cold fuel?

[LaSarthe+Back]

Woody said:

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

Edited by Woody on Monday 22 October 12:57

McLaren's drivers lost no points because they provided evidence to the FIA.

If they had not been asked for evidence, then they'd have lost their points. It was only because the FIA needed the drivers to provide the extra information which they knew they had, that they offered immunity.

If you drive a car that has clear cut and proven advantages over those competitors who are within the rules, then you must be disqualified.

Cheating in any respect must be stamped on ruthlessly (and before anyone says, by all means stamp on McLaren, but prove it first.)

Interpretation of the regs has long been an area in which to get an advantage over your rivals. But to be playing outside those regulations is completely not on.

[refresher]

Whole thing for me is purely around the inconsistency of the application of the rules and regs by the FIA and/or stewards. It doesn’t matter which team broke which rules when – they know them, broke them so they should face the same penalty irrespective otherwise might as well just chuck away the rule book and let the teams get on with it.

As regards the cold fuel - the fact that the FIA can’t actually provide the metric for teams to measure against is a perfect example of their incompetence and why to my mind the sport this year has been little above a playground shoving match with Max Moseley being the lazy headmaster watching from the staff room not caring enough to intervene.

Roll on ’08

[Porky]

The most that will happen is BMW and Williams will be fined but the drivers will keep their positions. It's the same sort of transgression that McLaren did in practice with the tyres; the team was fined but Lewis Hamilton was not affected.

I don't believe LH would want to win the championship by this route as Kimi deserves to be the winner. That being said, I would be giving the team a hard time for what happened in China if I were Lewis.

[Woody]

Porky said:

The most that will happen is BMW and Williams will be fined but the drivers will keep their positions. It's the same sort of transgression that McLaren did in practice with the tyres; the team was fined but Lewis Hamilton was not affected.

Thats what I was eluding to in my post - think some of it got lost though (never was very good at rittern england...)


Anyway - lets get on with next season, Kimi and Lewis head to head again should be good (and lets not have any politics and bullst over shadowing a brilliant and hopefully close fight


Chris

[skinny]

WilliBetz said:

Yep, done the maths, but I can't share it.

There are some potential advantages:

- reduced vaporisation
- improved charge cooling
- increased density, so you can get a greater mass of fuel in the tank

reduced vaporisation is not an advantage!!!

regarding the inconsistencies, from autosport:
BMW Sauber and Williams were not punished for the fuel temperature discrepancy at the Brazilian Grand Prix because the FIA stewards could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.

A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations.

The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.

Furthermore, they made it clear that they did not have certain data in their possession that would have helped prove the teams were in breach of the regulations.

In particular, their statement said they lacked: "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature"; and "a regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article [6.5.5] the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone."

The statement added: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that not withstanding the presumptions referred to above there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."

[flemke]

skinny said:

WilliBetz said:

Yep, done the maths, but I can't share it.

There are some potential advantages:

- reduced vaporisation
- improved charge cooling
- increased density, so you can get a greater mass of fuel in the tank

reduced vaporisation is not an advantage!!!

regarding the inconsistencies, from autosport:
BMW Sauber and Williams were not punished for the fuel temperature discrepancy at the Brazilian Grand Prix because the FIA stewards could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.

A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations.

The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.

Furthermore, they made it clear that they did not have certain data in their possession that would have helped prove the teams were in breach of the regulations.

In particular, their statement said they lacked: "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature"; and "a regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article [6.5.5] the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone."

The statement added: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that not withstanding the presumptions referred to above there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."

A.) I'm not sure that you would be wise to cast doubt on WilliBetz's knowledge of fuel characteristics and usage in F1 cars.

B.) The FIA statement which you quote is nothing more than their usual ass-covering waffle and mis-direction.
The essence of their statement can only lead one to the conclusion that one cannot rely on measuring fuel temperature as they did.
If that is true, then why would they have measured it in the first place?

[AJS-]

Wouldn't the main advantage of cooler fuel be that being denser, it would be the same as fitting more in so giving them more flexibility with strategy? I know they used to freeze fuel for this raeson in the 80s when there was no refueling during the race.

Agree that the likely penalty will be a fine and/or constructors points, rather than anything that will affect the drivers championship. Also think it would be very sad for everyone to have the drivers championship decided in court.

[WilliBetz]

Some interesting thoughts about vaporised fuel and frozen fuel. Actually, they both have one, significant, property in common. Neither pumps too well.

Thanks for the transcript highlights, which give a surprisingly honest account of the reasoning behind the decision not to pursue the allegation.

Looking forward, it shouldn't be too complicated to:

- change the relevant article to refer to the temperature of fuel pumped into the car
- clarify the definition of ambient temperature

In fact, I thought that ambient temperature (which can vary appreciably and rapidly, especially in an early afternoon tropical rain storm) was "set" and then communicated to the teams.

WilliBetz

[skinny]

flemke said:

skinny said:

WilliBetz said:

Yep, done the maths, but I can't share it.

There are some potential advantages:

- reduced vaporisation
- improved charge cooling
- increased density, so you can get a greater mass of fuel in the tank

reduced vaporisation is not an advantage!!!

A.) I'm not sure that you would be wise to cast doubt on WilliBetz's knowledge of fuel characteristics and usage in F1 cars.

B.) The FIA statement which you quote is nothing more than their usual ass-covering waffle and mis-direction.
The essence of their statement can only lead one to the conclusion that one cannot rely on measuring fuel temperature as they did.
If that is true, then why would they have measured it in the first place?

A) you don't know my job do you
at 19000 rpm the fuel does not have much time to vaporise - you really don't want to hamper this process by cooling it down, at least on the BMW engine (there's a clue) - of course, charge cooling is a possible advantage but it's a balance and one that doesn't necessarily favour cooler fuel on that engine

B) i believe the fuel temp in the bowsers is measured, and the vehicle fuel temp inferred from that. the statement from the FIA guy contains measures of fuel temp for each of the pitstops. however, it's entirely possible that the FIA and the teams had a different measure of ambient temp. (as an aside, to clarify, the statement in the link i posted comes from the stewards (FOM) rather than the FIA). as for the question of why launch an investigation into something that cannot be subtantiated, i really can't answer that

Edited by skinny on Monday 22 October 16:41

[flemke]

skinny said:

A) you don't know my job do you

Quite so.
Equally, if I am not mistaken, you do not know Herr Betz's.

skinny said:

B) i believe the fuel temp in the bowsers is measured, and the vehicle fuel temp inferred from that. the statement from the FIA guy contains measures of fuel temp for each of the pitstops. however, it's entirely possible that the FIA and the teams had a different measure of ambient temp. (as an aside, to clarify, the statement in the link i posted comes from the stewards (FOM) rather than the FIA). as for the question of why launch an investigation into something that cannot be subtantiated, i really can't answer that

But this is precisely the point.
How can you conceivably have a reguation for a specific measurement, which measurement you the regulator have been taking according to a fixed protocol at every race, and then, when a violation to your own rule has been discovered, you say, "We're not enforcing it because we aren't sure that we were measuring it right"?
If there was room for this ambiguity and misunderstanding, then surely, surely the teams would have pointed it out long before now. After all, any of them would have been potentially vulnerable to a bad reading.

None of us, if we were the FIA, would wish to be in the FIA's position of having to decide a Championship on the basis of such an after-the-final-race ruling of an esoteric, invisible factor. The FIA's reluctance to enforce its own regulations is quite understandable.
That does not, however, absolve them of the obligation to enforce those regulations, however awkward that enforcement might be.
Instead, they took the craven way out and, in the process, gave to their critics yet more evidence to support the suspicion that the FIA systematically favour one team and systematically look to hinder another.

