MickyD wrote: I think the problem is that engines are so fuel-efficient these days that there's no chance of running out of fuel, so messing with the fuel flow is considered an articial aid outside the regs, which these days are designed to maximise efficiency. According to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51688538:In F1's complex turbo-hybrid engines, the fuel-flow limit works to promote efficiency and is effectively a ceiling on the amount of power an engine can produce.
It means teams cannot increase power simply by increasing the rate of fuel flow through the engine, and must do so instead via efficiency savings, in other words increasing the amount of power extracted from the available fuel by advances in the engine/hybrid system.
Regardless, the FIA announcement, outlined in the same piece, lacks transparency, to put it mildly. If I didn't know better I'd wonder whether Ferrari didn't sometimes receive preferential treatment for some reason!
Yep, they’re fuel efficient. But where’s the harm of pumping extra fuel into the engine? Running rich and having to carry extra fuel to do so is slower over a race distance, which is why they underfuel the cars and save fuel at some point. Restricting the fuel flow takes away a possible variable to be used tactically. At a time where people want non stop action, I would think this sort of thing would be looked at favourably.
) will probably start 4th quickest but I'd back McLaren and Renault to develop their car better.
