Discussion
johnfelstead said:
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.
Halleihluliah. You know I had been amazed this wasn't the case.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 said:
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.
Thats not the issue, the issue is the teams operated their fuel outside the allowed limits, so are in breach of the technical regulations for the sport. They should be sanctioned for breaking those rules, to do otherwise allows anarchy and leaves the FIA open to acusations of bias, incompetance or both.
That's canny john, but I actually started this thread to understand what the effects of the cold fuel were. Clearly if the rules have been broken, then they should be punished. However, if the cold fuel confers little or no advantage it would suggest that the breach was accidental rather than deliberate.
I dont disagree that the effect is negligable to the result of the race and it would be a real shame for Kimi if he lost because of this, but you cant have rules being broken and then not apply any sanction whatsoever.
The inteligent thing to do would have been to strip the teams of their points, but allow the race result to stand. I dont think anyone would argue against that, Hamilton wouldnt i am sure.
McLaren had no choice but to protest IMHO, because the suspision i have is if this had happened to them, the outcome of the stewards findings would not be the same. What we need is rules being enforced properly, and this just doesnt happen with the FIA at the moment, far too much is made up on the hoof to suit the FIA's agenda, or percieved agenda, and thats very bad for the sports image.
The inteligent thing to do would have been to strip the teams of their points, but allow the race result to stand. I dont think anyone would argue against that, Hamilton wouldnt i am sure.
McLaren had no choice but to protest IMHO, because the suspision i have is if this had happened to them, the outcome of the stewards findings would not be the same. What we need is rules being enforced properly, and this just doesnt happen with the FIA at the moment, far too much is made up on the hoof to suit the FIA's agenda, or percieved agenda, and thats very bad for the sports image.
johnfelstead said:
What we need is rules being enforced properly, and this just doesnt happen with the FIA at the moment, far too much is made up on the hoof to suit the FIA's agenda, or percieved agenda, and thats very bad for the sports image.
Hmmm, it almost sounds as if the sport had been brought into disrepute.Clevers said:
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...
And it would prove that the whole season has been staged!johnfelstead said:
I dont disagree that the effect is negligable to the result of the race and it would be a real shame for Kimi if he lost because of this, but you cant have rules being broken and then not apply any sanction whatsoever.
The inteligent thing to do would have been to strip the teams of their points, but allow the race result to stand. I dont think anyone would argue against that, Hamilton wouldnt i am sure.
McLaren had no choice but to protest IMHO, because the suspision i have is if this had happened to them, the outcome of the stewards findings would not be the same. What we need is rules being enforced properly, and this just doesnt happen with the FIA at the moment, far too much is made up on the hoof to suit the FIA's agenda, or percieved agenda, and thats very bad for the sports image.
mclaren are saying that they appealed in order to appease their fans...The inteligent thing to do would have been to strip the teams of their points, but allow the race result to stand. I dont think anyone would argue against that, Hamilton wouldnt i am sure.
McLaren had no choice but to protest IMHO, because the suspision i have is if this had happened to them, the outcome of the stewards findings would not be the same. What we need is rules being enforced properly, and this just doesnt happen with the FIA at the moment, far too much is made up on the hoof to suit the FIA's agenda, or percieved agenda, and thats very bad for the sports image.
Fuel geeks determining world championships!! Now the lunatics really have taken over the asylum!! 
There is clearly a performance advantage or teams wouldn't do it. But let's face it, the FIA can't possibly award the world championship on something which required some mad German chemist to explain on here......
The impact on the sport would be disastrous.
There is clearly a performance advantage or teams wouldn't do it. But let's face it, the FIA can't possibly award the world championship on something which required some mad German chemist to explain on here......
The impact on the sport would be disastrous.
carl_w said:
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?
Yep. I did the maths and I found that the benefit of exploits from Ferrari design information held by McLaren, was numerically equivalent to the extra performance gain of using "super cooled" fuel.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?
Edited to add;
I thought scoobie turbos used to use water injection for similar reasons to that which you might want to use cool fuel? Probably worth thinking about the relative rates of thermal transfer between equivalent volumes of similar fluid that have different spatial geometries.
Does anyone else happen to think that Hamiltons dodgey gearbox was the result of Ferrari information warfare (electronic or human)?
Edited by dilbert on Monday 22 October 23:54
skinny said:
WilliBetz said:
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 atomisationGiven your position, can you explain why BMW would chill the fuel if they believe that cool fuel doesn't work as well?
WilliBetz
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
If vaporisation within the bowser is a concern, you've got to wonder at the loss of light ends in the fuel tank... time to look back at how previous fuel suppliers addressed the issue?