[skinny]

yup, agree with everything you've said

[Killer2005]

Probably those pesky Ferrari's cheating again

[iffy]

flemke said:

skinny said:

A) you don't know my job do you

Quite so.
Equally, if I am not mistaken, you do not know Herr Betz's.

skinny said:

B) i believe the fuel temp in the bowsers is measured, and the vehicle fuel temp inferred from that. the statement from the FIA guy contains measures of fuel temp for each of the pitstops. however, it's entirely possible that the FIA and the teams had a different measure of ambient temp. (as an aside, to clarify, the statement in the link i posted comes from the stewards (FOM) rather than the FIA). as for the question of why launch an investigation into something that cannot be subtantiated, i really can't answer that

But this is precisely the point.
How can you conceivably have a reguation for a specific measurement, which measurement you the regulator have been taking according to a fixed protocol at every race, and then, when a violation to your own rule has been discovered, you say, "We're not enforcing it because we aren't sure that we were measuring it right"?
If there was room for this ambiguity and misunderstanding, then surely, surely the teams would have pointed it out long before now. After all, any of them would have been potentially vulnerable to a bad reading.

None of us, if we were the FIA, would wish to be in the FIA's position of having to decide a Championship on the basis of such an after-the-final-race ruling of an esoteric, invisible factor. The FIA's reluctance to enforce its own regulations is quite understandable.
That does not, however, absolve them of the obligation to enforce those regulations, however awkward that enforcement might be.
Instead, they took the craven way out and, in the process, gave to their critics yet more evidence to support the suspicion that the FIA systematically favour one team and systematically look to hinder another.

i second that!

[WilliBetz]

skinny said:

flemke said:

skinny said:

WilliBetz said:

Yep, done the maths, but I can't share it.

There are some potential advantages:

- reduced vaporisation
- improved charge cooling
- increased density, so you can get a greater mass of fuel in the tank

reduced vaporisation is not an advantage!!!

A.) I'm not sure that you would be wise to cast doubt on WilliBetz's knowledge of fuel characteristics and usage in F1 cars.

B.) The FIA statement which you quote is nothing more than their usual ass-covering waffle and mis-direction.
The essence of their statement can only lead one to the conclusion that one cannot rely on measuring fuel temperature as they did.
If that is true, then why would they have measured it in the first place?

A) you don't know my job do you
at 19000 rpm the fuel does not have much time to vaporise - you really don't want to hamper this process by cooling it down, at least on the BMW engine (there's a clue) - of course, charge cooling is a possible advantage but it's a balance and one that doesn't necessarily favour cooler fuel on that engine

B) i believe the fuel temp in the bowsers is measured, and the vehicle fuel temp inferred from that. the statement from the FIA guy contains measures of fuel temp for each of the pitstops. however, it's entirely possible that the FIA and the teams had a different measure of ambient temp. (as an aside, to clarify, the statement in the link i posted comes from the stewards (FOM) rather than the FIA). as for the question of why launch an investigation into something that cannot be subtantiated, i really can't answer that

Edited by skinny on Monday 22 October 16:41

I think I understand. It's important to draw a distinction between vaporisation in the fuel system (tank, pots, pumps and lines) and atomisation in the combustion chamber.

Given your position, can you explain why BMW would chill the fuel if they believe that cool fuel doesn't work as well?

WilliBetz

Edited by WilliBetz on Monday 22 October 19:43

[mark69sheer]

I am a relative novice in engine terms but vaporisation is bad.

It used to happen with the old Renault 5 turbos.

When the engine was hot you couldn't start it again as the intake was so hot the fuel 'vapourised' before reaching the combustion chamber.

this 'vapourisation is in effect the fuel or part of evaporating.

we are not talking about fuel at freezing temps here but at 23 degrees C as oppossed to 37 degrees.

23 degrees would feel cool to the hand but a long way from freezing.

