Road Relevance of 2014 F1 Engines

[machin]

Well the Nissan Deltawing turbo figure I quoted above runs 2.0 bar boost... I presume the F1 engines will have more (...?)... the Honda McLaren turbo book I quoted above says that the RA-168-E engine's BSFC improved by about 2.5% for every 0.3 bar boost increase... of course I'm mixing two different engines which are two decades apart, but something to think about....?

[pgfpro]

And from the excellent book "McLaren Honda Turbo -A Technical Appraisal" by Ian Bamsey, published in 1990, talking specifically of the 1.5 litre twin-turbo RA-168-E:-

To obtain the best fuel consumption at 2.5Bar Honda found it necessary to run a charge air temprature of 70 degrees centigrade and a weak mixture -an air ratio off 1.02 - and a fuel temperature of 80 degrees centigrade. Under these conditions Honda was able to produce an extremely frugal race engine having a brake specific fuel consumption of 264 g/kWhr at 12,000rpm and giving a maximum power of 620bhp a 12,500rpm.

In "best power" mode the BSFc rose to 314g/kW.hr, and power rose to 685bhp.

I own the hard back of this book. My most fav book of all time

[aussiegman]

Thanks for the information !

Welcome

I have nothing against a dose of evaporative cooling with forced induction, the first 2 WDCs were won this way.
I was just pointing out that all pump fuel has an inherent gain in detonation resistance with rich mixtures independent of temperature . That is why mixture temperature has been fixed in fuel testing for the last 80 years, and why mixture strength must be manipulated to give the worst result (while the temp is held constant). That's RON & MON.

Agree that an increase in the RON/MON number increases detonation resistance. In Asia, fuels vary from 91RON to 100RON and now with E85 108RON+.

So some gain credited to a rich mixture really belongs to the fuel itself.

I disagree and think you’re looking at it from the wrong starting point. If using a fuel with higher knock resistance (typically due to increased octane), then in most cases this will allow the engine to run leaner and not require the over-rich fueling in the first place. A fuels inherent knock resistance is already factored in by either the tuner or the ECU, so it is utilizing a fuels octane to resist detonation, not its ability to absorb heat when used well above stoichiometric ratios.

The use of a fuels “inherent knock resistance” allows leaner mixtures without the need for power reducing over-rich fueling to compensate for a lower ability to resist detonation. Where using a fuel that provides substantial knock resistance, there is less need and certainly less advantage to running rich mixtures. As they say, “Lean is mean” and leaner engines typically run hotter and make more power.

(Avgas was literally designed for this, it's less natural than pump fuel).

Modern pump fuels are as at least as “manufactured” as AVGAS is or ever was. AVGAS is simply a blending of cracked petroleum base stock with Tetraethyl-Lead at ratios of 0.56g/Lt and up. Very few extras are added such as detergents etc due to regulations.

Modern pump fuels are highly cracked light hydrocarbons blended with detergents, additives and ethanol at varying ratio’s to get octane numbers up to 100ron on a petrol base and 108ron+ for ethanol based/blended fuels. Both pump and AVGAS are hardly straight cracked fuels.

Most EC is due to the basic fueling, not the extra fueling for richness (although that could be important). With today's fuels there is more EC than in the past.

I disagree that currently most EC is due to basic fueling. Again you’re looking at only the fuel and not how it is used.

In a standard turbo car during a chassis dyno run, it will see AFR’s move from 14.0:1 or higher on cruise, right down to 10.5:1 under load. They are absolutely tuned for over-rich mixtures under load as a “safety net” to increase engine serviceability. This is not fuel EC, this is tuned EC via the engine mapping. Carburetor engines didn’t have the adjustability of modern closed loop EFI and DFI systems. As a result they were typically required to run richer than required to account for high load situations.

Modern engine mapping is separated into huge value tables for fuel, ignition and where available boost. Under normal running (light to moderate load) conditions, engine do not require huge amounts of evaporative cooling (“EC”) as there is little component heat load/stress, allowing leaner mixtures due to higher RON/MON numbers of the fuel. As load increases, there is an increase in the requirement for EC and richer mixtures are used down to 10.5:1 or lower.

However, stricter emissions regs are requiring leaner burning and as a result higher octane fuels to avoid the need for over fueling. Modern fuels use both EC (10% ethanol blends provide good EC mechanisms) and higher MON/RON numbers allowing leaner mixtures. Most EC is not basic fueling but a result high load over- stoichiometric fueling when required.

Toluene etc (being very dense) was used to defeat the FIA attempts to limit turbocharged F1 power by limiting fuel quantity by volume (not weight), that's why they don't like it . It was beaten by introducing limits on induction pressures (and de-limiting fuel quantity ?).
Since when there's been no limit on fuel quantity (till 2014).

I don't think it was. Toluene (2,4,6-trinitromethylbenzene or trinitrotoluene) is a very dense hydrocarbon but that is not why it was used.

It was used by Honda in the 1980s followed by Renault, Williams etc, at ratio’s of up to 86% by volume, with the remainder being n-heptane to meet the Formula 1 octane restrictions of 102 RON.Toluene was in use long before the FIA attempted to limit turbo engine power by limiting fuel capacity and restricting boost. The density of Toluene was inconsequential in teams decision to use it. It was its calorific content and knock resistance that made it viable.

Toluene as a dense fuel requires substantial energy (heat) to vaporize so was pre-heated in F1 to between 70C and 82C by routing the fuel lines near or through sections of the exhaust. There was never any specific fuel flow limits other than the overall capacity of fuel tanks. They could flow as much as they liked at any particular time throughout a race as long as they only used the maximum tank capacity.

Boost and fuel capacity were eventually limited to help bring power parity with the new 3.5Lt engines. The bans were specifically trying to remove turbos and the exotic fuels they used from F1 through limiting power from the 1.5Lt turbo engines. The use of Toluene preceded the restrictions and it was the FIA's intention to replace the turbo engines with the new 3.5Lt variant and move away for the highly toxic and expensive fuels F1 had resorted to using.

However, as is typical in F1 the engineers found other ways to compensate for the restrictions resulting in the FIA simply banning turbos in the late 80's.

So where the various bans were enforced, teams such as Honda specifically:
• Increased compression ratio from 7.4:1 to 9.4:1 compensate for decreased boost pressures to 2.5bar;
• Moved to leaner AFR’s to conserve fuel;
• This saw AFR’s go from 23% rich over stoichiometric @ 7.4:1 at up to 5bar and 70c preheated fuel to;
• 15% rich @ 4.0bar and preheated fuel to 70C; to
• Eventually 2% rich with 9.4:1 and 2.5bar pre-heated fuel (82C) and air intake temp (70C)

This was to try and get around the 80’s restrictions which were:
• A ban on re-fueling
• A limit on fuel capacity to 220Lts
• A boost limit to 4.0bar above atmospheric
• A limit on fuel capacity to 155Lts and
• A boost limit of 2.5bar above atmospheric

Toluene (classed as a Cat 3 hazardous substance by the EU) was banned by the FIA to remove turbo engined cars but also most specifically on the basis of toxicity and the exorbitant cost of US$300/Lt or more.

It was not used specifically by teams to get around fuel capacity limitations due to fuel density, it was simply the most efficient and knock resistant fuel available when mixed to meet the 102RON requirement. Any effect that fuel density had was a secondary consideration and nice benefit. Detonation control and calorific content was paramount. Otherwise they could have moved to fuels with greater calorific content with a disregard to knock resistance allowing leaner AFR’s and possible lower fuel weights. The density of Toluene was actually a negative as it resulted in higher fuel load weights.

My issue is with the FIA.
They talk a good act (of greeness/road relevance), but the 2014 rules allow only 1 design approach to this. This favours an expensive product mix ( the 200 bhp road car that is 'all-electric' in town), F1 will be a constant advertisement for this.

That is because if they allowed a free for all it would end up in spending war with costs skyrocketing, exactly what the FIA do not want. Eventually after much spending and hand wringing, teams would end up in the middle ground with variations of the same package. Why not mandate a package that is more relevant to the manufacturers and current production needs in the hope of controlling costs and maybe seeing some tech trickle down to production

At present KERS in F1 also recovers non-KE

And?? So what??

My interest in the turbocharger is how much of its drive is recovery from what is wasted in the exhaust of the NA engine (also this is related to compounding), and how this compares with engines (10 million and rising?) that have greater expansion before exhausting.
I can believe that the turbo engine can be more efficient than the NA engine even without any recovery from exhaust at NA exhaust state. In racing we harvest exhaust pulses after degradation via our exhaust system design with naturally aspirated engines (to increase mass flow/MEP, ie some 'free supercharging'); one revelation of the F1 turbo era was that turbos need exactly the same exhaust system design ?

So this is the crux of your issue with the FIA?

What you are talking about seems to be simply an increase in back pressure (and therefore perceived efficiency) a turbo charger causes over a standard NA engine exhaust system. A turbocharger will increase back pressure vs. an NA free flowing exhaust, however the loss due to this is minimal vs. the increase in efficiency in other areas and the utilization of exhaust energy (both heat and kinetic) that would otherwise be lost. As a general rule, losses decrease as turbo size increases.

This gets into multiple areas including valve timing and camshaft design or pneumatic valve control, tuned runner length for turbo exhaust manifolds, A/R ratio’s for turbine housings, turbine wheel materials and design, turbo selection and twin scroll turbine housing design. You seem to be most concerned with “significant losses around the exhaust valve and before the turbine” as well as the loss of the “harvesting” or scavenging effect of tuned pulse wave reversion in NA exhaust systems.

Gas backpressure is created when the hot gas exiting the exhaust ports arrives at the turbine wheel, and “stacks up” behind the exhaust valve the turbine wheel interface. ICE’s perform best when tuned with an amount of valve overlap where intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time. