This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Fuel Pressure Limited In MotoGP. Again.

Joined Feb 2007
6K Posts | 58+
Rovrum S,Yorks Eng
http://motomatters.com/news/2010/09/21/fuel_pressure_limited_in_motogp_again.html





Fuel Pressure Limited In MotoGP. Again.

Submitted by David Emmett on Tue, 2010-09-21 22:40. in With the Grand Prix Commission meeting what feels like every race weekend nowadays, it's hardly surprising that readers of the press releases issued get a sense of déjà vu from time to time. Today's FIM press release detailing the latest decision of the Grand Prix Commission is no exception. MotoGP's rule-making body - consisting of the organizers (Dorna), the teams (IRTA), the sanctioning body (FIM) and the manufacturers (MSMA) - introduced new restrictions on fuel pressure, limiting the pressure in fuel lines to a maximum of 10 Bar. If that had a familiar ring to it, it is because exactly the same rule was introduced for 2010 at a previous meeting of the GP Commission back in December of 2009, a rule that was quietly dropped before the start of the 2010 season.



So the fuel pressure limitation is back, but the difference between December 2009 and now is significant. The December '09 announcement merely read "In the MotoGP class the maximum permitted fuel press is 10 Bar." No further explanation or specification was given. This announcement sets out in detail how that maximum pressure is to be limited, including what appears to be a growing trend in MotoGP: an approved part. All fuel regulators must now be approved by MotoGP's Technical Director, Mike Webb, and sealed and certified by the manufacturer. The solution is to introduce what is almost a spec fuel regulator, with the difference being that multiple regulators could be permitted providing they fulfil the technical requirements.



The reintroduction of the rule points up a couple of interesting developments in MotoGP. First and foremost, if the MSMA accepted this regulation - the MSMA has a veto over technical regulations, and is basically in charge of drawing up the technical rules for MotoGP - the there is a very good chance that none of the manufacturers are using a high-pressure fuel injection system at the present.



Secondly, and far more interestingly, it points to the balance of power swinging away from the factories. Dorna, the FIM and IRTA have all been open about their frustration with the current set of technical regulations, which have produced very expensive, electronically regulated MotoGP bikes and sterile racing. It is hoped that the reintroduction of 1000cc bikes will solve part of the problems in that respect, but a second prong of attack comes with the expiry of the MSMA's contract with Dorna to provide the technical rules. Dorna has an agreement with the factories that the MSMA gets to make the technical regulations, which is due to end after the 2011 season. The imposition of a spec fuel pressure regulator could the first step by Dorna and IRTA towards taking the technical rules away from the factories, and casting the MSMA in another role from 2012 onwards. If the MSMA is prepared to accept a spec fuel pressure regulator, then other parts may follow, with the jewel in the crown being a spec ECU. That is currently completely unacceptable to the MSMA - and especially its Japanese members - as the manufacturers get a lot of R&D effort from the data they gather while setting up the complex fueling of a MotoGP bike. As the deadline to renew the MSMA contract draws nearer - and the number of teams expressing an interest in running a CRT effort from 2012 continues to grow - opposition from the manufacturers could be swept aside under a new rule-making regime.



That is going to take some time to work itself out, though. For now, the non-manufacturer members of the GP Commission can be glad that the first blow has been struck in the war that is to come. Here's the text of the Grand Prix Commission announcement, froman FIM press release:



Decision of the Grand Prix Commission



The Grand Prix Commission, composed of Messrs. Carmelo Ezpeleta (Dorna, Chairman), Claude Danis (FIM), Hervé Poncharal (IRTA) and Takanao Tsubouchi (MSMA), in the presence of Ignacio Verneda (FIM Sports Director) and M. Paul Butler (Secretary of the meeting), in a meeting held on 18 September in Alcañiz (Spain), unanimously decided the following:



MotoGP class: 2011 Regulation for fuel pressure



In the MotoGP class the maximum permitted fuel pressure is 10 Bar, at a recirculated flow rate of 50 litres/hour.



