Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix - March 13-16

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:25 pm

aerogi wrote:

ellis wrote:

Of course RBR should be punished, but they shouldn't have to use broken stuff anyway.

I think there just shouldn't be a silly rule whereas you can only use a certain number calculated per hour. What's wrong with just using the rule 'number of kilos of fuel' that can be used for the entire race? And if half race is behind the SC, so be it then...

Because the fuel-flow limit is there to limit peak engine power, not fuel consumption. Both rules are different, but there to increase efficiency, which is pretty much the whole ethos of the regs.

aerogi · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:28 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

aerogi wrote:

ellis wrote:

Of course RBR should be punished, but they shouldn't have to use broken stuff anyway.

I think there just shouldn't be a silly rule whereas you can only use a certain number calculated per hour. What's wrong with just using the rule 'number of kilos of fuel' that can be used for the entire race? And if half race is behind the SC, so be it then...

Because the fuel-flow limit is there to limit peak engine power, not fuel consumption. Both rules are different, but there to increase efficiency, which is pretty much the whole ethos of the regs.

Didn't know that. And why is there a need to limit 'peak engine power'? There is allready a rev limit?

Gaara · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:31 pm

It's in place of the popoff valve.

ellis · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:59 pm

It's actually what normal race cars do. They run air filters. That has the same effect as you then need to reduce fuel flow to get an optimum air/fuel mixture.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:10 pm

Oh, I'd never even thought of it as being the other side of that equation - thanks!

I've often wondered if this means that all manufacturers would theoretically arrive at the same power value if they ironed out all problems, but I suppose that is the general idea.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:13 pm

some people believe that red bull tried the "fan car effect". One car goes normally at high performance, finishing well and the other simply retires or have bad performance. Everybody believes that is nothing else and FIA officals of course are unable to believe

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:00 pm

It's an interesting theory, but when you consider that their last car's performance seemed to match this pattern exactly...

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:04 pm

well last year will be forever a mystery because they kept on the car development while everyone else focused in 2014 cars

Raikkon · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:30 pm

Gaara wrote:

More on the fuel sensors themselves.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112975

According to that article, these sensors are new technology apparently!!! :lol:

kals · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:39 pm

Yes and?

Artur Craft · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:44 pm

I know this is OT but I would just like to point out that I believe the Sepang race will be much better because overtaking is easier there. For instance, if the train Hulk, Alonso, Button, Vergne, Kimi happened in Malaysia, I think we would see much more action from it.

The positive thing I take from this race is that the further restriction on aerodynamics had a positive effect. Bottas was able to follow Kimi very closely in the high speed S(T10-T11 or 11-12, whatever).

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:50 pm

I don't think it's OT considering some of the complaints! Someone already pointed out that Albert Park doesn't lend itself naturally to overtaking, so I think you'll find yourself proven correct.

phil1993 · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:57 pm

Sepang should also test the reliability a little bit more too!

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:01 pm

and rain is a real threat also, because I still believe they'll keep that Jarama-like train, only opening DRS to save fuel and keeping distance to not raise engine temps

could someone say if in rain fuel consumption is higher or lower?

a7b7u · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:54 pm

I would say fuel consumption is considerably lower in wet conditions due to the fact, that much smoother acceleration is required because of the lower grip level. Top speeds are lower as well. All similar to running behind the safety car. That is unless running in wet conditions creates some sort of yet unknown adverse effect on the behaviour of the new powertrain system, but that is not too likly I think.

Vassago · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:12 pm

phil1993 wrote:

Sepang should also test the reliability a little bit more too!

I think Sepang remains one of the most underrated tracks on the calendar if not THE most underrated and is by far the best thing Tilke has ever come up with. Add the monsoons and we've got a modern day Spa or Monza. If only it was situated in a more racing friendly country than Malaysia!

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:14 pm

thanks. I always get confused because running at a 100% humidity and high downforce air resistance might increase consumption, but it might be low in comparison to low revs and speeds

about Malaysia, the track is great, always prone to rain, only bad thing though is starting time, I have to wake up at 5AM to watch

StanV · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:23 pm

Pure happiness from a father, making him forget the lost Sebring-race earlier that night/day. Awesome.

(don't think it was posted yet)

Jerom · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:55 pm

StanV wrote:

Pure happiness from a father, making him forget the lost Sebring-race earlier that night/day. Awesome.

(don't think it was posted yet)

Yes, it was

Page 37 to be precise

Repost allowed by me, since you're a fellow Belgian

StanV · PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:56 pm

Damn, I went back to page 38. Sorry Juihi! And thanks Jerom

TBK-Light.com

Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix - March 13-16

Who is online