Fuel limits

[Asa]

With oil prices going thru the roof, I think the ACO/FIA really ought to consider making fuel limits for the Sportscar and GT rules.

F1 and Le Mans used to run to a fuel formula if I remember right. I think it should be brought back. Saving fuel is not just good technology but is also dependent on driving skills and team strategy.

[Fab]

Didn't ACO impose a "street legal" fuel ?

[Mal]

I hate fuel limits as it encourages economy runs and not real racing. The ACO is doing the right thing by encouraging the use of alternative fuels

[Gilles]

Back in 50's and 60's the fuel formula better known as "classement Ã* l'indice de performance" was the only way for French manufacturers to win Le Mans !

[pounetbf]

Originally posted by Gilles
Back in 50's and 60's the fuel formula better known as "classement Ã* l'indice de performance" was the only way for French manufacturers to win Le Mans !

Not only for french ones! porsche also winned it.
it was designed for cars with small engines. And it was not really a fuel formula, it was base on a ratio distance/engine size

[pounetbf]

Originally posted by Mal
I hate fuel limits as it encourages economy runs and not real racing. The ACO is doing the right thing by encouraging the use of alternative fuels

The group C rule was based on a fuel limit; at the very beggining all the media has said : "what is this stupid economy run system ?"

and when the group c was cancelled the same press said "why suppressing a so interesting rule ?"

in the meantime we have had in le mans victories of :
- Porsche with a turbo flat 6 (3liters + )
- Jaguar with an atmo V12 6 liters
- Mercedes with a turbo V8 5 litres
- Mazda with a rotary engine.

plus Lancia, aston martin, and many other competitors

quite a good result for this category !

And now, 15 years later, everybody tells the group C was a very good one.

Dont forget : an engine need 2 fuels : gas and air. Actually the restrictor limits on air
Limiting one of these 2 fuels don't matter, it is a power limitation.

except :
- with the restrictor, you limit permanently, to an instantaneous value, with no possibility of "sparing" energy
- with the fuel limit you can use, as you want the avaialble quantity, and chose to spare it or to waste it, depending of the situation.

and, for the same output :
when you limit on air you will always have the maximum fuel consumption and the worst milleage.
when you limit of fuel you will get the minimum fuel consumption and the best milleage.

We can assume than, for the same output power, and the same result on track, the fuel consumption will be 15 to 20 % lower in the second case.

I think this is the best rule :
"you have a maximum quantity of energy available for the race, use it as you want"

No more question and limitation of engine.
If you feel that the best solution is an atmospheric 12L mono-cylinder 2-stroke, no problem, do it !
and if you prefer a 24 cylindre 1L turbo- and super-charged, you can use it.

this is the widest open door to new technologies.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by pounetbf
The group C rule was based on a fuel limit; at the very beggining all the media has said : "what is this stupid economy run system ?"

and when the group c was cancelled the same press said "why suppressing a so interesting rule ?"

in the meantime we have had in le mans victories of :
- Porsche with a turbo flat 6 (3liters + )
- Jaguar with an atmo V12 6 liters
- Mercedes with a turbo V8 5 litres
- Mazda with a rotary engine.

plus Lancia, aston martin, and many other competitors

quite a good result for this category !

And now, 15 years later, everybody tells the group C was a very good one.

Dont forget : an engine need 2 fuels : gas and air. Actually the restrictor limits on air
Limiting one of these 2 fuels don't matter, it is a power limitation.

except :
- with the restrictor, you limit permanently, to an instantaneous value, with no possibility of "sparing" energy
- with the fuel limit you can use, as you want the avaialble quantity, and chose to spare it or to waste it, depending of the situation.

and, for the same output :
when you limit on air you will always have the maximum fuel consumption and the worst milleage.
when you limit of fuel you will get the minimum fuel consumption and the best milleage.

We can assume than, for the same output power, and the same result on track, the fuel consumption will be 15 to 20 % lower in the second case.

I think this is the best rule :
"you have a maximum quantity of energy available for the race, use it as you want"

No more question and limitation of engine.
If you feel that the best solution is an atmospheric 12L mono-cylinder 2-stroke, no problem, do it !
and if you prefer a 24 cylindre 1L turbo- and super-charged, you can use it.

this is the widest open door to new technologies.

