Fernando disapproves of the refuelling ban

[Tension_36th]

Fernando has stated that it will hard for anyone outside of top 3 to compete for wins. Since the strategies cant be played with. Like how he used to run lighter in the renault and try and gain a favourable starting position for the race with the hopes of pulling away from the pack and build a gap before the 1st pitstops.

I am surprised he hasn't thought this through. Because he is fundamentally wrong here.

You maybe very quick on low fuel trim for the Q3 phase of the qualifying, but if you car is a gas guzzler then you will be easily slower by virtue of extra fuel weight than a car that may not be as fast as yours on low fuel loads but its very efficient on fuel consumption. Hence making the car lighter for the start of the race and therefore quicker in the race.

For example, A Renault powered team doesn't have to go for pole but in the race because they can save more fuel and use less of it they will offset whatever raw performance deficit they may have to the leaders.

Ofcourse your car shouldn't be more than 0.5sec per lap slower to the fastest car out there if you want your fuel advantage to work for you. Anything more than 0.4-0.5sec per lap slower, no matter how efficient your engine maybe you will be beaten.

So the name of the game in 2010 is fuel efficiency. A car doesn't need to be the outright fastest but needs to be reasonably close tom the performance leader to make sure they can take advantage of the fuel efficiency if they are fuel-efficient enough.


In some cases teams will be able to rev down their engine in parts of the races to conserve fuel because they may have a car that is so well aerodynamically efficient that their inherent drag and downforce levels are superb enough to be fast on lower end power. Redbull showed this ability a number of times in 2009.

Reading between the lines, it could also be a hint of frustration that their engine's fuel efficiency hasn't improved as they would have like it to.

[Xpert]

I think Alonso is right.
Strategy wise its a huge step backwards.
The example that tension gave doesnt really give any STRATEGIC elements either.
When u are fast on 1 lap and then have a larger fuel consumtion and have to start heavier
the fuel efficient cars might be able to keep up with the faster car but overtaking is a different story.
WHat if the most fuel efficient car IS on pole? i can imagine though that the cars performance will vary
during the course of the race and where 1 car might be well balanced running more fuel the other might
work better with a lighter fuel load and the other way around. That might stirr up the pack somewhat.

[Tension_36th]

(01-30-2010 12:03 AM)Xpert Wrote:  I think Alonso is right.
Strategy wise its a huge step backwards.
The example that tension gave doesnt really give any STRATEGIC elements either.
When u are fast on 1 lap and then have a larger fuel consumtion and have to start heavier
the fuel efficient cars might be able to keep up with the faster car but overtaking is a different story.
WHat if the most fuel efficient car IS on pole? i can imagine though that the cars performance will vary
during the course of the race and where 1 car might be well balanced running more fuel the other might
work better with a lighter fuel load and the other way around. That might stirr up the pack somewhat.

Thats because you either are not aware or don't understand that the power output for certain engines on the grid today are higher but their efficiencies are equally suffering.

The example I gave is more than self explanatory to the point it is awfully obvious. I dont know what you are on about. You perhaps don't know that the Renault engine is a few BHPs down on power compared to the Mercedes engines. This is known through engine acoustics. The Rebull still is able to win races where they have played the fuel conservation game. It shows the chassis is already very good in their drag and downforce levels to afford loosing power from a rev-ed down mode and still be fast enough to win races. If their car was no-where near as good as the brawns, their fuel efficiency wont help them win races.

You need a good chassis to make your fuel advantage work for you.

The most fuel efficient engine on the grid is Toyota then comes Renault then the rest follow. Toyota is out of the game now. Renault is the most efficient engine left on the grid. This is already a verified fact. Its not open for debate.

So the question of 'can a the most fuel efficient engine be on pole?' We had Redbull on pole in 2009 didnt we? But that was with varying fuel levels in Q3 even after fuel burn phase.