1) It is mandatory to use an official approved fuel pressure regulator, as specified by the Technical Director. This official regulator must be fitted downstream of the fuel pump, such that the maximum fuel pressure available to the injectors is never more than 10 Bar.

The official regulator manufacturer may supply regulators set at any lower pressure and/or any higher flow rate, as requested by MotoGP teams, provided that these regulators are not capable of delivering more than 10 Bar at 50 litres/hour.



2) Additional regulators may be used in conjunction with the official regulator to further reduce and control fuel pressure, but no device or strategy capable of increasing fuel pressure at the injectors above 10 Bar may be used anywhere in the system.



3) The approved fuel pressure regulator will be sealed, marked and certified by the regulator manufacturer, and may be inspected and/or removed for testing at any time by the Technical Director.



4) Teams must supply a schematic diagram of their fuel system including the location of the fuel pressure regulator when requested by the Technical Director



5) In measuring the fuel pressure and flow rate delivered by the regulator, the tolerance as specified by the offical approved regulator manufacturer will be taken into account.
 
Pig...was sort of hoping someone with a little more technical knowledge than me would put their thoughts on this. I did see where this was proposed for the start of the 2010 season but quietly put to rest for one reason or another.

What I see with an anouncement like this is limited fuel = limited horsepower. If that is the case, Dorna still don't get it in my opinion, less horsepower does not mean safer racing.



I may be way off base, but lets hear everyone else's thought on this topic.
 
Pig...was sort of hoping someone with a little more technical knowledge than me would put their thoughts on this. I did see where this was proposed for the start of the 2010 season but quietly put to rest for one reason or another.

What I see with an anouncement like this is limited fuel = limited horsepower. If that is the case, Dorna still don't get it in my opinion, less horsepower does not mean safer racing.



I may be way off base, but lets hear everyone else's thought on this topic.



I have no idea what this means either but new fuel rules always sound bad to me. I hope Emmetts's take on things, which seems to be this may bridge the gap to the MSMA giving in to a spec ECU and thus get rid of traction control is right. Otherwise it's just more of the same bad news. Someone also pointed out in the comments section that the rule may be there for Suzuki.
 
Why am I worried that they'll include a flow limiting orifice with the pressure regulator...



I smell a rat.
mole.gif
<----- or mole, or vole, or whatever the hell this rodent is supposed to be!
 
The point of limiting fuel pressure is to ban direct injection, at least that's what Preziosi said when they banned the fuel pressure limitation at the end of 2009. Direct injection could bring major benefits in MotoGP b/c GP is fuel-limited and engine-limited. Direct injection allows a technology called stratified charging which basically means that the electronics engineers can control the air/fuel mixture in various regions of the cylinder by controlling where and when the fuel is injected. If they can control the air-fuel mixture in certain parts of the cylinder, they can improve fuel economy. Lean mixtures usually burn very hot which harms reliability, but stratified charging allows for better temperature control as well.



It would basically be a miracle technology for MotoGP, and manufacturers would spend ungodly amounts of money to improve fuel efficiency and reliability. I have no idea why the eliminated the fuel pressure limitation and then added it back for 2011, but I think Suzuki might have something to do with it. They don't have deep pockets and they are already hanging on by a thread. If the other manufacturers get a 5% fuel economy boost, Suzuki would be done for. That's just a guess, though.
 
It would basically be a miracle technology for MotoGP, and manufacturers would spend ungodly amounts of money to improve fuel efficiency and reliability. I have no idea why the eliminated the fuel pressure limitation and then added it back for 2011, but I think Suzuki might have something to do with it. They don't have deep pockets and they are already hanging on by a thread. If the other manufacturers get a 5% fuel economy boost, Suzuki would be done for. That's just a guess, though.



A well-placed source told me that they couldn't get the MSMA to agree on a single figure in time for the 2010 season, so they had to slip it in to the 2011 rules instead. The cost of 100 bar systems was going to be prohibitive - even the F1 teams are scared of the money they involve...
 
