‘Most races will be fuel-limited’ – Newey

2014 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Fuel consumption will be an overriding concern in most races this year, Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey believes.

Newey described how the new limits on maximum fuel use and the fuel flow rate could shape race strategies:

“[We] not only have a 100 kilos maximum fuel for the race but we also have a maximum consumption – a flow rate, if you like. The old engines, for reference, were using around 160 kilos, so it’s a big reduction in fuel.

“That of course means there will be a lot of strategy in the race. Most of the races we anticipate will be fuel capacity limited. So we’ll have to save fuel through the race which will mean different driving styles, compromising lap times to save fuel, which will mean how you then use your remaining fuel.

“Do you go out quickly at the start, try and brake away and then save fuel? Do you save fuel early in the race and try and sprint later in the race? All those sorts of things will come into play.”

Newey said the fuel limits were unlikely to have a major effect in qualifying, where little fuel is used for a flying lap, but said “it may well be that some engines perform better in terms of qualifying because fuel consumption is less of an issue than it is in the race”.

The impact of the aerodynamic changes at the front of the cars, including the reduced front wing width, were also not to be underestimated, Newey added.

“What sounds quite a small change, which is a 75mm – that’s roughly three-inches – reduction in the width of the wing on each side, and that was done to reduce the chances of a wing being knocked off when two cars touch in a sort of dogfight, if you like. But it has a big aerodynamic effect.

“Before, the front wing endplate allowed us to put the flow off the tip of the wing outside of the front wheel. Now the front endplate’s right in front of the front wheel it’s is about in the worst possible place.

“It’s not inside, it’s not outside. And that means that the majority of the flow now stagnates in front of the front wheel. A little of it finds its way outside, the rest comes inside, and in doing so it makes quite a mess.

“The front wing wake effectively – the combination of the front wing and front wheel wake – becomes much bigger. That causes all sorts of problems downstream as you approach the sidepod and the diffuser.”

2014 F1 season

Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Images © Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

116 comments on “‘Most races will be fuel-limited’ – Newey”

  1. Good!
    Here’s hoping Mr.newey,you don’t build a rocket and blast off with both the titles!
    We want to see a fight!

    1. Yeah! A proper fight between Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and (hopefully) Mclaren and (unlikely) Lotus.This would be interesting.but sadly it’ll be Red Bull at the front. Mercedes and Ferrari may deliver some competition at the start.

      1. I really want to see a whole season like the beginning of 2012. I want McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari, and Red Bull all fighting for the championship, Lotus and Williams sneaking the occasional win, and Sauber, Toro Rosso and Force India regularly getting points and pushing the big boys hard, and I would like Marussia and Caterham to get at least one point each. Not much to ask is it?

      2. I’m actually hoping it will be a bit more of a tossup.
        If the teams land on their feet largely in the same order as they were before being tossed up like they have, then that would be the biggest surprise of all to me.
        I must admit that I wouldn’t mind the fall of the mighty bull, but I’m cheering more for something out of nowhere, like three Caterham podiums in a row :D

        So far these regulations are the best thing that has happened for the sport in years, because they bring a potential for a totally random outcome, that would have been impossible to predict. We actually have genuine excitement, and not only injected climax stimulaters like DRS and KERS.
        If I could choose, I would have done some things differently, but I must admit; I’m getting more and more convinced by the new regulations.

    2. Call me old fashioned, but I do prefer the best team/driver to win. If you want something staged, perhaps WWE is better alternative

  2. When the FIA bans a car design like Lotus’ Reactive Ride Height management system, people complain that they are stifling creativity and innovation.

    But when the FIA lay out a genuine engineering challenge – developing an engine that can complete a race distance using less fuel than in previous years, but producing the same level of performance as before – they complain that drivers will not be able to drive at full throttle for a full race.

    Never mind that, in the recent past, the teams deliberately under-fuelled their cars to save weight at the start of the race, thereby forcing the drivers to go into fuel-saving mode at some point in the race. No, the drivers cannot drive flat out for a full race, so it must be bad! And the engine regulations just changed, so that must be the cause!

    Once again, someone with an agenda has successfully managed to stir up a false panic. I give it six months at the most before one of the engine manufacturers – probably Renault – lobbying for favourable dispensations from the FIA, claiming it to be in the best interests of the sport and pointing to the storm of controversy they brewed now as proof of why those changes are needed.

    1. Exactly. I’ve seen it too many times in the last 20 years, but the amount of lobbying going on in the last few years is really putting me off.
      Back in 2005 there were more than few tire-related incidents and even the infamous US GP, and still, nobody panicked nor lobbied to change tires mid-season.

      1. In 2005 teams were free to put whatever tyre construction/compound they wanted on their cars so why would they have lobbied to change tyres? What the Michelin teams did do was lobby to change the race track to suit their tyres!

    2. @prisoner-monkeys

      they complain

      Where is this complaint?