In 2010 everyone will go for absolutely the least amount of fuel they need to get that 1 lap done. On low fuel loads the effects due to difference in fuel weights are negligible interms of their effect on pace. Example: Mclaren running low on fuel and having the best laptimes but the moment the fuel loads go in we can see even with the same amount of fuel as their nearest rivals they had to pit much earlier.

Saving 2-3 laps of fuel is already significant enough to show on the laptimes. So now say if your engine uses 0.2Kgs less fuel per lap than your rivals, then over a 70 lap race you need 14kgs less fuel to the competition, that is enormous difference on laptimes! Thats 'strategic element' for you right there.

Pitstops are for tyre changes alone, so barring any incidents every team will mostly hit the 3-4sec mark in pitstops. You dont gain big through pitstops. You can only gain by having a lighter car to the rest of the field and gain time when the others pit and you stay out and extend your lead. You can change when you plan to pit depending on how well you save your tyres but you cant gain by pitstops. Pitstops will become a non deterministic factor as long as no one makes mistakes. This is already a huge strategic element due to lighter fuel loads.

So now you can see what Fernando says is not sound logic, certainly not the kind of talk you would expect from a driver who is claimed to be very 'technically sound'. He is not an engineer but this even a lay man can understand once explained to them.

So Fernando is not being naive here, rather it is clearly an indication of Ferrari's situation on fuel consumption. To say otherwise would mean Fernando is daft. Which is hardly the case.

As for how strategy is affected, we have discussed it in length here

http://www.alonso-planet.com/Thread-F1-2...-Technical

please read on the subject before you come up with misconceptions and use them are arguments.


To the give you the gist of the matter: no one will setup the car to be superb in low fuel, every car will be made to deal with understeer at the start of a race and then it will gradually balance itself out as the fuel loads come down. A low-fuel optimized setup in heavy fuel will be undriveable. So the question of some cars doing well in low fuel and some in heavy fuel is not a question to be even put forward. The direction interms of balance/setup will be the converging throughout the field.

[icegirljenni]

I can understand Fernando's concern, first he is not driving a Renault engine. And Ferrari engine is no where to save fuel, infact fuel saving never happen for Ferrari engine. But what i didnt know is to why Fernando were making such comment. To me he is the only driver that has the skill of saving fuel while driving. He is the only one on track. Maybe he does worry about the whole F10 package.

[Xpert]

i read through as much as my attention span would allow me to grasp at 1 point .
Thats all real interresting and technical but our argument doesnt really need that much
indepth . Im all 4 the refueling ban but Alonso said it was gonna cut the strategy which is true in my point of view.
in the past 1 was able to position 1self a little further up the grid by running lower fuel loads.
HOW can a DRIVER in the upcoming year do that? He cant. The CAR can or cannot. Simple as that.
either the car is 1. fuel efficient , and he will be able to compensate the lack of basic pace of his car in the race because he is running lighter.
or 2. the car is fast but not so fuel efficient. This way the driver would be further up the grid but would lose that advantage in the race since he would be running a little heavier. 3 . The car is fast AND fuel efficient and it will be a pole to finish race. 4. the car is neither fast nor fuel efficient. in that case ( new Teams) the backrows will always be their home . And AGAIN , NONE of theses scenarios involve ANY form of strategy. Either the car is buildt that way or not. Now , while there are "new" elements of strategy being introduced others are lost. the OPPORTUNITY for a DRIVER to play with fuel loads and thus gain a more favourable starting position compromising the race startegy IS LOST. There is no doubt abt that . But like i said and u already explained ... there are new strategic elements to be considered. And AGAIN they do NOT involve the ability for a driver to position himself better in qualifying due to some sort of strategy concerning the fuel load. The only Strategy there is in q3 is that u can choose to use soft instead of hard tyres giving u the advantage of a faster car but also forcing u to stop earlier in the race. So AGAIN , the strategy has changed but no doubt the element of fuel strategy in qualifying is GONE. It has though gained importance DURING the race where more dynamic decisions will be made next year. So Alonso IS right in what he SAID.

By the way i applaud u for the extensive research u are doing .

[icegirljenni]

But even without refueling ban the F1 itself already turn nasty dont you think so? One tyre manufacturing, soft/hard compound tyre , brainless track design, stupid rules which make the overtaking opportunity totally lost ( look at Silverstone, a track that suppose to have a fantastic race turn out to be sour grape race 09 ) etc...

And on top of that refueling ban is nothing new to the sport , if the great drivers can did it before, why cant the present drivers does the same. More or less to me, either refueling ban or not, the sport is already lost their charm.

[Xpert]

yeah loads of stuff our little nazi lovin whipster is to blame for.
Whereas safety was 1 of his better achievments , the rules of the sport
are just way to extensive at this point. Racing ought to be wheel to wheel action and
lots of rules the FIA made are contra porductive. But the refueling ban is a step into the right direction again.
Maybe we will ba able to go back to the good ol days in the future ;)

[Tension_36th]

You are shifting away from the main point. Fernando is saying a guy below 3rd place will find it hard to win. Fernando isn't saying anything about what car that driver maybe driving and why that driver ended up below 3rd place in qualifying in the first place.

Fernando is obviously wrong. You don't need pole to win and he is apparently jumping the gun.

There are plenty of aspects that will determine who will win and pole will not guarantee you anything let alone a top 3 starting grid.

1. The lightest car has the advantage, period. It can even over come aerodynamic losses in some cases
2. A driver needs to have the strategic ability to pit as late as possible which means not eating your tyres away so fast (save your tyres). That's strategy that is mostly in the driver hand's now. (a big factor in 2010 as well)
3. Sometimes in the middle of a race you can decide to save fuel by going to a lower engine mixture, and then crank it up once a competitor is about to pit there by getting an advantage ahead of your own pit stops
4. The driving style itself in many cases lends itself to saving even more fuel than what is seen on the dyno in a standard test. Fernando is good at this.
5. To address Fernando's claims of using low fuel strategy to gain places, he succeeded only on a very few occasions when they tried it. Most of the time they were overtaken anyway since there is no pace in the car. To make a low fuel stint work you first need pace in the car, if not even a Minardi could win races by that flawed logic.
6. If you have the means to run simulations on any platform of your choice which can do mathematical models, you will see that a driver starting from as low as 7th or 8th can win the race in new 2010 style way of racing. As long as the driver is good in tyre saving, decent chassis and the engine is fuel efficient. So it just shows starting grid doesn't ensure anything.
7. Heck you could even get overtaken on the starting grid itself. Kimi managed to get to 5th place from 10th in Belgium 2004 right at the start and he went onto win the race. Alonso started 15th in Hungary 2006 and went on to lead the race as well. Some of the few examples to name.
   

So you see, 'strategy' hasn't gone anywhere there are plenty of parameters that can change the results completely. Fernando's statement that you have to qualify in top 3 to win is fundamentally flawed. Its a poorly thought through comment. If those were his own words then its one of frustration not because he really meant it. It can also very well be Ferrari's tow line for their current troubles.

You said depth is not needed in this talk, but you just saw a list of parameters when you dig deep to show otherwise. So on the contrary this is a very in-depth sport it is not simple in anyway.

[Xpert]

(01-30-2010 07:07 PM)Tension_36th Wrote:  You are shifting away from the main point. Fernando is saying a guy below 3rd place will find it hard to win. Fernando isn't saying anything about what car that driver maybe driving and why that driver ended up below 3rd place in qualifying in the first place.

Fernando is obviously wrong. You don't need pole to win and he is apparently jumping the gun.

There are plenty of aspects that will determine who will win and pole will not guarantee you anything let alone a top 3 starting grid.

1. The lightest car has the advantage, period. It can even over come aerodynamic losses in some cases
2. A driver needs to have the strategic ability to pit as late as possible which means not eating your tyres away so fast (save your tyres). That's strategy that is mostly in the driver hand's now. (a big factor in 2010 as well)
3. Sometimes in the middle of a race you can decide to save fuel by going to a lower engine mixture, and then crank it up once a competitor is about to pit there by getting an advantage ahead of your own pit stops
4. The driving style itself in many cases lends itself to saving even more fuel than what is seen on the dyno in a standard test. Fernando is good at this.
5. To address Fernando's claims of using low fuel strategy to gain places, he succeeded only on a very few occasions when they tried it. Most of the time they were overtaken anyway since there is no pace in the car. To make a low fuel stint work you first need pace in the car, if not even a Minardi could win races by that flawed logic.
6. If you have the means to run simulations on any platform of your choice which can do mathematical models, you will see that a driver starting from as low as 7th or 8th can win the race in new 2010 style way of racing. As long as the driver is good in tyre saving, decent chassis and the engine is fuel efficient. So it just shows starting grid doesn't ensure anything.
7. Heck you could even get overtaken on the starting grid itself. Kimi managed to get to 5th place from 10th in Belgium 2004 right at the start and he went onto win the race. Alonso started 15th in Hungary 2006 and went on to lead the race as well. Some of the few examples to name.
   

So you see, 'strategy' hasn't gone anywhere there are plenty of parameters that can change the results completely. Fernando's statement that you have to qualify in top 3 to win is fundamentally flawed. Its a poorly thought through comment. If those were his own words then its one of frustration not because he really meant it. It can also very well be Ferrari's tow line for their current troubles.

You said depth is not needed in this talk, but you just saw a list of parameters when you dig deep to show otherwise. So on the contrary this is a very in-depth sport it is not simple in anyway.

Very well documented as usual.
But u see i was talking about the fact that there is no
more strategy in Q3 except the tyre choice. Thats all.
I also mentioned that i support the new refueling ban and that there
are other "new" elements of strategy which u just explained again in depth.
So u basically didnt oppose my view , u supported it further.
I guess u are stuck on Alonso saying that u need a top 3 spot in Q3 in order to win. Im stuck on the fact that he is right on the issue that u cannot play with the fuel in Q3 anymore.
The thing is this ... im sure that there will be a winner in 2010 who started lower than 3rd, cause anything can happen during the race.
The other thing is this , that the fastest car is usually on pole and i doubt that 15 KG extra ( max i would say ) will significantly slow the front runner to the point that a SLOWER but lighter car can OVERTAKE . It might nullify the advantage of the faster car but the golden rule will stay... the fastest car will also win. i doubt that fuel consumption among the teams differs to the point that it would generate a differance of over 15 Kg´s .
I´ll stick to my opinion that changes in drivabilty and balance of the car during the course of a race will stir up the pack more so than fuel efficiency .
And again , all the options in making strategy that u mentioned are obviously possible . Changing ur fuel load in Q3 so as to gain some positions on the starting grid is impossible . But im sure u know that.

[Tension_36th]

(01-30-2010 08:27 PM)Xpert Wrote:  The other thing is this , that the fastest car is usually on pole and i doubt that 15 KG extra ( max i would say ) will significantly slow the front runner to the point that a SLOWER but lighter car can OVERTAKE . It might nullify the advantage of the faster car but the golden rule will stay... the fastest car will also win. i doubt that fuel consumption among the teams differs to the point that it would generate a differance of over 15 Kg´s .

An extra 10Kgs is at-least on average 3 tenths slower per lap in 2009 alone. This is not matter of opinion its observed and established fact that teams deal with in F1.

Drivers where trying to reduce weight from 65kgs to to 62Kgs. All the extra madness for reducing 3Kgs. Why? Every Kg counts when they have the KERS causing havoc on weight distribution.

It is not within the scope of this article to get into detailed discussion which needs academic background into the field.

Even 1Kg has an impact even if its small compared to 3-4kgs. 15Kgs is a very very serious blow.

And maybe you are not aware, even Mercedes admitted that the Toyota can do the atleast 3 laps longer for the same amount of fuel for maybe 20 laps. Thats well over 6-7Kgs right there. So when you say there cant be such a difference it will be dismissed as not being fully informed on the matter.