Why am I worried that they'll include a flow limiting orifice with the pressure regulator...



I smell a rat.
mole.gif
<----- or mole, or vole, or whatever the hell this rodent is supposed to be!



If they fuel flow limited MotoGP, the sport would be much better. Even if they stayed with 800s, fuel computers would be less prevalent b/c reaching the finish line would be quite easy. If the fuel computers are less prevalent, then the riders have more control over the throttle. Furthermore, fuel flow limiting would be a horsepower cap of sorts which means that fuel restrictions can be eliminated. If fuel capacity is unrestricted, we might get a bit more sliding around depending upon how much horsepower the bikes have.



Best of all they could get rid of capacity restrictions and the 4-stroke rule if they wanted to. Fuel flow limiting works on any cylinder count and any cylinder shape. Fuel flow limiting works for 2-strokes and 4-strokes and rotaries and anything else that runs on conventional petrol. Clean two-strokes would need special dispensation for lubricant, but they might be able to work that out.



Fuel flow limiting would save racing as we know it b/c the manufacturers could spend hundreds of millions of dollars without exploiting more than 5%-10% benefit in horsepower. If the horsepower figures are high enough, it wouldn't really affect the competition.
 
A well-placed source told me that they couldn't get the MSMA to agree on a single figure in time for the 2010 season, so they had to slip it in to the 2011 rules instead. The cost of 100 bar systems was going to be prohibitive - even the F1 teams are scared of the money they involve...



So they got rid of the pressure limitation, but none of them could decide on a new limit so they went back to 10bar?
 
So they got rid of the pressure limitation, but none of them could decide on a new limit so they went back to 10bar?



No, they wanted to introduce a pressure limitation, but couldn't agree on the specifics for the 2010 season, so they dropped it temporarily, then worked out the specifics for the 2011 season.
 
There's so much .... to this ...., eh.
<



Was talking to some oil people today and they just explained to me how big of a Pandora's box high-compression fuel injection really is.
<
It's sickening and amazing, so I'll just type it for anyone who wants to know.



First, I don't know how many of you are familiar with HCCI, but it means combustion without a spark. Combustion without a spark is very difficult to achieve b/c it's difficult to control the piston temperature. Anyway, with ultra high compression fuel injection systems, it is actually possible to blast the fuel in so late and so quickly that it basically eliminates the possibility of pre-detonation. It works right now in lower revving engines, but it would cost an arm and a leg to make it work in high revving engines. HCCI means about 10%-15% better fuel economy and more power.



Furthermore, high compression fuel injection makes it possible to inject the fuel so late that engineers can raise compression into the realm of 15:1 or 16:1 (seems a bit optimistic, but I don't work in a lab so I wouldn't know). If they can raise compression to 15:1 or 16:1, that's another 10-15% horsepower and better economy over a race bike engine.



Even more insane you can inject such tiny amounts of fuel and still achieve full atomization that you can run the engine with the manifold wide open (like full throttle). Ultra ultra lean burn but still with stratified charging to control temperatures. In theory, this technology can save 20% (so I was told) fuel at partial throttle (not often on a racebike but still useful).



These high stress ultra lean technologies need a fair amount of development to be production relevant b/c of reliability concerns. Most of this technology is lab tech, but if the manufacturers dumped tens of millions of dollars into high pressure direct-injection and if they could make it reliable, it is possible that the 800s could gain 10%-15% more power (250-270hp) and they could finish the race with fuel in the tank. That's one hell of a Pandora's box. Even rev limiting and bore limiting wouldn't be able to stop the upward march of horsepower.



If money were no object, it kind of makes you wish they would give it a whirl.
 
A fantastic piece of research, Lex, well done!





Was talking to some oil people today and they just explained to me how big of a Pandora's box high-compression fuel injection really is.
<
It's sickening and amazing, so I'll just type it for anyone who wants to know.



First, I don't know how many of you are familiar with HCCI, but it means combustion without a spark. Combustion without a spark is very difficult to achieve b/c it's difficult to control the piston temperature. Anyway, with ultra high compression fuel injection systems, it is actually possible to blast the fuel in so late and so quickly that it basically eliminates the possibility of pre-detonation. It works right now in lower revving engines, but it would cost an arm and a leg to make it work in high revving engines. HCCI means about 10%-15% better fuel economy and more power.



Furthermore, high compression fuel injection makes it possible to inject the fuel so late that engineers can raise compression into the realm of 15:1 or 16:1 (seems a bit optimistic, but I don't work in a lab so I wouldn't know). If they can raise compression to 15:1 or 16:1, that's another 10-15% horsepower and better economy over a race bike engine.



Wow! That explains a lot. 15% more horsepower with better fuel efficiency would clean up in MotoGP as it stands. With 21 liters of fuel, those would be huge gains. They would also make the racing more interesting again, as the bikes would start to outperform the tires again.



Even more insane you can inject such tiny amounts of fuel and still achieve full atomization that you can run the engine with the manifold wide open (like full throttle). Ultra ultra lean burn but still with stratified charging to control temperatures. In theory, this technology can save 20% (so I was told) fuel at partial throttle (not often on a racebike but still useful).



Partial throttle is the holy grail for MotoGP bikes. They don't spend much time there, but it's where all the gains are to be had.





These high stress ultra lean technologies need a fair amount of development to be production relevant b/c of reliability concerns. Most of this technology is lab tech, but if the manufacturers dumped tens of millions of dollars into high pressure direct-injection and if they could make it reliable, it is possible that the 800s could gain 10%-15% more power (250-270hp) and they could finish the race with fuel in the tank. That's one hell of a Pandora's box. Even rev limiting and bore limiting wouldn't be able to stop the upward march of horsepower.



If money were no object, it kind of makes you wish they would give it a whirl.



Interesting. I was told (I mentioned above) that the MSMA wanted this to avoid a spending war, and I can see why, now. The benefits are huge, but the costs are even bigger. Fascinating stuff, thanks!
 
Furthermore, high compression fuel injection makes it possible to inject the fuel so late that engineers can raise compression into the realm of 15:1 or 16:1 (seems a bit optimistic, but I don't work in a lab so I wouldn't know). If they can raise compression to 15:1 or 16:1, that's another 10-15% horsepower and better economy over a race bike engine.



Basically sounds like a diesel that runs on petrol. Superclean burning technology, and efficient. The mapping for such an engine would be pretty amazing stuff, but electronics has got so fast it must be worth thinking of putting them in a bike engine these days. I don't know why they don't encourage it, other than the cost factor, it would probably kill Suzuki in MGP. But then again the cost would wane after the initial development outlay.
 
Basically sounds like a diesel that runs on petrol. Superclean burning technology, and efficient. The mapping for such an engine would be pretty amazing stuff, but electronics has got so fast it must be worth thinking of putting them in a bike engine these days. I don't know why they don't encourage it, other than the cost factor, it would probably kill Suzuki in MGP. But then again the cost would wane after the initial development outlay.

That was my first thought also
 
A fantastic piece of research, Lex, well done!









Wow! That explains a lot. 15% more horsepower with better fuel efficiency would clean up in MotoGP as it stands. With 21 liters of fuel, those would be huge gains. They would also make the racing more interesting again, as the bikes would start to outperform the tires again.







Partial throttle is the holy grail for MotoGP bikes. They don't spend much time there, but it's where all the gains are to be had.









Interesting. I was told (I mentioned above) that the MSMA wanted this to avoid a spending war, and I can see why, now. The benefits are huge, but the costs are even bigger. Fascinating stuff, thanks!



Thanks, Krop. I was fascinated by what this oil consultant told me b/c I've known about HCCI, high compression ratio, and ultra lean burn, but I didn't realize that all of them were connected by high pressure fuel injection.
 

Recent Discussions