      1. Just as I still disagree that it was RBR’s complaints about tires last year through the media that affected their change, I also do not sense some motive here of AN’s to ‘stir up false panic’, to affect change to the engine regs. Sure enough, if the situation is as bad regarding delta time fuel saving running as the tires were so obviously terrible last year, then perhaps changes wil have to be made. But just as with the tires I think it will have to be as plain as the noses on our faces that the racing is being harmed and is even dangerous in order for changes to be made mid-season, and it won’t be because someone the likes of AN described the reality of the new regs in a calm and factual manner in a You Tube interview.

        1. if the situation is as bad regarding delta time fuel saving running as the tires were so obviously terrible last year, then perhaps changes wil have to be made.

          This is the kind of thinking that leads to double points, DRS and similar nonsense. Why would changes have to be made? Because you personally don’t find it interesting. Maybe I do find it interesting because I think strategy, clever thinking, lateral thinking, resourcefulness and drivers using their brains to overcome an obstacle is more important and more in line with creativity and innovation that define F1, that simply flooring it.
          Is it a less of a sport if times are slower? Is it less fair? No and no. The only reasoning behind your thinking is “improving the show” or “this is not real F1” and similar. I say, the one thing F1 should we worried about most is being sport and therefor, being fair and being both sport and fair in a consistent manner.

          1. I think you are missing my point. In response to PM I was merely stating that I don’t think AN is trying to stir panic with his talk of fuel conservation being a reality at all times this season, like by him publicly stating that it therefore means he is trying to get the engine rule changed, or something else changed so that they don’t have to conserve fuel all the time. And in PM’s way of thinking, AN is only saying this…rather PM would say he is whining and stirring…so that potential change would favour themselves…RBR.

            My point was only that I don’t believe PM when he claims it was RBR’s whining about the tires publicly that got them changed last year….they were obviously problematic for all the world to see, so it was hardly RBR’s whining that got them changed. So same with fuel conservation this year. It would have to obviously and blatantly be affecting the racing negatively in order for any change to come in the regs regarding fuel…change will not come because AN is stating facts in an interview…that is hardly akin to stirring panic and inevitably therefore affecting change. Even if he was actually trying to stir panic, well, we haven’t even seen a race yet to know how noticable any fuel conserving delta time running will be. And for ‘panic’ to set in I would say fuel conservation will have to be pretty darn blatant and harmful. Like last years tires were.

            So…obviously…I don’t disagree with watching drivers having to think strategically, laterally etc etc as you claim but I also want to know as I am watching that I am watching driver vs driver, not passenger vs passenger there to monitor the strategies and lateral thoughts of the crew in the pits, constantly telling the drivers when and where they can and can’t push. I agree it shouldn’t just be about flooring it, but even if it was then we’d at least know it is driver v driver out there applying their racecraft, unable to get a break from concentration during a delta time conservation run…able to push to their limits and that of the car. I think there is something to be said for getting back to basics and letting the story be created by the drivers on the track, rather than some convoluted product that has us never knowing if we just saw an actual apples to apples pass, or was it merely that two drivers were on vastly different strategies and we will only know in the final lap or two how it all comes out in the wash.

            So I am all for the strategies you speak of, unless they are not fair and sporting for the viewers by shading too much the actual real reason we are watching…gladiators duking it out on the track. We’re rooting for the drivers…not the engineers. The drivers don’t generally know how much fuel to conserve or when…the pit has to tell them…just as the drivers have to be informed of what the other drivers are doing too. I’d sooner the drivers be allowed to drive and race, even when the rules and strategies are convoluted.

      2. @keithcollantine – All over the blog. Drivers being unable to go full throttle for a full race distance has been a recurring complaint for weeks.

        1. But I really don’t see how that is any different considering the tyre situation? We were all complaining about the tyers making them drive slow last year and I doubt this will change it much, if at all.

        2. Here you got one. It is always a lobby, one always thinks he can read between the lines. What about this interpretation: less fuel, fuel saving, long stints of the races a real boredom with the drivers cruising. 22 Alain Prosts as oposed to 22 Sennas. Again, like the double points, it is a gimmick. I for one watch F1 to see drivers beating drivers, not enginiers beating enginiers.

          1. 22 sennas = 22 drivers crashing into others on purpose to win. 22 Prosts = the best racing series in the world.

        3. who cares about that. its who drives fastest as everyone has the same system to deal with. in the 80s tyre wear and fuel wear were relevant too, now f1 fans idolise watchign old f1 races, and love the turbo era. f1 is still the quickest even when not at full throttle. even during the first jerez test, the times were similar to early 2000 v10 era. at least the sport is now a challenge for the drivers. in the late 90s and early 2000s any monkey could drive an f1 car. the top drivers come to the fore with the era we have now.

      3. @keithcollantine

        Where is this complaint?

        Maybe he worded it wrong… Insert moaning instead of complaint. There, fixed it!

        Come on, Keith, it´s obvious RBR is complaining/moaning about the fuel limit. It´s just like the tyre issue in 2013. They have just started earlier with their moaning but the end result is what A.N. is lobbying for… A rise in fuel limit maybe? The fact is, all teams have to deal with the same fuel limit and I have yet to read anything about any other team moaning about fuel limits like RBR has done lately and that is a fact!

        1. So you’ve decided to define AN’s commentary as ‘moaning’ and therefore have decided nobody else is moaning. I define AN’s comments as calmly stating the reality of the new regs. Has no other team member on any team commented on the fuel aspect of F1 this season?

          Nowhere do I hear him saying fuel conservation is terrible and nobody is going to like it and it will have to be changed. I would suggest that at this point even AN doesn’t know exactly how it will all play out once they get racing in anger. For all we know RBR will dominate again and be able to crank things down by halfway through the races and fuel conservation will therefore never even be an issue for them.

          Boy AN must sure be one powerful and influential guy if merely stating the realities of the new regs before the season has even begun automatically means a change will be made mid-season just to help RBR win with 5 races to go because that is surely what F1 needs.

        2. Red Bull are not moaning, you are!!

    3. “When the FIA bans a car design like Lotus’ Reactive Ride Height management system, people complain that they are stifling creativity and innovation.

      But when the FIA lay out a genuine engineering challenge – developing an engine that can complete a race distance using less fuel than in previous years, but producing the same level of performance as before – they complain that drivers will not be able to drive at full throttle for a full race.”

      I was going to comment, but that is pretty much all I was going to say. The only thing I’ll add is that people who think that managing the car in any way (managing tyres, fuel etc) fuel is a recent thing and that f1 drivers have always been able to drive flat out from lights to flag needs to take a serious look back into the history books.

    4. You don’t need an agenda or be influenced by media to dislike the idea of capping fuel consumption. I love the technical side of formula 1 immensely, the more powerful ERS and V6 turbo engine are hugely exciting and should have made me look forward to next season, but the fact that cars are not only slower but also slowed down during the race is making me doubt I’ll be able to find the motivation to follow F1 after a series of changes in previous years which made it increasingly less of a sport.

      The new specifications make F1 development relevant for commercial purposes, entirely because it’s more energy efficient, which is great. But everybody watches F1 for speed, and you don’t need to cap fuel consumption for efficiency to be relevant in development. Manufacturers still have an incentive to produce the most powerful powertrain per kg of fuel, whether or not the FIA restricts total consumption. Teams under-fueling is nothing new, but at least it used to be a strategic call from the team. Now it’s mandatory.

      F1 cars will be seconds slower per lap flat out and slowed down even more in a race due to the fuel cap. As overtaking anywhere other than in a DRS zone costs a tremendous amount of fuel I fear we’ll see the likelihood of excellent action decrease as well.

      I hope I’m wrong about everything and I’ll give it a try if only for the massive reliability issues and development drama at the start of the season, but that’ll only last so long. I don’t watch F1 because it’s fuel efficient and slow, but uncompromisingly fast.

      1. I don’t see this as changing much in the drivers overall speed per lap. They already had to manage their tires last and that will go hand and hand with this year. I actually predict more overtaking because the only drive strategy that works now is to do a bit earler lift going into corners. This saves fuel and stops break wear and provides more opportunities for trailing drivers to try outbreaking into corners. They will also spend more time in higher gears because the torque from the electrics are so high. This reduces fuel use and saves friction, wear and tear on drivetrains, but again makes it possible for a trailing driver to drop a gear and add more torque accelerating out of corners for a pass.
        The trick will be learning to balance when and how often you do these things while still having enough left to finish the race.
        Now add reliability issues and new strategies!
        I look forward to an INCREDIBLE year in Formula 1.

    5. @prisoner-monkeys Yeah I agree, it’s pretty much impossible to create a ruleset that keeps both arguing sides quiet. What you referred to in the last paragraph is particularly interesting though – I don’t think Newey can be directly attributed to creating a “false panic”, but it certainly sets fans up to be more aware of cars managing fuel when we eventually see it happen. If the loud minority of fans don’t like it, and Renault’s engine issues are as bad as some fear, then your scenario may well unfold exactly the way you described it.

    6. except thats not really the point at all.

      limiting fuel means drivers will be pushing only when they over take, adding strategy and drama to the spectacle

      limiting the ERS recovery means faster cars can store up to 4 MJ while the slower car will be struggling at 2 MJ per lap output, increasing the chance of an over take for the faster car.

      making boost unlimited also means that the car can produce wild amounts of power in short stints, further increasing the possibility for someone whose good on gas to overtake.

      making the cars heavier, slower during a race, and more expensive with more points of failure is what it will cost to ‘boost the spectacle’.

      I can do race distance on a few gallons of gas with a bicycle powered by a 49cc motor, but that doesnt mean it will be very fast. This same strategy is being employed in WEC and MotoGP to slow down the competition in order to artificially stimulate overtaking and ‘DRAMA’.

      The real kicker is most people won’t notice the cars going slower, because they will all be slower in the race. Thus F1 is not about speed or pure efficiency (weight/power/suspension/aero), its about promoting a brand and trying to make money for shareholders, just like Dorna are doing to the GPs.

  3. David not Coulthard (@)
    9th February 2014, 12:55

    Does anybody here know how much fuel/race was used by a car last year on average?

    1. I think I read guesses that is was between a full tank (the 160kg mentioned) and about 135 kg per race. With races like Australia, Canada and even more Suzuka and Silverstone on the higher end and Monaco lowest with Monza in the lower end as well.

      1. @davidnotcoulthard @bascb Some of that data was in this earlier article (which is linked the article above):

        Why the new fuel limit is one of 2014′s toughest rules

    2. You can calculate them yourself easily by acquiring the fuel per lap data from the F1 Fanatic databases for instance and timing them with the number of laps for each event.

      However, I already did it a few weeks back, so I just copy it here for you (and possibly others) to save time and effort.

      Melbourne 145
      Sepang 135
      Sakhir 140
      Shanghai 140
      Barcelona 165
      Monte-Carlo 125
      Montreal 110
      Red Bull Ring ?
      Silverstone 140
      Hockenheim 155
      Hungaroring 135
      Spa 140
      Monza 140
      Szingapúr 140
      Suzuka 150
      Sochi ?
      Austin 140
      Interlagos 135
      Abu Dhabi 145

      What should strike one first is the obvious discrepancy between what Peter Windsor said in a TRE podcast about Montreal being ‘hungry.’ Still, this data is compiled based on press release figures of official data suppliers who disclosed a data for last year which was not so relevant back then. I mean the real thing could vary.

      1. For example, F1 Fanatic has a 1.6kg fuel use per lap figure for Montreal for 2013, while other sources like JAF1 and F1 Pulse have 2.0 and 2.15 for 2012… So who knows…

        Still, this is the best we, outsiders, can come up with at this point in time.

      2. David not Coulthard (@)
        9th February 2014, 14:34

        Thanks @atticus-2 , it’s actually a bit less dramatic that I thought it would be (I was naive enough to think a few times more than 100kg was usually used).

        1. @davidnotcoulthard No problem. :)

          The real question is how much fuel saving took place last year in kg. Based on earlier statements by James Allison it should have been around 15-25kg as he said races like Monaco should be near flat-out this year as well, but there should be some very significant fuel saving compared to last year – this also bodes well with what Newey just said and what the above data shows us.

          Again, even more important is how close these data are to reality – we might not rely excessively on team pressers this year to judge that as they might be keen on not revealing their fuel consumption estimates. So look for expert opinions on the matter before each and every GPs.

          1. *but there should be some very significant fuel saving compared to last year at other tracks

      3. Thanks, @Atticus-2. This is quite insightful. It really will be interesting to see how this whole fuel flow rule influences race strategy!

    3. “[We] not only have a 100 kilos maximum fuel for the race but we also have a maximum consumption – a flow rate, if you like. The old engines, for reference, were using around 160 kilos, so it’s a big reduction in fuel.”

      Read the article before you comment so as to not waste anyone’s time.

  4. Isn’t the race always fuel limited when you cannot refuel? As carrying fuel also means quite a disadvantage, it means that teams have been limiting their fuel use ever since they had to carry it all with them for the race.

    On the contrary, the hybrid systems mean there will be more options to tweak what the car uses and give more potential to spring up surprising strategies.

    1. @bascb,

      Isn’t the race always fuel limited when you cannot refuel?

      I wouldn’t say so. If the optimal race plan is to put 120kg of fuel in the car which includes a little fuel saving in the beginning not to carry too much weight, then you are fuel-limited in case you can only put 100kg in the car.

      One the one hand, I’m very interested to see how next season is going to pan out, but on the other hand I’m a little worried next year’s fuel saving will be a little too much, with the race winner being the engine/driver combination best able to save fuel (as opposed to, say driving a car fast).

      1. These new engines alone even running full power would use about 20% less fuel for the same power with the turbo @adrianmorse

        1. @bascb I think it might be even less than that, considering the engine capacity is a third lower than last season (1.6 vs 2.4), with two less cylinders and of course more energy recovery reducing the workload on the ICE.

          1. @vettel1, Max, you can’t directly compare turbo capacity to NA capacity, the turbo pumps more air and therefor more fuel into a given capacity than a naturally aspirated engine can.

          2. The early estimates from the engine producers were, that the whole PU would be able to run about 30-35% more fuel efficient, yes @vettel1. But I meant to compare just the 2,4 NA V8 with the 1,6 Turbo V6s, where a figure of about 20% should be realistic

      2. It could be interesting for few races of the season but I can see a pattern developing were drivers cruise around saving fuel for the first few stints then gradually pick up the pace. With DRS in play it would be naive to think you can take off at the beginning of the race and not be easily caught and highway passed. For this reason I suspect that everyone will be stuck saving fuel and tyres at the same time and boring races will be the end result. I hope to god I’m proved wrong.

        1. @racectrl:

          With DRS in play it would be naive to think you can take off at the beginning of the race and not be easily caught and highway passed.

          Yes, that never worked for Sebastian Vettel in the last few years ;-)

          1. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear but i was referring to combination of fuel conservation and DRS. It would be naive to run full wick at the beginning of the race in the hope that you could conserve fuel in the later stages. You would be a sitting duck to those not conserving fuel and with DRS at their disposal.

    2. I haven’t hear anything but complaining from Red Bull about anything that doesn’t suit them, but they seem to be rather careful about judging double points nonsense “before it is tried”.

      1. For the last few seasons Red Bull have a habit of taking the first half of the season to get on top of the rule changes and then disappearing into the distance. Following that pattern, double points races at the end of the season favour them. I’d be interested to hear Mr Horner’s opinion if we get to the last race with an evenly-match field and they’re 26 points in the lead….

        All the teams lobby in their own interests, figuring out why it’s in their interests is part of the fun ;-)

    3. I just hope that there is room somewhere for some driver vs. driver action and that it isn’t an issue that everyone is on such different strategies that we see drivers letting other drivers by because it would ruin their long-term race strategy to actually defend a position or attempt a pass. Ie. I hope that as they tackle the huge learning curve the strategies become more similar and less surprising so we aren’t lost all race long as to who is doing what, constantly trying to compare apples to apples when it’s actually apples to oranges but we didn’t know it. I expect that to be the case initially but just as tires that are too much the story are a problem, so too will technology if it now overwhelms the story and the drivers are once again merely passengers monitoring a high speed science experiment, only allowed to push when told they can even if there’s a car up ahead.

  5. Re: Newey

    It’s like the 1980’s, but with cars limited from having beauty, (most) drivers limited from showing any personality, (most) tracks limited from having any character, and with only a slight change to getting to throw out a finish or two – but only if you perform well in the magical bonus round. But at least we still have Bernie.

    1. David not Coulthard (@)
      9th February 2014, 15:29

      And I don’t think we’ll see drivers changing their boost this year…

  6. Once again I see tyres as being very important in how this season pans out, if like the last 2 years the tyres are so fragile that only massive downforce preventing side-slip can preserve them from rapid wear when being driven at speed then fuel preservation will join tyre preservation as a blight on racing, if however the tyres are able to be driven hard with a lot of side-slip and still last as long as required without falling of the cliff, then designers will have the option of running low-drag set ups that will extend fuel range, obviously there will still be a need to maximise the grip/fuel use equation, but a car could still be a winner even without the Newey magic downforce.

      1. Ah, I didn’t mean to hyperlink half of my actual comment haha!

        1. @timi, that was July last year from Hembery and with the qualification “if we can”, since then Pirelli have been very quiet on what sort of tyre we can expect for this year and I wouldn’t put it past Bernie to pressure them into “high degradation” tyres just to be able to say “I told you so” if the races become fuel conservation parades.

    1. Yes, let us hope that Pirelli managed to do what they said they would do and create more durable tyres for this year @hohum. From the limited running so far, I do get the impression that they do not drop off in pace as fast as last years batch at least.

      1. @bascb, I do hope so, but there has been little information from Pirelli on a subject you would think they would like to be a talking point..

        1. I think it was Hamliton who said he was able to push for something like 35 laps at Jerez and the tires still had some life in them. But you’re certainly right, it is strange Pirelli haven’t really said much so far this season.

          It’s early days yet, but I’m liking it. A tyre supplier should make the tyres asked for and keep the press conferences and interviews to a minimum (especially while there is no tyre-war). Pirelli have really irritated me the last few seasons, but harder tyres and less of their blabbing, and I might just start liking them again!

        2. I think they might be afraid of reality a bit too, making them reluctant to say too much for now. But I hope that based on testing on a warmer track Pirelli will get enough to go on and make durable tyres @hohum!

    2. @hohum – That is a combination of effects I would like to see that could certainly improve racing. Driving style/skill would be key.

  7. Like I said before, I just hope that the FOM has a live fuel gauge for every car, it would allow us to see how the strategies that Adrian is talking about develop through the race and it could make races more exciting for us viewers.

    1. That would be a bit stupid, because every rival team could see how much fuel you have, removing a huge strategic element from the play. It would be like every team knew the exact laps on which each of their rivals was going to stop for fuel, back in the refueling days.

    2. David not Coulthard (@)
      9th February 2014, 15:34

      @mantresx And predictable as well, unfortunately. I think one of the reasons recent races are somewhat boring is that if a driver would be in trouble, we knew it well before the trouble came. With an 80’s-style broadcast we wouldn’t see it coming, which would perhaps make it more exciting.

      1. Of course in the 80s we relied on smoke signals.

      2. Some of you guys sound as if the races in the 80s were normally very exciting. I beg to differ.

    3. I just hope that the FOM has a live fuel gauge for every car

      That & other bits of new telemetry based graphics (ERS charge/discharge & Turbo boost pressure were others) were discussed in a meeting between FOM & the teams last month.

      The viewer should be well informed about the running of the cars this year from a graphics POV.

      May well be a whole new graphics set also & some other tweaks to the coverage.

      1. @gt-racer, thanks again for the inside dope.

      2. I hope that works out, as mentioned earlier, I think it can do a great deal to make the new Power units work out. Thanks for the heads up @gt-acer

        1. The cars fuel tanks undergo so much G and pressure that the fuel is in gaseous form for a lot of the time it’s actually in the car. This make measuring fuel at any one time, while the car is on track, very hard. It’s also why the FIA wait a set amount of time before testing the fuel after a race.

          Having a fuel gauge just wouldn’t be reliable enough, and is a completely unnecessary expense in a sport where we’re trying to cut costs!

          1. @timi Whilst you’re right that a conventional fuel gauge measuring the petrol level wouldn’t work the teams can measure the amount of fuel in the tank very accurately by taking the fuel consumed away from the initial fuel load. As long as they put the right amount of fuel in then they have an accurate gauge of how much is left.

          2. @jerseyf1 Your theory is correct, but F1 cars are too volatile, we’ve even seen teams stop on track due to miscalculations of fuel. If those genius engineers might get it wrong, it isn’t ready for the mass-TV audience in my view.

            I think the FIA view it my way as well, since they actually measure fuel via weight. That is the truly accurate way to tell fuel levels.

            They might be able to add some sort of fuel flow rate gauge, but that would be changing at an enormous rate of knots so we can count that out as well.

            While we the audience want more information, I am pleased with them keeping some things to themselves. We don’t want a race to be decided because a team boss looked at the FOM broadcast and noticed a rival with less fuel or something haha..

          3. @timi It’s quite possible to measure it accurately, for the first time this year the FIA will have a standardized flow meter in all cars to measure the fuel that comes out of the tank, this information is constantly transmitted through the telemetry in real time and if the teams are found to have used more than 100kg then they would have a penalty.

            Adding that bit of information on the screen for us would be very easy, the only thing that could stop it is the teams, I think they should do it for a couple of races at least, and if it affects strategies and races too much then they shouldn’t show it.

          4. @mantresx Yes they have a fuel flow meter now, but as I said before there wouldn’t be much point putting that on-screen. It’ll be varying by pretty large amounts every millisecond. It’s not as linear as an on-screen RPM meter and KERs battery.
            While it might give the viewers some information, the more likely route is just a rapidly changing, and confusing set of numbers on the screen… With ailing viewership, confusing the fans is the worst thing F1 could do right now.

            Re-thinking one of my earlier points, I actually see this as being more futile now that there are both MGU-K and MGU-H, which will lead to more flexibility on the fuel flow rate. You can have a lower fuel rate when MGU K and H power is at a maximum.

            Therefore if a low fuel flow rate is used, and is on screen, again the regular viewer would be confused as to why that is (unless there is an MGU K and H, as well as turbo visualisations..).

            The beauty of on-screen cues is that they’re self explanatory and usually function fairly independently. A fuel flow rate one, would be too much fuss, and might not even give that much insight into what’s going on now that we have all sorts going on in the power-train

      3. @gt-racer Hi, I have an (unrelated) question about F1 Digital. As i’m sure you know, you had the Track A and Track B feeds as part of the package (as is shown at the end of the 1997 F1 Season Review), but was there a point in which those 2 channels were combined into a single ‘Track’ channel? As footage i’ve seen of German F1 broadcasts in 2000 and 2001 seems to have only a single Track channel, as well as all the others (Super, Pits, Onboard, Timing)?

        1. @gt-racer Was it that case that both Track A and B were offered by FOM to all PPV broadcasters, yet it just happens that the German ones i’ve seen only took up Track A, as well as all the others (Super, Pits, Onboard, Timing)?

          1. @fom-fan The 2 track channels were never combined, We always ran the 2 separate.

            The German broadcaster (It was called Premiere world but its now Sky Deutschland) Only ever carried the 1 extra track channel I believe because they didn’t have the transponder space available to run the 2nd.

          2. From Day 1 we always had 6 channels. Super-Signal, In-car, Track A, Track B, Data & Pits.

            The extra Master & Highlights channels we had on our UK coverage in 2002 were never available to anyone else.

          3. @gt-racer Thanks. The 1997 F1 Digital promo at the end of the Season Review, mentions that “Session highlights are run every 20 minutes” but unlike the others, doesn’t mention whether or not they’re on a dediticated channel. (In the review, it mentions it after it talks about the Onboard channel on No. 5

          4. @gt-racer or maybe after the pits channel, I can’t remember exactly.

