I hear it said that the fuels are not yet fully optimised for the new engines , with redbull / lotus and McLaren being the worst affected
does anyone have any knowledge of this ?
minimum 87 Octane is presumably intended to avoid future dieselisation of F1 (eg relevant when fuel is cut to 90, then 80 kg)lebesset wrote:I must admit that the FIA fuel regs are beyond my comprehension ....although the octane tests are clearly defined [ {ron/mon }/2 and test methodologies ....it merely states a minimum of 87 , more recognisable by n. americans , which to the uninitiated sounds like a strange way of controlling the fuel to be closely related to pump petrol
but the rest of the regs seem to preclude the tricking up of the petrol ...so what can the fuel companies actually do to optimise for a particular engine ?
well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !CptPeanut wrote:Slight deviation but still related, I read earlier that Petronas had developed an oil that got thicker when hot and this was being partially attributed to the Mercs performance. Can anyone give any more information on this?
I wonder how much oil they can burn off before it will be considered cheating, any oil you can sneak in via the breatherlebesset wrote:well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !CptPeanut wrote:Slight deviation but still related, I read earlier that Petronas had developed an oil that got thicker when hot and this was being partially attributed to the Mercs performance. Can anyone give any more information on this?
fascinating anyway , a bit like water expanding as it cools !
I doubt there will be much variation in power due to fuel energy content.ringo wrote:So assuming all things being equal, how much power can be added to an engine if an improved fuel is used?
5hp.. 20 hp.. 100hp?
Fuel seems to be the new talk of the town. I'd like to learn a thing or two about it, since it's the least discussed topic in the sport.
what is 'much more energy per kg' ? .... who can't use 1% or 2% or 5% ? (that's the question)chip engineer wrote: I doubt there will be much variation in power due to fuel energy content.
The rules restricting the vapor pressure would seem to prevent using much of anything with more energy per kg than pentane. Iso pentane has a high enough octane rating and energy density of 45.24 MJ/kg.
Molecules with the fewest carbon atoms seem to have the highest energy, so complex and less common compounds are unlikely to be able to improve on pentane.
My point was that those thousands of compounds are more complex (with more carbon atoms) than the ones on the common list. While there might be some exceptions that are not widely known, the simple compounds have the highest energy density per unit mass. So I think it is unlikely adding in some of those complex compounds will improve energy density.Tommy Cookers wrote:what is 'much more energy per kg' ? .... who can't use 1% or 2% or 5% ? (that's the question)chip engineer wrote: I doubt there will be much variation in power due to fuel energy content.
The rules restricting the vapor pressure would seem to prevent using much of anything with more energy per kg than pentane. Iso pentane has a high enough octane rating and energy density of 45.24 MJ/kg.
Molecules with the fewest carbon atoms seem to have the highest energy, so complex and less common compounds are unlikely to be able to improve on pentane.
there's about 1000 compounds in gasoline not on your list
about 25000 compounds in crude oil not on your list
and Shell has blatantly stated they are using some compounds not found in gasoline
unusual structures can have somewhat higher heats of combustion
IIRC Isopentene is one example of something better (eg than Isopentane) ?
also Cyclopentene ?
it does not help us that by convention heating data sites (ie gas fuels) use LHV but some erroneously tabulate UHVs as LHVs
I did not address detonation resistance. There might be some significant value there.Tommy Cookers wrote: and detonation resistance ('Octane rating') is unlimited, so potentially producing more power relative to the fuel heat
2T F1 engines ?langwadt wrote:I wonder how much oil they can burn off before it will be considered cheating, any oil you can sneak in via the breatherlebesset wrote:well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !CptPeanut wrote:Slight deviation but still related, I read earlier that Petronas had developed an oil that got thicker when hot and this was being partially attributed to the Mercs performance. Can anyone give any more information on this?
fascinating anyway , a bit like water expanding as it cools !
pipe is MJs not measured by the flow meter