter F1. Sure nobody wants to see anyone die but from the high impact crashes we've seen this season we know that safety has been improving as well as speed. And as technology moves on and we get that little bit quicker, so will saftey materials. I REALLY do not want to see any power or aero reductions

[Bigdaddytwon]

mindgam3 ...
I agree that F1 teams and drivers know what they are getting into and take that risk willingly. But as speeds increase it takes ever more expensive precautions to protect the fans in case of a crash. This requires adding more elaborate and expensive features to the track which further separate the spectators from the race.

Also its possible today to engineer a car which can completely outperform the limits of its driver (indy car drivers started passing out a few years ago due to G loading). So there is an upper limit on how fast a human operated vehicle can accelerate before the drivers just can't take it anymore. Higher G-loading may be acceptable in top fuel, but those are very short runs so the effects are minimized. Unless drivers find a new pinnacle of athletisicim (lord knows the're in far better shape than most of us) they will continue to be a limiting factor in the performance of the vehicle.

[Toronto]

tubro era cars- slower then modern cars, who cars?

fuel is not the problem, jordan and minardi not being able to build good cars is!

[Ill Dottore]

Hello.. I'm new here.

About fuel consumption, i think the FIA didit in the past but the results are very poor. Because many drivers of the turbo era, ran out of gas before the chequered flag drops.

TThe problem is not the fuel. The problem is that the cars are faster every year and that is killing teh sport. the racing team with big pockets are more probable to win the WDC, no matter who is driving it (Example: 1992 Williams FW14, one of the most perfect cars, in technoology)

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddytwon mindgam3 ... I agree that F1 teams and drivers know what they are getting into and take that risk willingly. But as speeds increase it takes ever more expensive precautions to protect the fans in case of a crash. This requires adding more elaborate and expensive features to the track which further separate the spectators from the race. Also its possible today to engineer a car which can completely outperform the limits of its driver (indy car drivers started passing out a few years ago due to G loading). So there is an upper limit on how fast a human operated vehicle can accelerate before the drivers just can't take it anymore. Higher G-loading may be acceptable in top fuel, but those are very short runs so the effects are minimized. Unless drivers find a new pinnacle of athletisicim (lord knows the're in far better shape than most of us) they will continue to be a limiting factor in the performance of the vehicle.

track safety though is only really relative to high speeds. The top speeds of F1 cars hasn't really changed much, its just the acceleration getting there. The only real danger for fans is bits of cars flying off which no one can really do anything about and its not really relative to speed once you get past 60 or so.

As for acceleration.... what about F1 G suits?