F1 » Spanish Grand Prix 2013: New hard tyre won't change much – Vettel

Sebastian Vettel: I think the number of pit stops will be the same here in this race as at the last few.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

prof-x - Unregistered

May 10, 2013 7:44 PM

Can't imagine whats going to happen next year when they are running substantially less fuel. Maybe they could get the weight restriction removed if they built a bat mobile? Maybe Pirelli will actually make a tire that can hold itself together next year and not so many people will realize how much less power (stoichiometric ratios people/fuel tank size) next year's cars have.

What's up with commentators assuming less revs equals more torque, what a bunch of spoiled cheese. The torque wont be there if they dont have enough fuel to make it last the whole race. Bring back in race refueling and liberalize the motor regulations and you might see some interesting things coming out of the V6's, but not with reduced fuel, just a lot of covering up, like whats going on in MotoGP with the 1000cc bikes. BTW KERS as it stands right now, doesnt make up for it's weight in fuel, or free weight if it were not mandated implicitly with the weight restrictions.


May 10, 2013 8:18 PM

prof. what a load of torque from you! how do you make out that more torque equals higher fuel consumption? I would have thought that more revs (higher capacity use) would give higher usage. perhaps sunny can explain?

next year there will be a limit on fuel usage which wil mean more efficient engines for a race, and LOWER fuel needs. a for kers, it will provide 160 bhp next year....not worth it? think again (not that I like it).

finally, why do you want refuelling? the cars will be ble to carry enough fuel for the race at the metered rate. this is supposed to be racing, so FEWER or NO pitstops is what th true fans want, NOT more.


May 10, 2013 9:02 PM

The stoichiometric ratio is the perfect ideal ratio, it is a technical term used to express a perfect combustion were no left over's are left, unburned air or fuel.
The problem in real life is, there is and will never be anything mechanical which can be said to be one hundred percent perfect.
The 1.6l v6 turbo will have a lot more torque at much lower engine rpm.
The 1.6l v6 turbo engine running at max 15k rpm will consume less fuel than the 2.4l v8 running at max 18k rpm, even if the combustion is of the same size and efficiency there will be less combustions per minute.

prof-x - Unregistered

May 11, 2013 3:09 AM

no guys, I know they are not running lean, which is exactly my point, you cant make the power with out the fuel, and guess what turbos only add heat which requires a little more fuel. F1 is what happens when rule makers decide they know better than the free market. Sit back and enjoy.

BTW, torque is the product of the boom, the guys in the seat only care about the power, The power is the product of the torque and the rpms, regardless of where the rpms are, you will not get more torque with less fuel, because you cannot drive the pistons properly with out the correct ratios (A/F), asssuming the mechanical side is setup appropriately.

The 1.6 liter turbo will not have more torque because it will have lower compression, it might produce more power because it's optimized to run at a lower frequency, but guess what, all that power creates heat, and turbos create much more heat, and when you have to much heat you have to spend more money and take in more fuel to keep things from going ping

prof-x - Unregistered

May 11, 2013 3:13 AM

bottom line: more air more fuel, more heat, more fuel, more heat more money, less fuel less power. And considerably less power at that.

The only way F1 can save face is to improve the tires, and shorten the races, to about 2/3rds of what they are doing these days.

So expect the guys in F1 to start talking about how F1 is too long, and that fans want to see shorter sprint races ... sigh.


May 11, 2013 7:43 AM

pcx. sunny's liveliehood is in engines, and I would go by his comments anytime. I also worked with engines (my own) but am not so conversant with the science f it. however, I see serious flaws in your arguments. a turbo is more efficient than an na engine (that is why all manufacturers are turning to smaller turbo engines). and I see no reason why a turbo would run any hotter as the thermal efficiency is relative to the amount of fuel being utilised, which will be less.


May 11, 2013 12:27 PM

A forced induction engine is more efficient than an NA engine.
Size being equal, a forced induction engine will be able to use more fuel for the simple reason that a much bigger mass of air will be forced into the cylinders.
The fuel/air ratio will still stand at one part of fuel to every fourteen point seven parts of air.
A forced induction engine will run a lower compression ratio.
And finally, the pure petrol head will only see the real challenge of the ability of extracting the maximum power from an engine design when the design is NA.

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.