Discussion
How much advantage would chilling the fuel actually confer? Surely the power of an engine is limited by the amount of air you can get into it; you then just squirt in the appropriate amount of fuel to get the mixture right. The ratio of air:fuel is 14.7:1 stoichio, so the air temperature makes a far bigger difference than the fuel to the overall charge temperature.
For sure, you could get the chilled fuel into the tank a little bit quicker than at ambient, but that's probably not even a couple of hundredths of a second advantage.
Anyone done the maths?
For sure, you could get the chilled fuel into the tank a little bit quicker than at ambient, but that's probably not even a couple of hundredths of a second advantage.
Anyone done the maths?
the fuel cools the air and therefore allows more fuel into the cylinders
this is why the spitfire was better than the me109
the spitfires cards allowed the fuel to decrease the temp of the air and therefore allow more air into the chamber
with fuel injection the increase is les due to the fact that only air in the chamber is cooled and reduced in volume allowing greater sucktion at the end of the induction stroke.
however this is a trick some guys running cossies do a second set of injectors to cool the charge temp down to get more air into the cylinders
this is why the spitfire was better than the me109
the spitfires cards allowed the fuel to decrease the temp of the air and therefore allow more air into the chamber
with fuel injection the increase is les due to the fact that only air in the chamber is cooled and reduced in volume allowing greater sucktion at the end of the induction stroke.
however this is a trick some guys running cossies do a second set of injectors to cool the charge temp down to get more air into the cylinders
Who'd be a Steward? I'd rather be a football ref, you get more friends!..
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=4115...
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=4115...
They had rules specifically stating that fuel could be no less than 10 degrees below ambient temperature.
The readings were apparently up to 14 degrees below therefore definately outside the regulations.
However they have said that there is sufficient doubt about the readings not to impose a penalty.
I find it impossible to believe an FIA steward can't operate a thermometer so I don't think the fuel temperatuer reading were wrong.
However there is a very big movable goalpost .
The ambient temperature.
This could change wether it was taken by an official on track or in the sun or in the shade or by the local weather reports or any other number of variables , time of day etc.
Whats the betting that this is why the readings are deemed to be in doubt.
I am pretty sure they wouldn't be in doubt if McLarens fuel had been too cool , but thats why McLaren are appealing.
The readings were apparently up to 14 degrees below therefore definately outside the regulations.
However they have said that there is sufficient doubt about the readings not to impose a penalty.
I find it impossible to believe an FIA steward can't operate a thermometer so I don't think the fuel temperatuer reading were wrong.
However there is a very big movable goalpost .
The ambient temperature.
This could change wether it was taken by an official on track or in the sun or in the shade or by the local weather reports or any other number of variables , time of day etc.
Whats the betting that this is why the readings are deemed to be in doubt.
I am pretty sure they wouldn't be in doubt if McLarens fuel had been too cool , but thats why McLaren are appealing.
mark69sheer said:
They had rules specifically stating that fuel could be no less than 10 degrees below ambient temperature.
The readings were apparently up to 14 degrees below therefore definately outside the regulations.
The rule is that "No fuel on board the car may be more than ten degrees centigrade below ambient temperature."The readings were apparently up to 14 degrees below therefore definately outside the regulations.
But there's no way for the FIA to independently verify the temperature of fuel on board the car during the race, so they use the temperature of fuel in the bowser as a proxy.
Whether it's an adequate proxy is up for debate. To the best of my knowledge, no work has been done to establish the "instantaneous" temperature increase when a large mass of cold fuel is added to a small mass of very hot fuel in a very hot tank.
WilliBetz
If cooling the fuel down gives a possible 10bhp advantage as well as having a bigger pit stop window then its definately a form of cheating.
I think you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
If you ignore the world championship for a moment and just Imagine you were a team leader and two cars had finished ahead of you by breaking the rules (think here also about your sponsors and the money they put in) would you just shrug your shoulders and say Oh well? or would you say , hang on they cheated.
The finishing positions in the drivers championship have to be regarded as a secondary consideration.
I know its tough but would you have agreed with the BMW being penalised if the events had occured at a previous race in the season.?
Would you have been bothered earlier in the season if BMW had been penalised for illegally cooling fuel?
Of course you wouldn't.
The fact that the decision affects the WDC has made everyone look at this subjectively rather than objectively.
I think you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
If you ignore the world championship for a moment and just Imagine you were a team leader and two cars had finished ahead of you by breaking the rules (think here also about your sponsors and the money they put in) would you just shrug your shoulders and say Oh well? or would you say , hang on they cheated.
The finishing positions in the drivers championship have to be regarded as a secondary consideration.
I know its tough but would you have agreed with the BMW being penalised if the events had occured at a previous race in the season.?
