By the way, what is it about the Mazda's that requires the grid to have 2x fuel use to balance them out? Their race pace seems pretty similar to the others.
Race is still a bit too short for it to equal out. Granted, using max boost would've blown the engine, but with a tiny bit of smart driving, I could go for 10 laps on boost 15 with the Porsche. So 20 laps without 2x fuel. That would "easily" been a 1-stop with the Porsche with normal fuel usage.
The Mazdas had around the same race-pace as the Sauber and Porsche yesterday, but as I understood it, a few of them were actually using max power.
By using 2x fuel the Sauber and Porsche needs to be a bit smarter in terms of boost, thus equalizing it a bit.
With longer races this equalizes things by itself - but running this with 1x would mean a guaranteed 1-stop for everyone, and e.g Porsche with boost levels 5-6 settings higher than yesterday.
Of course, this
may be possible to negate by using "Time Scaled" mechanical wear, that scales the engine wear/damage & brake wear to match the race length. So say that the engine life is 25hrs with no overheating. The race length is 2hrs. Then Time Scaled means that the engine life is cut down to 8% (2hrs is 8% of 25hrs). That means that even with little fuel usage, you cannot top-boost it all the way as the engine will blow.
However, that will need
a lot of testing, with proper data to back up findings etc. the worst thing to do there is guesstimate how it works, and having 15 out of 19 drivers blow their engine after 1 hour!
EDIT: This is how I believe that Time Scaled mechanical damage/wear works. I see that some say you should put time on 3x-5x as that will affect it. If so, it will only be possible to use for simulating 24hrs etc. Like I wrote, needs a lot of testing
EDIT 2: I did
not drive with boost 15 on the Porsche during the race! Just to clarify that, but fuel usage with boost 15 would in theory make it a 1-stop with normal fuel usage (if you ignore the blown engine)