2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: 2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

Post

olefud wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote: 2014 F1 engines will be much more fuel efficient than the V8s they replace.
A bit of apples and apricots here. Could dumping unburned fuel into the exhaust on overrun have maybe influenced the V-8 efficiency?
F1 used the same engines before the dumping started and it wasn't any more fuel efficient. TC is confusing the issue IMO because he loves his pet theory that NA engines are more fuel efficient. That clearly is not the case in the automotive world where everybody uses turbos for downsizing and better fuel efficiency.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

olefud
79
Joined: 13 Mar 2011, 00:10
Location: Boulder, Colorado USA

Re: 2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:
olefud wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote: 2014 F1 engines will be much more fuel efficient than the V8s they replace.
A bit of apples and apricots here. Could dumping unburned fuel into the exhaust on overrun have maybe influenced the V-8 efficiency?
F1 used the same engines before the dumping started and it wasn't any more fuel efficient. TC is confusing the issue IMO because he loves his pet theory that NA engines are more fuel efficient. That clearly is not the case in the automotive world where everybody uses turbos for downsizing and better fuel efficiency.
Hey, don’t pick on TC –he’s on your side!

First, I’m never in love with a theory. The main reason I post is for constructive criticism. The only instance in which I learn something is when I’m wrong.

That said, I still think that lower RPM and compounding increase engine fuel efficiency while turbo charging compromises such efficiency relative to comparable NA with the caveat that each is optimized. The rationale for the NA approach has been previously discussed. Comparing engines with hundreds of differing parameters with an ultimate objective other than fuel efficiency is not compelling.

We may also have semantic differences. To my mind, engine fuel efficiency isn’t influenced by downsizing. Fuel efficiency is the amount of work (force X distance) accomplished by the theoretical available energy in a unit of fuel. Downsizing may be a reasonable response to employing two tons of machinery to transport two hundred pounds of cargo, but it doesn’t relate to engine fuel efficiency except in marketing or political speak. Fuel efficiency is more properly the domain of engineering.

Tommy Cookers
617
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: F1 used the same engines before the dumping started and it wasn't any more fuel efficient. TC is confusing the issue IMO because he loves his pet theory that NA engines are more fuel efficient.
road engines until the coming of 3 way catalysts used rich mixture at full throttle/rpm, to get maximum power regardless of efficiency
aircraft piston engines still do this today
GP and F1 etc race car engines have similarly always used mixtures 20-30% rich (or sometimes much more)
including the F1 turbos, which only stopped using such rich mixtures when their fuel was drastically cut eg to 150 litres
these rich mixtures in both NA and turbocharged engines have simply thrown away fuel and efficiency for a lesser benefit in power
to win races, just like dragsters do
endurance racing does not do this because the fuel quantity is restricted ie the engines are fuelled for efficiency not power

the FIAs comparison of 2014 engines with NA engines is unfair because it has never asked NA engines to be fuelled for efficiency
for only 2 seasons engines had a fuel quantity limit with effect, when turbo power(only) was cut by cutting their fuel quantity

@WB try READING the F1 Honda turbo articles that pgfpro and others kindly and usefully provided
perhaps you could show me where I have claimed that NA engines are more efficient ?

Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: 2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

Post

olefud wrote:To my mind, engine fuel efficiency isn’t influenced by downsizing.
Oh yes, it is! The efficiency of an engine is related to rpm and and the torque power demand in relation to the maximum torque available.

Look at the diagram, it shows at which points the engine consumes which amount of fuel in g per kWh. And you'll notice that the higher the torque demand for a given rpm, usually the lower the consumption. Normal torque demand in a road car is in the lower regions and not at maximum torque. If you add a second car with an engine that has only maybe 60% torque/power of the old one the one with the lower power runs at better efficiency when both cars would drive next to each other at the same speed and at the same engine rpm.

A cylinder cutoff works in the same way, increasing the load of the remaining cylinders and shifting them to higher efficiency.

Image
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: 2014 Regulation Changes and their enviromental impact

Post

I seem to have mixed up some posters and have to apologise to TC.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 18#p436618
It was olefud on page one who created the theory that NA engines are more efficient.
olefud wrote:Naturally aspirated engines are more efficient than boosted engines of a given power in that the larger fuel charge of the latter, while producing more energy, wastes more energy in that the power stroke doesn’t have sufficient volume to utilize the greater energy produced.
This point sounds very convoluted to me and I plainly think the idea of an efficiency advantage of NA engines over turbocharged engines is not compatible with our experience in the real world. And that goes for racing engines as well as for road car engines.

Traditionally what we understand by efficiency is the percentage of chemical energy supplied with the fuel that is converted to motive power to the wheels. So it has to do with the conversion of fuel into power. It can't be too wrong to speak of fuel efficiency then even if the term may be used slightly different by engineers.

For the purpose of this thread - the environmental impact of 2014 regulation changes - the choice of turbo vs NA seems to be important, but is is not so if you take a deeper look. The environmental impact is not immediate because - as we all know - the race fuel consumption makes no difference to the environment - by being minuscule in comparison with the total carbon foot print of F1. But F1 has a huge impact when it comes to influencing the thinking of people regarding their behaviour in terms of making conscious consumer decisions about sustainability.

We desperately need to change some anti social behaviour that leads to an extreme over exploitation of natural resources and burdens our children and grand children with the cost of their wasteful ways. That much is obvious when you study all the reports about climate protection and how fossil energy is utilized in this world. The benefits of having access to energy , products, services and comfort is not evenly distributed over the world and over time. Some people now and in the past decades waste as if there is no tomorrow for this planet and some have nothing at all.

So F1 has a responsibility in the view of the FiA - which I share - to reduce the waste of fossil energy where it is feasible. By changing the power limitation formula from air limitation to fuel limitation F1 uses an opportunity to make a statement that it cares for the environment and values sustainability. It is only a gesture but it makes F1 accept the role model it has for the fans. One hopes that people will take the example on board and also switch to products that consume less fossil resources such as more efficient automobiles, heating systems, home appliances and cooling systems.

We can probably discuss about the efficiency of turbochargers for a long time but I feel that this role model of F1 is much more important. So the fundamental change of power limitation is the important thing that we should be addressing. There seem to be very little doubt for anybody that the FiA did the right thing with that switch.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)