Would you have been bothered earlier in the season if BMW had been penalised for illegally cooling fuel?
Of course you wouldn't.
The fact that the decision affects the WDC has made everyone look at this subjectively rather than objectively.
Knick Pee said:
mike gascoyne reckons it was worth 5-10bhp, which is a lot up the main straight in brazil.
But what is this 5-10bhp based against. Is it against fuel at ambient temperature. We are talking F1 here where every team pushes the rules to the very limit (and over) and if something is vague then interpret it one way and then wait until a a rule is confirmed.
How many people here believe that all the other teams fuel was at the ambient temperature or was down near the 10c limit
Russ35 said:
Knick Pee said:
mike gascoyne reckons it was worth 5-10bhp, which is a lot up the main straight in brazil.
But what is this 5-10bhp based against. Is it against fuel at ambient temperature. We are talking F1 here where every team pushes the rules to the very limit (and over) and if something is vague then interpret it one way and then wait until a a rule is confirmed.
How many people here believe that all the other teams fuel was at the ambient temperature or was down near the 10c limit
Its academic now as apparently the value of the days ambient temperature cannot be agreed and therefore the readings become meaningless. How strange.
Either all the teams will cool fuel next year as the rule has been proven unnenforcable or new sealed bowsers without cooling facilities will be provided.
Russ35 said:
Knick Pee said:
mike gascoyne reckons it was worth 5-10bhp, which is a lot up the main straight in brazil.
But what is this 5-10bhp based against. Is it against fuel at ambient temperature. We are talking F1 here where every team pushes the rules to the very limit (and over) and if something is vague then interpret it one way and then wait until a a rule is confirmed.
How many people here believe that all the other teams fuel was at the ambient temperature or was down near the 10c limit
I suspect some of the less well funded teams don't bother chilling their fuel at fly away races, due to the logistics and costs involved.
WilliBetz
jellison said:
FFS - any penalty would be a fine. This all pretty minor as in that ambient heat the fuel once in the take would be up to the same as every one else in most likley less than a minute (+it is sitting in a fule cell right next to all the other Hot parts of the Car.
GET OVER IT.
So having more power even if only for two laps isn't worth having then?GET OVER IT.
I would also imagine that the fuel cell has to be insulated from the heat of other components.
they can't really think they will win the appeal? well they might do on a technicality but i doubt they will disqualify them for it. Aside from the fact it would look like a farce, lewis was genuinely 30 secs down on them and i doubt having a bit cooler fuel really made 30 secs difference?
although i dont understand the technical side of it i just cant see them doing it, even if mclaren are correct.
although i dont understand the technical side of it i just cant see them doing it, even if mclaren are correct.
i'm guessing that they must also of checked the fuel temp in the ferraris and mclarens - and were found to be within the limit. But they are saying the the BMW's were outside the limit. The limit being some FIA referenced ambient temperature. Well surely if it is accurate for those cars that passed, why is it not accurate for those that did not pass?
my guess is that the FIA have a leaned a little bit on the stewards to make sure that they did not disqualify the beemers. the thinking being that raikkonen as champ, then removed, hamilton as champ then removed on appeal, is worse than, raikkonen as champ and confirmed on appeal.
a little bit inconsistent methinks, but where have we seen that before?
my guess is that the FIA have a leaned a little bit on the stewards to make sure that they did not disqualify the beemers. the thinking being that raikkonen as champ, then removed, hamilton as champ then removed on appeal, is worse than, raikkonen as champ and confirmed on appeal.
a little bit inconsistent methinks, but where have we seen that before?
Reading the articles on some of the sites, isn't the stewards decision based on the 'inconclusive' ambient temperature used?
They state that the temperature indicated on the timing monitors differed to that indicated by the 'independant' weather advisor, and that the rules do not state which ambient reading is to be used. i.e. the fuel temp was within limits depending which ambient temp you used.
All seems a bit of a farce again - I don't think the drivers should be penalised, just take the team points away like they did with Mclaren, as the driver has no input into the temp of the fuel etc. This would be consistent with Mlcarens punishment throughout the season. Lewis lost no points or grid slots for the team giving him too many tyres or 'allegedly' driving a copy of a Ferrari.
Chris
They state that the temperature indicated on the timing monitors differed to that indicated by the 'independant' weather advisor, and that the rules do not state which ambient reading is to be used. i.e. the fuel temp was within limits depending which ambient temp you used.
All seems a bit of a farce again - I don't think the drivers should be penalised, just take the team points away like they did with Mclaren, as the driver has no input into the temp of the fuel etc. This would be consistent with Mlcarens punishment throughout the season. Lewis lost no points or grid slots for the team giving him too many tyres or 'allegedly' driving a copy of a Ferrari.
Chris
Edited by Woody on Monday 22 October 12:57
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff