Anyone want to talk about Fuel??

SackWack · Oct 10, 2010

Spalders was adamant in claiming that the added liter of fuel to the fuel limit in Malaysia really helped the Suzuki and Yamaha. He stated that fuel is the number one problem with the current formula. Not allowing riders to ride at thier maximum as well as the bikes. He spoke about Suzuki actually being a farely good/fast/reliable bike and fuel was it's #1 worst enemy. He wanted to really drive home his opinion that there is nothing wrong with an 800cc bike and that is not what is destroying the formula but the fuel limits. Also saying that the race and battles were much better in malaysia due to the added fuel. Hopefully Dorna will pull thier heads out and change this rule ASAP. (This is a paraphrase of various comments by Spalders during the race, sorry no link)

Fuel was upped by one liter to 22 liters for the race at Malaysia due to the high temperature. Fuel is used to cool the engines.

inam22 · Oct 10, 2010

I thought they kept the 21 litre fuel limit but they reduced the race lenght from 21 laps to 20 laps to help the riders in extra hot weather which gave every one extra litre of fuel to play with, i haven't watched eurosports coverage yet only watched bbc coverage of the race so i could be wrong.

FACTORY · Oct 10, 2010

they should raise the fuel limit to 23 or 24 liters for next season.

and the 1000cc bikes should have 25 liters.

SackWack · Oct 10, 2010

inam said:
I thought they kept the 21 litre fuel limit but they reduced the race lenght from 21 laps to 20 laps to help the riders in extra hot weather which gave every one extra litre of fuel to play with, i haven't watched eurosports coverage yet only watched bbc coverage of the race so i could be wrong.

You could be right. Either way they had an extra liter

mylexicon · Oct 10, 2010

I heard him talking about extra fuel, but I couldn't figure out if he was talking about higher fuel capacity or what.

I definitely agree with him about fuel ruining the sport. Imo, they are going to have to add more fuel for next season when they limit fuel pressure. I've seen lots of rumors circulating that quite a few manufacturers have already incorporated high-pressure-direct injection. If they get rid of those systems for 2011, the bikes are going to be considerably slower and less reliable. It's kind of a tough situation though b/c if they add fuel without some other types of limitation, the bikes will have significantly higher rev ceilings. The engines are already extremely expensive and adding fuel would be like handing the championship to Honda, imo, b/c they have the best reliability.

I don't really agree with the fuel being Suzuki's advantage. They've always been good at Malaysia. The bike also tends to go well in hot weather (see Catalunya) and they've revised the chassis to improve the handling.

For 2012 when the sport will be bore limited, they need to ditch the fuel restrictions.

SackWack · Oct 10, 2010

mylexicon said:
The engines are already extremely expensive and adding fuel would be like handing the championship to Honda, imo, b/c they have the best reliability.

Spalding said the exact opposite during the race. He said Honda will benefit the least. Right now, Honda's engine is already extremely effecient on fuel to power/rev ratio. Much more so than Yamaha and Suzuki. He actually led on saying that Honda wouldn't benefit much if at all. Toby and Jules were asking Spalders about the bikes because they expected the Honda of Dovi's to fly past the Yamaha but they actually looked fairly even on the straight and he thinks it's down to the extra fuel. Of course Dani wasn't on the Honda

I was waiting for him to comment on the Ducati but nothing was said

mylexicon · Oct 10, 2010

SackWack said:
Spalding said the exact opposite during the race. He said Honda will benefit the least. Right now, Honda's engine is already extremely effecient on fuel to power/rev ratio. Much more so than Yamaha and Suzuki. He actually led on saying that Honda wouldn't benefit much if at all. Toby and Jules were asking Spalders about the bikes because they expected the Honda of Dovi's to fly past the Yamaha but they actually looked fairly even on the straight and he thinks it's down to the extra fuel. Of course Dani wasn't on the Honda

I was waiting for him to comment on the Ducati but nothing was said

I'm not really sure what Spalding was saying. Normally, I'm in agreement with everything he says from a technical standpoint. I certainly agree with the impact of the fuel rules and how they probably created a better spectacle and better racing b/c the fuel computers were less influential, but the conclusions he drew about Sepang were beyond me. I understand Honda's hard work regarding the fuel computers would be nullified if more fuel was added, but it would still benefit Honda b/c they have the best reliability. If Honda can bounce off of a 20,000rpm rev limit (they already have great acceleration) without blowing up their engines, it will be

smooth sailing to easy wins. An extra 2,000rpm is good for 25hp which means Pedrosa would breeze past 2 or 3 people down the long straights at places like Aragon, Catalunya, Qatar, Sepang. It wouldn't even be close.

The theoretical Honda disadvantage is predicated on Dovi's inability to draft past the Yamaha's at Sepang b/c of the relaxed fuel economy of a shortened race. Guess what? Dovi couldn't draft past Spies' satellite Yamaha at Aragon! Dovi hasn't really drafted past anyone this season. Pedrosa can breeze past people, but he has an entirely different bike, an old Honda chassis with much more weight over the front end which helps it keep the front down while accelerating (also uses more fuel). Everything we saw at Malaysia was completely par for the course so I'm not really sure why Spalding was so convinced that fuel had revolutionized the contest. Rossi won. Dovi showed well. Suzuki went well like they always do. Did something happen that I missed? The only difference I saw was that people were riding lots of different lines, but even this is relatively normal for Sepang.

The only time Honda wouldn't have an advantage is if Rossi was serious about the 19,000rpm MotoGP rev limit he mentioned in the GQ article. A 19,000rpm rev limit would stop Honda from exploiting a big reliability advantage. I don't know if he was being literal, but it doesn't really matter. If they add fuel, Honda gains a lot of power on top while the other manufacturers struggle to gain another 500rpm.

DRILL · Oct 11, 2010

inam said:
I thought they kept the 21 litre fuel limit but they reduced the race lenght from 21 laps to 20 laps to help the riders in extra hot weather which gave every one extra litre of fuel to play with, i haven't watched eurosports coverage yet only watched bbc coverage of the race so i could be wrong.

Thats exactly what they did mate.

DRILL · Oct 11, 2010

I did hear Spalders explaining that the 1000cc heavily modded production engined bikes were on 23 litres.He said in effect that due to the excellent reliability of modern day engines,that the generous 23 litres would give some teams the license to produce almost MotoGP type bhp and that we could be surprised at which bikes will be setting the quick times. BUT theres still a long time till 2012 and Dorna or the FIM may adjust the fuel allowance again. Anyway,thats the part I listened to.

DRILL · Oct 11, 2010

Oops my bad,its 24 litres of fuel.

J4rn0 · Oct 11, 2010

F@ck damn3ed H0nda manipulators, their technological arrogance has been ruining MotoGP since 2007. They think they're better than anybody else, so always push for rules that present tough (and meaningless) challenges to the engineers, like this invention of 800cc and 21 liters, thinking they will have an advantage. But Ducati scr3wed them in 2007, and Yamaha again in 2008 and 2009 and 2010. I can only hope they keep getting beaten in spite of their manipulations, so that they stop and common sense can return. ..........

chopperman · Oct 11, 2010

Maybe they should give the factory terams 23 liters and satalite teams 24 liters. even it up a bit seeing the sat teams are lower in the food chain in money, development and rider experiance a lot of the time (rookie rule).

SackWack · Oct 11, 2010

mylexicon said:
The theoretical Honda disadvantage is predicated on Dovi's inability to draft past the Yamaha's at Sepang b/c of the relaxed fuel economy of a shortened race. Guess what? Dovi couldn't draft past Spies' satellite Yamaha at Aragon! Dovi hasn't really drafted past anyone this season. Pedrosa can breeze past people, but he has an entirely different bike, an old Honda chassis with much more weight over the front end which helps it keep the front down while accelerating (also uses more fuel). Everything we saw at Malaysia was completely par for the course so I'm not really sure why Spalding was so convinced that fuel had revolutionized the contest. Rossi won. Dovi showed well. Suzuki went well like they always do. Did something happen that I missed? The only difference I saw was that people were riding lots of different lines, but even this is relatively normal for Sepang.

The only time Honda wouldn't have an advantage is if Rossi was serious about the 19,000rpm MotoGP rev limit he mentioned in the GQ article. A 19,000rpm rev limit would stop Honda from exploiting a big reliability advantage. I don't know if he was being literal, but it doesn't really matter. If they add fuel, Honda gains a lot of power on top while the other manufacturers struggle to gain another 500rpm.

Dovi did draft Spies at Aragon but Spies got him back on the brakes. Dovi also drafted Lorenzo at Sepang for the pass. So you did miss a few things. Nobody can draft like Pedrosa and make it look that lopsided.

J4rn0 said:
F@ck damn3ed H0nda manipulators, their technological arrogance has been ruining MotoGP since 2007. They think they're better than anybody else, so always push for rules that present tough (and meaningless) challenges to the engineers, like this invention of 800cc and 21 liters, thinking they will have an advantage. But Ducati scr3wed them in 2007, and Yamaha again in 2008 and 2009 and 2010. I can only hope they keep getting beaten in spite of their manipulations, so that they stop and common sense can return. ..........

Exactly. Honda the manipulators. If a relaxed fuel economy would benefit Honda the most, don't you think we would have seen it already Lex?

mylexicon · Oct 11, 2010

SackWack said:
Exactly. Honda the manipulators. If a relaxed fuel economy would benefit Honda the most, don't you think we would have seen it already Lex?

No, b/c the change was small. They transformed Sepang from the most difficult economy contest into one of the easiest economy contests. If they add fuel it won't be in tiny increments like 250ml-500ml which was probably the approximate effect of reducing Sepang by 1 lap. If they add fuel for 2011, they would certainly add at least 1 liter, possibly 3 liters to get all classes to 24L fuel capacity.

The effects of adding 3 liters (or even 1 liter) would certainly be a much higher rev ceiling. Who benefits if the bikes get another 1000rpm-2000rpm? Honda. No other engine on the grid has shown the capability to last 3 race events at 20,000rpm. If they add 500ml for next season, I might be inclined to agree with Spalding, or as I said before, if the rev limit Rossi alluded to is an actual MSMA agreement, I would also agree with Spalding. I'm almost certain they won't add small amounts of fuel and I don't have anything to go on as far as the rev limit so for now I disagree with him.

It's very straight forward in my mind. If fuel capacity is increased by a substantial amount (at least 1 liter), the rev ceiling is raised. If the rev ceiling goes up, the sport becomes a reliability contest. A reliability contest benefits Honda, and their reliability advantage is probably more substantial than their fuel computers.

J4rn0 · Oct 11, 2010

mylexicon said:
No, b/c the change was small. They transformed Sepang from the most difficult economy contest into one of the easiest economy contests. If they add fuel it won't be in tiny increments like 250ml-500ml which was probably the approximate effect of reducing Sepang by 1 lap. ...............

Sorry. It was 21 liters, 21 laps. One lap less, means 1 liter saved. the 300cc margin has to be there anyway.

J4rn0 · Oct 11, 2010

mylexicon said:
No, b/c the change was small. They transformed Sepang from the most difficult economy contest into one of the easiest economy contests. If they add fuel it won't be in tiny increments like 250ml-500ml which was probably the approximate effect of reducing Sepang by 1 lap. ...............

Sorry. It was 21 liters, 21 laps. One lap less, means 1 (nominal) liter saved. the 200-250ml margin has to be there anyway. So it wasn't 250-500ml, it was 750 or more.

SackWack · Oct 11, 2010

mylexicon said:
It's very straight forward in my mind. If fuel capacity is increased by a substantial amount (at least 1 liter), the rev ceiling is raised. If the rev ceiling goes up, the sport becomes a reliability contest. A reliability contest benefits Honda, and their reliability advantage is probably more substantial than their fuel computers.

Spalders didn't mention revs. Spalders related fuel to reliability. He said the Suz has the reliability and the bike to be very fast. The fuel and electronics are their biggest hindrance. Somthing about the fuel cooling the engines or something.

So if Spalders it be believed, then reliability at high revs shouldn't be a big problem with more fuel

Mick D · Oct 11, 2010

mylexicon said:
If they add fuel it won't be in tiny increments like 250ml-500ml which was probably the approximate effect of reducing Sepang by 1 lap.

Gosh... I'm sorta happy you're not doing my returns, Lex. Sepang is normally 21 laps and they JUST squeak by with 21 litres of fuel... so by my calculations that equals ONE FULL LITRE PER LAP! By your calculation they'd be left with 10 to 15 litres in the tank at the end of the race!

yello13 · Oct 11, 2010

Does anyone know the current restrictions on fuel besides the volume? Is the octane and such physical and chemical properties fixed by the regs?

The basics manual implies that there is already 'some' flexibility in the fuel consumed:

Fuel is of course essential to every bike on the MotoGP grid in equal measure so the MotoGP teams work closely with their fuel suppliers to ensure that they carry exactly the right type of fuel and of course, exactly the right amount. All motorcycles must be fuelled with unleaded petrol.

Firms such as Elf, Shell and Repsol supply the teams with fuel and their eternal quest is the highest possible performance at the lowest rates of weight and consumption.

If there is some rigidity in the rules, as I suspect there is in the official technical guidlines, I would like to see what would happen if those restrictions were lifted.

I want to see an all out fuel war. 24 or X amount of liters of whatever you want. Anything.

It might be an interesting way to mobilize the supermajors into title sponsorship of race teams in addition to the sideline support RD Shell gives to events and Ducati. With the financial industry is already tied down in dumping money into Formula 1, what other businesses have higher profit margins than the major oil companies? So does sponsorship make sense from a marketing standpoint for oil/gas/fuel companies? It must since Repsol is already a staple in grand prix, Elf Acquitane pops up every now and then, and the State Supported Giant Petronas is moderately involved with more to come.

So how do we get Chevron, BP, Elf's parent company Total SA, and Conoco-Philips to play ball with us? Let them directly compete with each other through open fuel regulations much the same way the tire war worked. I really don't know enough from a technical standpoint on what repercussions there would be from unrestricting the fuel that is used, but it must be workable in some way.

I'd imagine the likes of Livio Suppo and his counterparts have already parsed through such ideas, and naturally with the current rules it is impossible, but perhaps sometime down the line it might be doable. Thoughts?

Kropotkin · Oct 11, 2010

yello13 said:
Does anyone know the current restrictions on fuel besides the volume? Is the octane and such physical and chemical properties fixed by the regs?

You can read the rules for yourself on the FIM website.

2.11 Fuel and Oil

All motorcycles must be fuelled with unleaded petrol.

Read the full specs in the rulebook, but basically, it's 95-102 RON, with specs for contaminants and various other parameters.

Search

Search

Anyone want to talk about Fuel??

SackWack

inam22

FACTORY

SackWack

mylexicon

SackWack

mylexicon

DRILL

DRILL

DRILL

J4rn0

chopperman

SackWack

mylexicon

J4rn0

J4rn0

SackWack

Mick D

yello13

Kropotkin

Similar threads

Recent Discussions