Its lower temp would mean less would be lost in evaporation and therefore fuel economy would be better therefore reduced vaporisation is good...

[s.m.h.]

Ok so the fuel being put into the car was 10 degrees cooler, thus denser, delivering a tiny amount of more fuel in the stop. IF running on full tanks then it would be an advantage but, the real issue is the temperature in the fuel tank. I know the chassis's of sportscars get pretty warm and the tank bag behind the driver warms the fuel up very quickly so no matter how cold the fuel was going in it will heat to the temp of the fuel in the car.

[skinny]

WilliBetz said:

skinny said:

flemke said:

skinny said:

WilliBetz said:

Yep, done the maths, but I can't share it.

There are some potential advantages:

- reduced vaporisation
- improved charge cooling
- increased density, so you can get a greater mass of fuel in the tank

reduced vaporisation is not an advantage!!!

A.) I'm not sure that you would be wise to cast doubt on WilliBetz's knowledge of fuel characteristics and usage in F1 cars.

B.) The FIA statement which you quote is nothing more than their usual ass-covering waffle and mis-direction.
The essence of their statement can only lead one to the conclusion that one cannot rely on measuring fuel temperature as they did.
If that is true, then why would they have measured it in the first place?

A) you don't know my job do you
at 19000 rpm the fuel does not have much time to vaporise - you really don't want to hamper this process by cooling it down, at least on the BMW engine (there's a clue) - of course, charge cooling is a possible advantage but it's a balance and one that doesn't necessarily favour cooler fuel on that engine

B) i believe the fuel temp in the bowsers is measured, and the vehicle fuel temp inferred from that. the statement from the FIA guy contains measures of fuel temp for each of the pitstops. however, it's entirely possible that the FIA and the teams had a different measure of ambient temp. (as an aside, to clarify, the statement in the link i posted comes from the stewards (FOM) rather than the FIA). as for the question of why launch an investigation into something that cannot be subtantiated, i really can't answer that

Edited by skinny on Monday 22 October 16:41

I think I understand. It's important to draw a distinction between vaporisation in the fuel system (tank, pots, pumps and lines) and atomisation in the combustion chamber.

Given your position, can you explain why BMW would chill the fuel if they believe that cool fuel doesn't work as well?

WilliBetz

yeah sorry i was referring to atomisation

fuel was cooled for a few reasons, two of which you've already mentioned (as i said, it's a balance between reduced atomisation and density / charge cooling - high ambient temps meant that atomisation wasn't such an issue here).

also though, given the very high ambient temps we saw at sao paulo it was important that we didn't allow the lighter components of the fuel to vaporise off before they got into the fuel tank

[Clevers]

MrKipling43 said:

I really hope they don't rule in favour of McLaren - talk about a cheapened WDC!

If they rule in favour of Mclaren this will make the 'sport' (I mean show) the laughing stock of the world...

[anonymous-user]

Hot engines not starting is often down to an air lock forming in the float chambers of carbs or mechanical fuel pump, which is why you see some teams carrying a CO2 fire extinguisher onto the grid, to give the mech fuel pump or carb a quick blast of freezing gas.

The FIA stewards are on very sticky ground with their ruling because the teams have already at a previous stage in the year discused with the FIA what the ambient temperature reference will be to stop this ambiguity from happening. It was agreed back then that the ambient temp on the monitors suplied by the FIA will be the ambient, so they had a defined reference throughout the race to stick to.

Every single post race scrutineering report for at least the last 34 races has featured a line stating the fuel rig temperatures were checked during the pitstops, so it is a well practised method of testing the fuel temperature to enforce this regulation. Had they just started to check the fuel temp you could understand there being the potential for a mixup, but this is a highly established scenario that has been discussed with the teams and the FIA scrutineers.

[carl_w]

Hmm, 310 kelvin (ambient) versus 296 kelvin (chilled). I still can't see there being a lot of difference. It's not like we're talking about super-chilled fuel here.