One thing you must inform yourself is the fuel efficiencies of the engine across the field is very varied they are not the same. The same goes for the power output. People don't understand the technicalities involved when they assume that since the engine standards are homolgated all power and consumption rate must be same.

That is completely wrong it has no basis whatsoever.


There are many areas to play with

1. Fuel composition (chemical structure freedoms allowed under the defined regulations)
2. Air mixture ratios
3. Air compressor design
4. The fine nature of the piston chamber walls
5. Piston head polishing
6. Valve timings and cycles
7. Heat dissipation rates, which means how cooling is managed
8. Cylinder angle
   

These are just a few areas to name on the engine alone. Plenty more still left to be highlighted. When all is put together, can result in different power outputs and fuel consumption rates

Back to the matter, Fernando's grip is that apparently people qualifying lower than 3rd cant win, which is false, not that fuel strategy has gone out the window. Like I mentioned above they have many other areas to worry about where they can be responsible for a win or loss. So his worries are unwarranted.

[Xpert]

U know i totally agree with u that fuel consumption i.e. weight is an important
factor , but i also think that every team ( definately the Top Teams ) will know that very well and will have
reduced fuel consumption as much as they could. Thats why i think that there wont be such a huge difference in fuel consumption
between the teams. Thats y i think that it wont play the major role in position shifts on the grid.
it will be the balance and drivabilty fluctuation over the course of a race and obviously the tyres.

[Tension_36th]

(01-31-2010 05:00 PM)Xpert Wrote:  U know i totally agree with u that fuel consumption i.e. weight is an important
factor , but i also think that every team ( definately the Top Teams ) will know that very well and will have
reduced fuel consumption as much as they could. Thats why i think that there wont be such a huge difference in fuel consumption
between the teams. Thats y i think that it wont play the major role in position shifts on the grid.
it will be the balance and drivabilty fluctuation over the course of a race and obviously the tyres.

Its also a well experienced matter in design depts that when the engine block cannot be changed or enhanced after homolgation, it is very hard to reduce fuel consumption. It is infact easier to gain more power.

Of course you can reduce the revs and gain more fuel efficiency but no one wants to loose power output for the sake of feel efficiency. But teams running Mercedes engines can do it a bit since they have superiority in power outputs. But then again the its not linear so much to say that when you reduce revs you get a proportional reduction in power. The power-band is never linear.

There is also a chance that teams will start altogether reducing their revs inorder to save more fuel and there by make the cars lighter but this everyone will start to do it. The down side here is that by the end of the championship, all teams will be under utilizing their engines deliberately

Now why is it easy to increase power than reduce fuel consumption? That is a long subject to talk about on its own. I think I can make an article on that in detail when i get the time, its a bit deep but not hard to understand just a matter of reading patiently.

Tops teams who have varied engine efficiencies will have to push hard on car development as they will get diminishing returns on their engines if they are already poor on efficiency.

To really help team's equalize like you hope to see it, they need to drop the engine freeze temporarily. And thats not going to happen anytime soon, infact FIA rejected Renault's 2nd plea for an equalization. The FIA instead told the FOTA to sort it out between themselvs or ask Mercedes to detune their engines to meet the levels other have.

Mercedes told them "in your dreams"

[xlinx]

Well, I do think Alonso could be right here. It won't be impossible to win from P4 obviously, but it will be much harder now without the strategy possibilities of refueling, definitely.

[Xpert]

By the way tension ,
Massa also said that maintaining the balance and drivability over the course of an entire race is the main challange
and the main subject of the valencia tests ;) I guess i was quite right there huh?

Question: Do u know whether the overall weight of the cars including fuel for the race will be publicized before the race like last year?
It would tell us EXACTLY how fuel efficient every engine+aero combination is.

[Tension_36th]

(02-03-2010 10:09 PM)Xpert Wrote:  By the way tension ,
Massa also said that maintaining the balance and drivability over the course of an entire race is the main challange
and the main subject of the valencia tests ;) I guess i was quite right there huh?

Question: Do u know whether the overall weight of the cars including fuel for the race will be publicized before the race like last year?
It would tell us EXACTLY how fuel efficient every engine+aero combination is.

Driveability -> managing tyres
Balance --> getting the Setups better and also managing tyres.

I have detailed the above already in the technical preview topic. And exactly how teams will have to do the setups to deal with the extremes of low fuel and full tank over the course of race.

Fuel efficiency --> they will never tell you what the status is, that is a closely guarded secret and they will try avoid that topic all together.


Quick recap:
They will start out with under steer for the first 15-25 laps and then expect the cars to balance them selves out better to the middle of the race. There will be a bit of overseer towards the end of the race for most cars.

About declaring fuel loads since there is no more refueling teams may object to showing that detail anymore as it gives direct information about the engine efficiencies.

As yet there is no word on whether they will publish it, I figure not anymore.

@Xlinx: Welcome to the forums!

[xlinx]

(02-04-2010 05:37 AM)Tension_36th Wrote:  

(02-03-2010 10:09 PM)Xpert Wrote:  By the way tension ,
Massa also said that maintaining the balance and drivability over the course of an entire race is the main challange
and the main subject of the valencia tests ;) I guess i was quite right there huh?

Question: Do u know whether the overall weight of the cars including fuel for the race will be publicized before the race like last year?
It would tell us EXACTLY how fuel efficient every engine+aero combination is.

Driveability -> managing tyres
Balance --> getting the Setups better and also managing tyres.

I have detailed the above already in the technical preview topic. And exactly how teams will have to do the setups to deal with the extremes of low fuel and full tank over the course of race.

Fuel efficiency --> they will never tell you what the status is, that is a closely guarded secret and they will try avoid that topic all together.


Quick recap:
They will start out with under steer for the first 15-25 laps and then expect the cars to balance them selves out better to the middle of the race. There will be a bit of overseer towards the end of the race for most cars.

About declaring fuel loads since there is no more refueling teams may object to showing that detail anymore as it gives direct information about the engine efficiencies.

As yet there is no word on whether they will publish it, I figure not anymore.

@Xlinx: Welcome to the forums!

Thank you very much Raptor.
Really enjoying your technical knowledge, keep the info flowing

[Tension_36th]

(02-04-2010 07:29 AM)xlinx Wrote:  Thank you very much Raptor.
Really enjoying your technical knowledge, keep the info flowing

No problem!

Thank you for the compliments, though just like one wouldn't usually tell their doctor how nice and knowledgeable he/she is as that is their job, I am merely providing what I can share on this side of the industry.

There are many more professionals out there who will be happy to do the same. Some have the time, most don't and some are not officially allowed to be part of public forums/blogs without authorization.

[Tension_36th]

(02-03-2010 10:09 PM)Xpert Wrote:  Question: Do u know whether the overall weight of the cars including fuel for the race will be publicized before the race like last year?
It would tell us EXACTLY how fuel efficient every engine+aero combination is.

Just like I suggested in the above posts a while back. They will not be publishing the weights. No team will allow that to happen as it gives away every team's engine efficiencies. No team would have stood for it anyway. It makes no sense. Thats is as good a secret as teams trying to protect their windtunnel data.

More here

[Jam_Van_Dam]

Im really not a fan of this refueling ban. Not going to be much fun knowing everyone is starting with the same fuel loads. I like it to be unpredictable but seems like Bernie doesnt want that.

[Tension_36th]

(02-15-2010 05:45 AM)Jam_Van_Dam Wrote:  Im really not a fan of this refueling ban. Not going to be much fun knowing everyone is starting with the same fuel loads. I like it to be unpredictable but seems like Bernie doesnt want that.

Thats the thing, they are not going to be on similar fuel levels, the engines of every team and even the same engines from the same manufacturer can be used in different ways depending on the efficiency of the cars aerodynamic drag.