HERE, HERE!
Give the fine man a BEER.
Welcome to the Joseph Six-Pack school of fine reasoning.


Bob

[paul-collins]

One would think that in the days of $US 50 barrels of crude, the time is ripe for neo-Group C.

[thebear]

Originally posted by pounetbf
I think this is the best rule :
"you have a maximum quantity of energy available for the race, use it as you want"

That is exactly my reasoning for justifying "Gas Rationing" in the US as an economy measure. Here is your 100 liters (~26 US gallons/21.2 Imp) for the week. Enjoy yourself and save some for vacation or run out on Thursday. It guarantees that any number of cars will use 5200 liters/year. Easy to plan, isn't it. But wait, it will `hurt someone'! I'm sorry, but life is NOT fair.

[paul-collins]

100 litres a week? I'd have to up my consumption by about a factor of 4!

[thebear]

Originally posted by paul-collins
100 litres a week? I'd have to up my consumption by about a factor of 4!

Then you have some to save/sell or use to start barbques.

[GT1]

I've felt this way for some time. Group C was a fairly open catagory full of all sorts of displacments, cylinder numbers, turbo VS non turbo VS rotary, etc. The thing was, you had to get a certain mpg.

This allowed creative freedom of all sorts and, gulp, actually did something that could be really used on a production car, fuel consumption, at the same time. It was a wild, wonderful era until they "fixed" it with two seater F1 cars and engines.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by thebear
That is exactly my reasoning for justifying "Gas Rationing" in the US as an economy measure. Here is your 100 liters (~26 US gallons/21.2 Imp) for the week. Enjoy yourself and save some for vacation or run out on Thursday. It guarantees that any number of cars will use 5200 liters/year. Easy to plan, isn't it. But wait, it will `hurt someone'! I'm sorry, but life is NOT fair.

It will eliminate auto racing, bring a return of piston-prop. driven aircraft and increase Hell's Angels memebership by ten thousand percent in a matter of years.
I like the last part, bring on the rationing.

First, all you gentleman should get todays copy of the Wall Street Journal and read about oil reserves in the USSR before any hop on a Chicken-Little Lemming Express.

Oil prices have squat to do with oil reserves, or even the companies pumping them, but are strongly influenced by politicians forcing gasoline and auto producers to produce products that serves no purpose other than to inflate some politicians add campaignsm about how they know what is best for you.

Eliminating the asinine power reducing restictors is an absolute neccessity or racing as a whole will continue down the road to mediocrity, until it hits the section called, pathetic farce, turn out the lights the fat lady is singing.

Mr. Pounet has the right idea of eliminating the asine restrictors with fuel limits.(I wonder how far,and how fast , they can go on 1,000 gallons, imperial.)
It will allow engine builders to again experiment, and produce gobs of horsepower, rather than adapt the latest, under-carburetted engine, fix.
Having done that, it will only be a matter of time and the powers that be will get tired of an economy run, and get rid of it, and actually turn the racers lose for the first time in almost almost thirty years.

I find it amazing [ actually I no longer do having listened to ex-grade shool teachers about rules restriciting teaching in grad. class] how many people are willing to jump or squat to communist-fascist rules.
With all the fascist PC rules in todays schools, I suppose a world of automotans, who do as told, is to be expected.
Bob

[Garp]

Why is the FIA(and others) still using air restrictors instead of fuel restriction?

A nice side effect of fuel limits is that it's harder to cheat.
Loads of teams use tricks to avoid the air restriction.

[917Addicted]

Well, not wanting to go OT, but there was some talk in the 80's about some teams cheating the fuel limit (no, I'm not pointing the finger to "that" team ).
Would it be possible to prevent that kind of cheating nowadays?

(And yes, I find the fuel limit much much better than air restrictions, even though it would mean that the VAG-wagons would have an even greater advantage over the other teams).

[Asa]

If u have a turbo car, then when u are on an economy run to save fuel u actually lean off the mixture, rather than taking the foot off the throttle or short changing. So u still race hard but the car is not as quick down the straight.

I suppose for it to work everyone in the same class will have to run to the same weight as well.

But I guess weighing a car and measuring its amount of fuel is not too hard to police.

Yes, I was thinking about Porsche vs Jaguar vs Mercedes in the 80s when I thought why don't we use fuel limits any more. That was pretty interesting until it got chopped for the stupid atmo 3.5 rule.

[FIRE]

Here's a quote from Porsche in Motorsport by Peter Morgan about the 1982 regulations for the World Endurance Championship for Makes:

....But unlike the old Can-Am free-for-all, the amount of fuel the cars could use per race was limited. For a 1,000km race only 600 litres of fuel were permitted, while for a 24-hour race, the allowance rose to 2,600 litres. Maximum fuel tankage in each car (including the pipework, etc) could be no more than 100 litres and no more than five refuelling stops were allowed in any one 1,000 km race. This effectively mandated that the car's fuel consumption had to be better than 4.7 miles to the imperial gallon and - by the accepted technology of 1981 - formed an effective limitation on engine size....

But like 917Addicted already says: Fuel limitation would a advantage for Audi compared to engines like Judd and Zytek.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by FIRE
Here's a quote from Porsche in Motorsport by Peter Morgan about the 1982 regulations for the World Endurance Championship for Makes:


But like 917Addicted already says: Fuel limitation would a advantage for Audi compared to engines like Judd and Zytek.

It is amazing how one can forget what one reads, but now I remember that Jaguar pushed the V-12 up to 454 in. cu. not for power as fuel limits worked against that, but for the increased torque, which would get them out of corners a good deal quicker, and up to speed, at lower rpms, which naturally uses less fuel.
I think the only used the very big V-12 once or twice, but I am not sure.

Go to weight and displacement rules and to hell with the PC paranoia.
Having said that, quasi-fuel conserving rules, are 1,000 percent better than NASCARization restrictors.
Bob

[MulsanneMike]

One aspect of endurance racing that is missing these days is that of un-reliability. Think of how reliable the Audi R8 has been, nearly bullet-proof. And note the current restrictor formula limits power to around 550. Certainly this has something to do with the reliability, the engines are hardly stressed (figure in the Group C days a 3.6 liter turbo V8 would be generating 900+ qualifying, 750 race). The only problem I see with Group C type fuel restrictions is the opening up of power levels. The cars would potentially be too fast with 850+ power available in race settings.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
One aspect of endurance racing that is missing these days is that of un-reliability. Think of how reliable the Audi R8 has been, nearly bullet-proof. And note the current restrictor formula limits power to around 550. Certainly this has something to do with the reliability, the engines are hardly stressed (figure in the Group C days a 3.6 liter turbo V8 would be generating 900+ qualifying, 750 race). The only problem I see with Group C type fuel restrictions is the opening up of power levels. The cars would potentially be too fast with 850+ power available in race settings.

Remove the diffusers and return the ability to corner at high speed to the talent of the driver and the teams choice of tires.(Cornering speed and wear can work against each other so again it is in the drivers hands.)

The "too fast" cry is used as a power play. It is the excuse used for ever increasingly strict rules for the same reason several retired police men I met in school said the reason "speed" is is most often written down as the cause of an accident, because it is PC and they know that only rarely will anyone challenge it.

Why in an atmosphere of paranoid fear, over "oh my god, he is going to fast", don't they eliminate the artificial aero aids that also force track owners to constantly repave, so the diffusers work properly. Pool table smooth roads only show how well a car works on pool tables.
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy in the FIA-ACO allowing diffusers but using speed as an excuse to eliminate simple rules that governed racing until the nineties when all the too much speed BS started to spread like a cancer.
Bob

[MulsanneMike]

Decrease downforce but also increase the car's ability for forward motion? Sounds like a sure way to launch a car! The hackneyed expression "PC" is false machismo. Facts are there is such a thing as too fast in this world like it or not and I certainly would never want to see 300 mph Mulsanne figures. The 250+ traps of the 80s were cause for fright enough with too much power and too little downforce.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
Decrease downforce but also increase the car's ability for forward motion? Sounds like a sure way to launch a car! The hackneyed expression "PC" is false machismo. Facts are there is such a thing as too fast in this world like it or not and I certainly would never want to see 300 mph Mulsanne figures. The 250+ traps of the 80s were cause for fright enough with too much power and too little downforce.

That is why France Sr. said the "gas pedal goes both ways" when challenged about speeds at Talledega.

You are treating these drivers like complete imbeciles.
They can and should go as fast as they wish, which is what racing is all about.
I found 250 mph at LeMans fascinattng. The drivers did it because the wanted to.
How any motorsport fan can find speed frightening amazes me.
If the drivers do not like the speeds they can either slow down, race somewhere else, or quit.

Decrease downforce but also increase the car's ability for forward motion? ounds like a sure way to launch a car!

If the designer is brain dead, maybe.
Please the people in this industry are not morons. Mistakes are made but that is part of being human.
The sky is not falling, except maybe in Oregon.

There is no such thing as "too much power and too little down force". There is, poor design and poor driving.
Drivers used to often talk about certain cars getting very "light" at a certain speed. They did not die, they used their brains and did not keep on pushing until the car went past its limit.

The expression PC is an every day, and deadly serious, term when ex-grammar school teachers, I have grad classes with, speak of it as interferring with their ability to teach.(and these are not conservative people)
They are taking grad. classes to teach in college and get away from the stifling PC environment in grade schools.
To try to pretend it is not destructive, or exists, is foolish at best,and in reality deserves a far stronger term.

"Too fast" is the most common PC term many auto related people deal with any time they have to face another "caring" politicians law for the "good of the people".
A hack attack, about the horrible increased death toll, due to increased speed limits, was mentioned in the WSJ awhile back. Praise God it faded away, so far.

[GT-Eins]

Originally posted by Mal
I hate fuel limits as it encourages economy runs and not real racing. The ACO is doing the right thing by encouraging the use of alternative fuels

Personally I agree to that Point.

[MorganFan]

This is one of the most interesting debates I've yet seen on this board. I certainly like the idea of having the (Group C-like) idea of freedom in terms of engine type/displacement, controlled only by fuel limits, but sadly, as mentioned elsewhere, that just plays into the hands of VAG and anyone else who can come up with super-efficient small displacement turbo engines. I've heard this was why Porsche didn't make a return to Le Mans a couple of years ago, their atmo V10 not standing a chance when up against the Audi Turbo engines.

There also does seem to be a obsession by the FIA at the moment to kill speeds. I keep hearing (for several years) that "unless speeds are reduced, people will be killed", yet in terms of major series I follow, that doesn't seem to be happening. Racing is inherently risky, speed is just one of the risks. Look at the Earnhardt crash in the Corvette, that could have been potentially very nasty (even more so than it was), yet speed wasn't really the issue, just another situation that hadn't been allowed for.

There seems to be a movement towards killing top speeds by reducing power, yet allowing stupid levels of aero that make cars corner like the're on rails, and which also make overtaking much more difficult. Fortunately, Sportscars suffer less from the lack of overtaking than "certain" series due to the bigger diffential in terms of speed/power/downforce between the competing cars.

I was listening to Perry McCarthy and Alan McNish talking to the MRI tent at Le Mans this year, they both said that the Audi now has "far more grip than power" following the last couple of ACO changes to the regs, and that from the drivers perspective, the cars were almost "too easy" to drive.

Is it not possible to reduce the levels of aero amongst the current cars to at least offset the power reductions? I keep hearing arguments that this would lead to cars that would be ballistic down the straights and would be heading into corners at uncontrollable speeds, leading to huge accidents, fatalaties, and (maybe) global famine. Ok, I made the last one up. Surely it's the responsibility of the driver to drive the car appropriately, no amount of power reduction prevents a car from being thrown into a corner at too high a speed.

A final point; weren't several of the Group-C racers in the support race at this years LM getting down the Mulsanne at higher speeds than most if not all of the current cars (and in detuned form as well!!). If this is so unsafe, why are the group C guys allowed to do it?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Mal
I hate fuel limits as it encourages economy runs and not real racing. The ACO is doing the right thing by encouraging the use of alternative fuels

Is nitro-methane an alternative fuel?

Bob