WilliBetz
dilbert said:
I thought scoobie turbos used to use water injection for similar reasons to that which you might want to use cool fuel? Probably worth thinking about the relative rates of thermal transfer between equivalent volumes of similar fluid that have different spatial geometries.
That sounds like a lot of thinking to me.As an alternative, you may want to check one of the established peer reviewed studies that set out the benefits of water injection as a way of suppressing spark knock.
WilliBetz
carl_w said:
That's canny john, but I actually started this thread to understand what the effects of the cold fuel were. Clearly if the rules have been broken, then they should be punished. However, if the cold fuel confers little or no advantage it would suggest that the breach was accidental rather than deliberate.
Precedent suggests that fuel infringements are punished severely, even when the infringement is accidental and administrative and conveys no advantage whatsoever.The reason for this, I'd suggest, is that the technology is poorly understood, and therefore feared. Just look at how long and complicated the F1 fuel regulations are, compared to, for instance, the engine regulations.
WilliBetz
What I find really hard to fathom is why the couldn't agree the ambient temp.
That is utterly inexcusable at this level of sport.
If they've gone to all the trouble to write the rule, then the means for each team to know the value must have been agreed, how did this process fail?
What I also struggle to understand is the speculation about a penalty handed to offending teams for such an objective measure of compliance.
I can understand that some penalties must be objectively determined, i.e. a blocking move out on the track, but for such an objective rule as a temperature measurement, why isn't it written next to the rule that the penalty for infringement is xyz?
That is utterly inexcusable at this level of sport.
If they've gone to all the trouble to write the rule, then the means for each team to know the value must have been agreed, how did this process fail?
What I also struggle to understand is the speculation about a penalty handed to offending teams for such an objective measure of compliance.
I can understand that some penalties must be objectively determined, i.e. a blocking move out on the track, but for such an objective rule as a temperature measurement, why isn't it written next to the rule that the penalty for infringement is xyz?
what i don't understand is how this regulation can be enforced without leaving a significant safety margin.
given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
(WB, just out of interest, rather than starting an arguement, you don't believe that warmer intake air has an influence on how quickly the fuel atomises as it's injected?)
given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
(WB, just out of interest, rather than starting an arguement, you don't believe that warmer intake air has an influence on how quickly the fuel atomises as it's injected?)
Edited by skinny on Tuesday 23 October 13:41
skinny said:
what i don't understand is how this regulation can be enforced without leaving a significant safety margin.
given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
Presumably the teams are expected to give themselves a sufficient margin to ensure that they cannot risk a violation.given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
This would be similar to the rule that forbids pitting on the initial safety car lap. If a car were at risk of running out of fuel by doing an extra lap (before a safety car had been called out), it would be the team's responsibility to bring it in with a lap's worth of fuel still in the tanks. If the teams fail to take the precaution and get caught out on the circuit, it is their problem.
skinny said:
what i don't understand is how this regulation can be enforced without leaving a significant safety margin.
given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/5265/ given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
I think they could make tea and spit roast a hog..aswell
WilliBetz said:
dilbert said:
I thought scoobie turbos used to use water injection for similar reasons to that which you might want to use cool fuel? Probably worth thinking about the relative rates of thermal transfer between equivalent volumes of similar fluid that have different spatial geometries.
That sounds like a lot of thinking to me.As an alternative, you may want to check one of the established peer reviewed studies that set out the benefits of water injection as a way of suppressing spark knock.
WilliBetz
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 23 October 16:30
skinny said:
what i don't understand is how this regulation can be enforced without leaving a significant safety margin.
given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
(WB, just out of interest, rather than starting an arguement, you don't believe that warmer intake air has an influence on how quickly the fuel atomises as it's injected?)
I've not seen research to suggest that intake air temperature materially influences atomisation, nor can I think of any novel way to influence the intake air temperature. Instead, if you've problems getting an adequate mass fraction burn at high engine speeds, then fuel design can help. Ditto if you have problems with vaporisation due to, for instance, fuel being heated while looping between the collector and fuel rail.given the volume of fuel in teh rigs, it needs time to be chilled down, and this is normally done overnight. if the temperature changes on sunday afternoon, over a short period of time, how exactly is the temperature of the fuel meant to be altered to adjust? there is no chiller / heater on the refuelling rigs, and it couldn't be done in such a way to track at 10 deg below the ambient temp...
(WB, just out of interest, rather than starting an arguement, you don't believe that warmer intake air has an influence on how quickly the fuel atomises as it's injected?)
Edited by skinny on Tuesday 23 October 13:41
Variations in ambient conditions are a fact of life. That's why, from memory, the ambient temperature was "set" and communicated to the teams who would then set the thermostats in their fuel trucks accordingly.
cheers,
WilliBetz
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff