Because it is completely irrelevant to road cars and as such presents one of the biggest arguments used by the 'greens'. And no; it is not "free speed": it comes at the cost of roughly 15% extra fuel consumption. Neither does it add to the spectacle whereas it could be argued that DRS does as is intended. To put it bluntly, fuel is designed to drive an engine; it is not designed to blow wastefully into the wind for some other purpose. Even a fast-jet's afterburner - where fuel is thrown straight into hot exhaust gasses to produce extra boost at enormous cost in terms of fuel-efficiency (rather like using a jet engine as a semi-rocket) - still uses that fuel to provide power. But blowing hot exhaust onto aerodynamic surfaces does not. In the purest sense, it is 'wasteful' (i.e. not in the interests of fuel-efficiency), since it requires extra fuel which has no bearing on engine performance.
I would like to add to the discussion and just point out that I'd imagine off-throttle diffusers make the car more planted and therefore detract from driver skill, which we've just had an article done about. I'd also imagine they contribute significantly to the "dirty air" problem. The issue with the ban was A) it was very badly handled and B) it doesn't seem to have brought the teams closer together, in fact from the looks of things Catherham - closest to the midfield last season - are about 4 seconds off the pace in testing.
@ABS: Hot-blowing "now" is difficult - theoretically teams could do it in testing but other than quickly measuring the differences in a particular system between last year and this year there'd be no advantage. If "now" means Australia, or rather "this season," then as I said yesterday, I'd be amazed if any teams do it. The report picked up by Autosport is very careful to call it a "possibility" - meaning it theoretically could be done under the current ECU config. Very interestingly, however, it does say, "sources have confirmed that the FIA has worked with the manufacturer involved to cut off this potential avenue of development." This indicates that one of the engine suppliers has been singled out. It also quotes a Williams (Renault) source. I agree about reusing the waste product and the reintroduction of turbo engines supports this. As I said earlier, however, in my opinion allowing the teams to make use of the waste product for aerodynamic gain encourages them to use more fuel solely to maximise their use of the waste product. There's no difference in principle between that and hot-blowing, for me. We didn't see much wheel-to-wheel racing involving Vettel last season. We didn't see much of Vettel at all, in fact, or at least his rivals didn't. I don't know for a fact who made best use of off-throttle blowing and, to be fair, when it was temporarily banned Red Bull were still way out in front. Newey has made comments regarding the hit Red Bull would take in relation to other teams, though, and pretty much acknowledged that they made best use of it: "we have lost the exhaust technology with the restriction exhaust outlet position that we were able to develop and perhaps be ahead of the pack on in the last couple of years." Yes, the cheap and gimmicky use of DRS is not great and doubtless we've lost battles like Button and Webber's in Abu Dhabi in 2009. That's lamentable but to return to the situation we had there in 2010 when Alonso couldn't get close to Petrov would be equally depressing. I don't like how DRS has been implemented but F1 had driven itself into a dead end and I can't think of a better solution.
OK, maybe I'm getting use to it, but I'm strating the like the look of the Ferrari, please log in to view this image Maybe they are only showing it from nice angles
This is hot-blowing! It is using extra fuel to deliberately charge what was previously simple waste gas (exhaust). Making use of a waste product is, in principle a perfectly wonderful idea. But this is not simply using what was wasted: it is deliberately and quite literally adding to the waste! Deliberate, pre-meditated 'wastelfulness' of fuel for the extra by-product of burning it, which would otherwise not be needed in an era where fuel economy is a clear and very important objective for motor racing: hence F1's deliberate limiting of the amount of fuel a car is allowed for an entire race. This may at first glance appear ridiculous, but it's not entirely dissimilar to burning trees under your house so that the hot smoke will warm it! If 15%* of fuel is being deliberately squandered, they should be running 15% less of it in the first place! This is the 'green' argument. We might not like some of the green arguments but I can assure you that this one is of paramount importance because it can be pointed out as deliberately wasteful!- - - o0o - - - *Approximately. This is a very rough guess.
lets be honest, there isn't much going on in F1 that has any correlation any more to road cars, that pretty much ended in the 90's. The reason they ban technology is to stop 1 team having a massive advantage (unless it's a Ferrari). The CVT got banned before Williams had finished developing it, and a properly designed CVT would give full power to the wheels at all times and would be far more fuel effecient, but it would've absolutely pwnd every other car on the grid, instead we got Ferrari and bridgstone to hand Mr Contract-Stipulation his titles. As to why it's really been banned, well, conspiracy fans will notice that of all the top teams, the people with the worst EBD were... Ferrari, shock!
Yawn, I though everyone got bored of this debate quite some time ago? Hope you got a new tinfoil hat for this season.
This may well be true Miggins. However, virtually all of F1's technology is to some extent defensible; at least in some way or other. On the other hand, it is impossible to find the slightest defence of throwing extra fuel away when it does not contribute anything to engine power and can never in a million years make a positive contribution to the real world in any way whatsoever. The problem with chucking fuel into an engine on what is ostensibly a 'closed' throttle, is that it is blatantly irrelevant to road cars and blatantly uneconomical. In a sense, it is a blatant misuse/abuse of fuel. In other words, it is blatantly indefensible and hands a 'guilty' verdict to us from any judgemental environmentalist, over and above whatever fuel they may already reasonably have(sic). It is blatantly 'politically incorrect'. Not just maybe. Absolutely definitely! Mark my words: we would be very unwise to ignore this fact. Whilst fans of the sport may easily turn a blind-eye, the rest of the world looks on with a very simple argument against us all! It is very important that F1 is seen to turn away from what can be pointed at as an example of wholly unnecessary, inexcusable wastage of a limited resource. This throws petrol on the fire of the whole argument against motor sport as unnecessary and not in the slightest interest of the other, apparently more important race: the human one! - - - o0o - - - Whilst it may be difficult - and I accept that it is the case - to promote motor sport as a responsible endeavour, we must do everything in our power to avoid being perceived by the vast majority as frivolous at best; but more likely worse: totally irresponsible! - - - o0o - - - Look at what's happening: you've even got me coming out with a defence for the greens! No. We must not hand our critics such a simple goal. Regulations are important here. In my opinion, the FIA are absolutely right to ban the use of technology which scores such a daft own goal.
I may be wrong about this and if I am then I am but, strictly speaking, hot-blowing doesn't involve utilising waste gas, i.e. the by-product of what has been ignited in the engine. Hot-blowing is the passing of air and fuel unignited through the engine into the exhaust system. It ignites on the hot exhausts and only then becomes what could be considered 'waste' - hotter, less dense gases that increase aerodynamic effect. Of course, it's not really waste because creating that hotter, less dense air was the whole point: it's not a by-product. I totally agree that this is undesirable because it burns fuel without generating power but that's not what I meant in the bit you quoted. I've split my first paragraph now so that that bit is not following on from the "hot-blowing" that my comment started with. What I'm theorising about is that if the principle of allowing the waste from the engine to improve aerodynamics is accepted then the teams will naturally try to improve that waste (not the air and fuel passed through to achieve hot-blowing but actual by-product from the engine) by making it hotter and less dense as it exits the engine. The FIA can control engine mappings to ensure that, off-throttle, fuel and air is not being passed unignited to the exhaust system and, as we learned yesterday, they will soon stop fuel being passed unignited to the exhausts from a deliberate misfire. What they can't control is what goes into the engine (over and above what it needs) with the intention of producing hotter, less dense waste coming out. If that's still covered by the umbrella term 'hot-blowing' then, ok, I misunderstood it. I honestly believe (don't laugh) it has more to do with environmental concerns, whether perceived or actual. I reckon it's for the same reasons that Ecclestone has pushed into the Middle East that the FIA is pursuing fuel efficiencies. One could argue that KERS and DRS are piddling around on the peripheries but if (and it's a big if) F1 and motorsport generally are to survive beyond the next twenty years or so, absolute dependence on the internal combustion engine isn't an option. That said, how soon after the ban was announced did Ferrari leave and thus undermine FOTA?
Are we speaking at cross-purposes Genji? Your definition of 'hot-blowing' as "passing air and fuel unignited through the engine into the exhaust system" (so as to then ignite in the exhaust system) is exactly what I am speaking of when I said "It is using extra fuel to deliberately charge what was previously simple waste gasâ¦". By "waste gas", I am referring to exhaust in the conventional sense of 'spent' gases; i.e. those which play no further part in the combustion chamber. In other words, extra fuel is being used in the exhaust (i.e not burned in the combustion chamber) which was, hitherto, simple 'waste gas'; i.e. that which would otherwise (as in a normal, non-'blown' car) serve no further purpose. I also agree in principle about outlawing any attempt to enhance aerodynamic effects through the use of fuel, save that of the ordinary by-product of an engine through reasonable (conventional) use of fuel to power it. This is what the FIA are seeking to achieve and for the reasons I have already stated, I completely agree with them that this is in the best interests of F1.
Probably. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm obviously not explaining myself very well (mainly because I'm speculating and what I suggested might not even be possible or worthwhile) so let me ask a question instead. Assuming the FIA has eradicated the possibility of passing unignited fuel through to the exhaust system, how else might fuel be used solely to improve aerodynamic performance?
PHP: Pos Driver Team Time Laps 1. Kobayashi Sauber 1m22.312s 145 2. Maldonado Williams 1m22.561s +0.249 134 3. Di Resta Force India 1m23.119s +0.807 101 4. Button McLaren 1m23.200s +0.888 115 5. Massa Ferrari 1m23.563s +1.251 103 6. Webber Red Bull 1m23.774s +1.462 85 7. Vergne Toro Rosso 1m23.792s +1.480 92 8. Rosberg Mercedes 1m23.843s +1.531 139 9. Kovalainen Caterham 1m26.968s +4.656 70
​Webber's runs were interesting. He didn't do any longish runs until the end of the day. They were all 3- or 4-lap runs and not especially scintillating. It'd be nice to see a breakdown of sector times to put together some aggregate laps.
Does anyone have any idea of the sorts of runs that Williams and Sauber did to set those times? Props to Koba and Rosberg for going two whole race distances. EDIT: Ooh, Maldo too.
Ha! I'm wondering if it's me not explaining myself very well! The important thing is that we both understand what is meant by 'exhaust blown diffuser' and the concept of designing engine-mapping in such a way as to use fuel to provide something other than engine power. As for your question, Genji: that suggests to me that I must be missing your point somewhere, since I cannot conceive of any other means of using fuel for aerodynamic benefit; and, if it's a rhetorical question, I'm not sure what you're getting at!
Unlike, say, designing tyres to be fast wearing? This is exactly my understanding of it too. Ok my post last night was a bit impetuous. Of course I understand why they outlawed hot blowing of the diffuser, and the exhaust repositioning as an added measure to stop teams pursuing alternatives. But the cold blowing presumably only results in a small increase in fuel economy, especially with the restrictive fuel maps they're now forced to adhere to. It's the general war on innovation that's really frustrating me. Whiting was apparently going round the pitlane in Jerez checking that the exhaust positions weren't affecting aerodynamics, in this case a practice such as blowing the beam wing is recycling a waste product into something useful, which is in keeping with the general 'green' philosophy. Ok it's not reducing carbon output in anyway, but the mentality of using every drop of what's available is the right one. And the one which really angered me was the Lotus reactive ride height system, which was clearly legal in how it worked, and the FIA gave them the green light to design, research and refine the system for a full year before banning before they had chance to race it. I don't know how allowing a research and development team with a restrictive budget to spend a year fruitlessly designing a concept which they were going to outlaw any way isn't wasteful. Oh, and I really hate DRS.
​No it's not rhetorical but if you can't conceive of another way then it's obviously just another hair-brained idea, like the magnets.
