Quote from 5haz :

Fuel limit worked fairly well in Group C, although it did cause some frustrations early on, what with people running out of fuel and having to coast to race finishes, but limits were adjusted and efficiency improved.

There's a solution to that - either a system that limits fuel per lap, or a not-so-complex system that limits fuel flow rate. Couple that with a ban on any driver operated device that modifies the power output characteristics (adjustable rev limiters, fuel mappings, adjustable turbo pressure limits and this launch map bollocks) and you would have a good engineering test bed. With appropriate measures it could be compatible with cost control, by allowing independant teams to buy engines at a fixed cost ...

Quote from duke_toaster :

There's a solution to that - either a system that limits fuel per lap, or a not-so-complex system that limits fuel flow rate. Couple that with a ban on any device that modifies the power output characteristics (adjustable rev limiters, fuel mappings, adjustable turbo pressure limits and this launch map bollocks) and you would have a good engineering test bed. With appropriate measures it could be compatible with cost control, by allowing independant teams to buy engines at a fixed cost ...

If you've got a fuel flow limit, which by definition restricts the teams to a certain maximum power, then why restrict other things that might be useful in making the engines better and more relevant to road car engines? I say allow a certain J/s flow rate, thus allowing diesel, gasoline, LPG, hydrogen and electric cars to all fight on the same playing field, and ban stupidly expensive materials or processes that can't work in the real world (i.e. homologate production processes rather than what is actually produced).

Quote from duke_toaster :

Couple that with a ban on any device that modifies the power output characteristics (adjustable rev limiters, fuel mappings, adjustable turbo pressure limits and this launch map bollocks) and you would have a good engineering test bed. With appropriate measures it could be compatible with cost control, by allowing independant teams to buy engines at a fixed cost ...

So basically ban innovation and future technology development from motorsport?

Perhaps we've reached the point where allowing further technological advance would make cars too fast for the human body?

Quote from 5haz :

Perhaps we've reached the point where allowing further technological advance would make cars too fast for the human body?

We've been in this situation for 10+ years now! The FIA have constantly slowed the cars down for years!

True, I think we got to that point some time between 1988 and 1993, since then, the FIA has been hellbent on restricting technology, largely in the interests of safety, perhaps we just have to accept that if we gave teams more freedom in the rules, things would get too much?

so if that happens you reduce the fuel limit... and then reduce it some more
simple really

I also think that the only proper way of limiting the cars is to ban refueling and giving them a certain amount of either a homologated fuel or energy in a fuel-type of the teams choosing (this involves the question of how to measure the contained energy, since not all energy in fuel is usable).

Technological advancement these days is about resource efficiency. Why is it then that efficiency plays no role whatsoever in modern racing?

(Except MotoGP I think, where I gather that they have a limited amount of fuel to drive a race with.)

Vain

P.S.: I think I just boggled my own mind with the marketing-effectiveness of limited fuel in e.g. WTCC or WRC. The statement made by superior performance in those classes could almost directly be applied to the related roadcars (at least much, much more than from F1 to roadcar). I think the manufacturers would love this.

Quote from Intrepid :

We've been in this situation for 10+ years now! The FIA have constantly slowed the cars down for years!

Just like this season too... oh wait.

Well the move towards more mechanical and less aerodynamic grip is certainly a good thing, t'was great to see drivers having to opposite lock on the exit of corners again.

Quote from 5haz :

Well the move towards more mechanical and less aerodynamic grip is certainly a good thing, twas great to see drivers having to opposite lock on the exit of corners again.

I do that all the time, and I only get ridiculed for it.

only because you barichello your wings all the time

One day people will say Rubens did a Cliffe

so your goal is to become the new top gear stuntman?

Quote from tristancliffe :

I do that all the time, and I only get ridiculed for it.

At least you don't end up swapping ends infront of where all the photographers are standing like I do.

Maybe I do. But I don't tell people about the photos

Quote from tristancliffe :

Maybe I do. But I don't tell people about the photos

Yeah, but they tend to show up on Flickr a few weeks later.