Comments on: Five problems F1 designers face in 2010

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:49:43 +0000

That happened just last year at Spain (Massa) and it’s no more likely to happen because of the refuelling ban. In fact I’d suggest it’s less likely to happen because drivers won’t have to suffer problems with faulty refuelling rigs during the races.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:53:32 +0000

Good old FIA. Multiple (unlimited?) fuel stops in a number of years followed by a complete ban on refuelling.

Good one! Now we risk seeing tight finishes detroyed because someone was on the gas pedal a lot in the closing stages of a race trying to move up a position and runs out of fuel on the last lap. Surely a ban on refuelling, except in the last 10% of race distance or laps would make more sense?. They could even mandate fuel churns rather than pressurised rigs?

We don’t want to see nail-biting finishes ruined because one or two cars run out of fuel in the last few laps.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:47:14 +0000

I agree with you John H. I can’t believe that they are not increasing brake size given that brake use will also increase. To add to this it is said the FIA will come down hard on avoidable crashes such as Webber’s Singapore shunt.

Poor foresight

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:46:52 +0000

it seems to me it’s not the fuel consuption with a static load as you have described, but the aerodynamics of the car and tire compounds / pressures that can reduce the load transferred to the track, plus the driver ability that will define fuel consumption. On the track there is considerable acceleration and de-acceleration going on that is in driver control and the engines are not always running 100%.

Fundamentally the original comment “To begin with, that figure of 2.533kg per lap will increase in 2010 because the minimum weight of the cars has gone up by 15kg to 620kg. Also, the cars will consume fuel at a faster rate at the beginning of the race due to the extra weight of fuel on board. That means they will need even more fuel in the tank to begin with.” … is correct

By: Martin B

Martin B — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:57:09 +0000

Interesting point, F1Yankee.

If we assume the engine sucks in the same amount of fuel with every intake stroke (i.e. throttle always fully open or fully closed), then the amount of fuel used is proportional to the number of revolutions the engine makes over the race distance while delivering power (i.e. not including braking distances when presumably a fuel cut-off operates).

Heavier car = lower gearing generally = more revs = more fuel
Heavier car = longer distance in lower gears = more revs = more fuel
Heavier car = longer distance under braking = more no-fuel revs = less fuel

On balance, I think they will use more fuel.

But then maybe they reduce downforce hence drag hence more time in top gear hence less fuel used… I think I’ll just wait and see what happens.

By: Chaz

Chaz — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:56:02 +0000

Good article. I’m looking forward to Adrians design as the RedBull was by far the best looking car with the horned javalin nose. Personally I think its a mistake to get rid of kers this year as I would have thought it would be much more udeful and helpfull with all the other changes mentioned…

By: charles fox

charles fox — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:35:15 +0000

I’ve just realised something: could actually be an interesting comparison between F1 and LMP1 at certain tracks that aren’t massively dependant on the F1 cars much increased downforce, a mid/low downforce track where F1 vs LMP1 is comparable in power, probably still a good bit more downforce for the F1, but much less drag for a prototype. Low fuel LMP1 lap times could be rather close to F1 at beginning of the race. last year i believe silverstone, monza and spa was about 10-15% slower in a P1(908/R15/AMR01) than F1.

Personally i think that’d be an interesting comparison, now in certain conditions you could compare:
“700+”bhp vs 740+bhp
800kg vs 930+kg
L/D ratio 6+:1 vs 3-4:1 for probably 10+% donwforce difference.
comparable tyre sizes F1s 25mm wider up front and 10mm wider in the back i believe.
bear in mind although not massively relevant in these situations:
200lb ft torque vs “885″+ lf bt!!! (908 in ’08)

so being honest its probably; a very similar power output, 4 x more torque for diesel LMP1, much less drag, similarish downforce. i’m excited to see the difference and then consider the cost of a 908 vs a 2010 F1 lol

By: Racehound

Racehound — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:22:21 +0000

Take 2 identical Ferraris….add 100kgs extra ballast to 1 of them, and by the end of 1 lap or 200 laps the car with extra weight will have used more fuel!!!! Absolutely no doubt about that!!! #:)

By: K

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:04:22 +0000

I’m sick of hearing about Williams bloody KERS, Williams KERS this Williams KERS that, I hope they ban KERS just so I never have to hear about their bloody KERS ever again. They spent all that time designing it, talking about it, making CGI demonstrations of it and where was it last season? I’ve heard enough.

By: Skett

Skett — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:53:49 +0000

The simple fact it though, overall fuel economy will be lower because although they will be using 100% throttle most of the time, due to the lower acceleration caused by the extra weight, they will have 100% throttle for longer.