          5. @fom-fan

            Session highlights are run every 20 minutes

            Highlights were run about every 20 minutes on the pits channel.

        2. You actually see about 21 minutes into this session the highlights begin rolling on the pits channel-

        3. Thanks very much :)

  8. Zain Siddiqui (@powerslidepowerslide)
    9th February 2014, 16:36

    Is there any word on what the fuel economy of these cars is like based on testing? Like a miles per gallon (or kilometers per liter, or liters per kilometer) figure?

    1. @powerslidepowerslide

      I don’t know from testing, but you can work out what the consumption needs to be from race distances. Taking Sinapore as an example:

      Race distance = 61 laps of 5.067km = 309km, or 193 miles
      Fuel density (ranges from 720-775km/m3, but taking max in calc) = 775kg/m3
      volume = mass/density = 100kg/775 = 0.129m3 = 129 litres
      = 28 gallons

      fuel efficiency is therefore 193 miles / 28 gallons = 6.9 miles per gallon

      All races are approximately same race distance so should be around that in all races, unless i messed up somewhere ;)

  9. Can’t help but feel a higher limit of 120kg for the first year of the new engines would have been better.

    Let them focus on all the other stuff for 2014 (not like there isn’t enough for them to be cracking on with), then cut to 100kg for 2015 and further cuts thereafter.

  10. This might be a bit stupid, but can someone clarify this bit.

    Newey said the fuel limits were unlikely to have a major effect in qualifying, where little fuel is used for a flying lap, but said “it may well be that some engines perform better in terms of qualifying because fuel consumption is less of an issue than it is in the race”.

    The 100 kg hasn’t got to cover Qualifying as well, has it?

    1. @timothykatz Yes, that sounds a bit strange, because now with the flow limit the most efficient engine will effectively be the most powerful outright.
      So in theory, the teams at the front on Saturday will also use less fuel on the race with the same 100kg as everyone else, at least that’s how I see it.

    2. @timothykatz I think what he meant was this: Given that most of a race cars will be cruising at economy speeds, differences in maximal power output will not be too important. However, in qualifying they do not need to worry about fuel, so an inherently more powerful engine would come to the fore.

      1. Yes, that sounds reasonable. I was suddenly worried that the 100 kg had to cover Qualifying as well which would deprive us of all but one flying lap per car per Qualifying part.

  11. I don’t like the fuel limits.

    1. I like them – from a green point of view – if it doesn’t impact negatively on aggressive racing. But I really don’t see how it won’t!

      1. I don’t think it will impact on the aggressive driving as much. It may even encourage it while some people go with a strategy of early passing and conserving later while others do the opposite. Throw in tire issues and safety cars from mechanical failures will make these races pretty wild.

  12. Does anyone else have problems with the forum?It wont work :(

    1. The quizzes won’t work either :(

  13. I still fail to see what’s the difference between managing 160 kg’s of fuel with a thirsty V8 or 100 kg’s of fuel with a less thirsty hybrid V6.

    Different engine modes have always been there…

    1. @daft. the difference was you knew you would probably use 14x Kgs for the race but you could opt to take a little more if you expected to have to do a lot of passing or a little less if you expected to be following another fast car for most of the race, with 100kg of fuel and the liklyhood of needing 120 kg. there is only 1 choice you can’t carry a little extra.

  14. “Before, the front wing endplate allowed us to put the flow off the tip of the wing outside of the front wheel. Now the front endplate’s right in front of the front wheel it’s is about in the worst possible place.

    “It’s not inside, it’s not outside. And that means that the majority of the flow now stagnates in front of the front wheel. A little of it finds its way outside, the rest comes inside, and in doing so it makes quite a mess.

    That seems an odd thing to say to me. The front wing width is not fixed at 1650mm, it’s a maximum measurement.
    If he really thought it would be better to put the endplate inside the front tyres, then he would have done it.

    1. I wish someone would try it and be successful but long wings with a short cord are generally more efficient than the opposite.

      1. Is there a restriction on the cord (depth) of the front wing?

    2. @johnnik
      It’s a bit like teams complaining about tires being unsafe, while operating them outside of the safety window recommended by Pirelli. Not to mention switching outside and inside shoulder of the tire. I mean, how can they even be surprised that they’d fail in such a scenario.

      1. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if AN et al have tried models with narrower front wings and/or have been working toward tidying up the ‘mess’. He’s not saying ‘oh what a mess, I’m grabbing my kit and going home’…he’s just stating one of the challenges of the new regs. If a narrower wing is better then the teams will gravitate toward that, or maybe it is better to leave them and work on the messy air. I just hope it equates to less aero dependency and dirty air effect.

        Regarding last years tires…if they weren’t so problematic the teams would not have felt the urgency to try such extreme measures to extract some small iota of improvement out of them…that’s how bad the tires were.

  15. This vid is more than 2 weeks old since then Fry has come up and said that it shouldn’t be very dramatic as raes such as monaco are flat out on the fuel side. From some numbers have seen the races shouldn’t e hard to finish the problem lies with the boost.

  16. I can just see it now… 3 races into the season, RBR raises their moaning to a whole other level and get the fuel limit risen to 140 kilos just so that they can be “competitive”.
    It´s funny that I don´t hear any other team complaining about this, it´s just that team. Every team has the same cards dealt. Quit the moaning and solve your issues I say!

    1. It’s funny how I don’t hear AN complaining…just stating the reality of today’s regs, like we were told last season regarding technical reg changes, and like most teams have commented on without actually complaining…just stating the facts. It’s funny how when AN says it it is complaining, and when everyone else says it it is not.

      F1 has it’s issues, no question, but if you think it is an entity that will simply take AN’s comments as complaints and then react to them and give him his way, then I have to ask why you watch. Or why any new team would want to enter F1 if they felt that all it would take would be a bit of commentary from one man and the rules would be changed to satisfy him, just because they would like to ensure that in F1 only one team every wins, preferably with 6 races to go in the season, because that is what is healthy for F1.

      Keep in mind, this fuel conservation concept is not news nor is it dire as far as any of us know, including AN, until they race in anger, but the tires last year were actually exploding before they were changed. So unless you think AN’s moaning and whining was so high pitched that you actually think he was causing the blowouts and the delaminations, I don’t get the issue with AN.

      Now if fuel conservation does become such a dire issue that the cars are noticeably slower to the point where fans are turning away in droves, and the product is terrible and it can be blamed primarily on fuel restrictions, then of course AN and many others within and without F1 will be complaining and changes may have to occur. But the situation will have to be as dire as exploding tires before that will happen.

  17. How about we save fuel by not flying all over the world back n forth between countries? You cannot tell me the calendar couldn’t be organized better?

    1. The calender isn’t simply thrown together, Its organized now around local events & climate.

      We saw in 2000 what happened when Silverstone was moved from July to April. Its traditionally been June/July to get the best of the British summer, Other events around the world are scheduled similarly.
      Looking at North America for instance, Montreal can’t be moved later into the season & Texas can’t be moved earlier in the schedule due to the local climates.

      Japan can’t be moved to earlier in the year to go with the other Asian races because Japan usually has pretty extreme weather earlier in the year. Sepang was moved to its early season spot because of how extreme the heat was in 1999/2000 when it was at the end of the season.

      Other events are also taken into consideration where possible to ensure no clashes, Especially with local events which could affect attendance. Melbourne for example was moved to the 3rd race of the season in 2006 because the start of season date clashed with the Commonwealth Games which were been held in Australia that year.

  18. I do have to ask, why is it every time Adrain Neweystateshis point of view or opinion it is considered he is whinging?

    1. I have the same question. See my comments on page 1 of this topic. I can only surmise that he is that good and RBR that dominant that it is perceived that he is that influential, yet what flies in the face of that is the likes of BE stating double points are there to help Ferrari. Maybe there is a perception that RBR dominated because AN was ‘getting away with’ things like EBD, like no other teams were allowed to innovate and do the same. Like Brawn GP didn’t happen where double diffusers were deemed legal and everyone else, including RBR, had to play catchup.

  19. Out of curiosity, how many people think we’ll have races with no mechanical failures…hence more safety cars? Doing 5-10 laps of a race behind a safety car will certainly change the fuel situation and make “fuel saving” unneeded once they get racing again.

    1. good point. SC will certainly be a major factor in the early races and should in theory negate some fuel issues.

  20. Such a pleasure to listen to such a great brain explaining his daily bread. What a man

  21. Is it just me? This was happening on the weekend too. I see that there are now 85 comments on this topic, then I go to click on page 2 to view them all and it says 73 comments and only the top comment is visible. It was fine earlier this morning for me, but now it is back to how it was on the weekend…maybe even on Friday too.

    1. Oh, and so now that I have posted this, I’m back to seeing all comments. Curious.

      1. Curious again.

      2. Curious still

  22. Could prove very beneficial for the lower half of the grid. A middle of the grid team may use a lot of fuel to get out into the lead at tracks where it is harder to overtake before slowing up the pack to save fuel. Opportunity here?

  23. Since 2006 F1 cars haven’t been driven flat-out during a race but this time the races will be “economy-racing-to-the-finish”.
    If car to pit radio contact is lost it will be impossible for a driver to win a race and being in with a big chance of not making it to the finish line.
    With a 100kg fuel weight for the entire race and a fuel flow rate of 100Kg/h the cars can only average 66Kg/h of fuel flow for a 90 minutes race and at a race like Singapore they will average 50Kg/h.
    They will only be able to get bellow the mandated 100Kg/h fuel flow rate because the max flow rate will max-out at 10500rpm a point above which the IC engine will not be making more power.

Comments are closed.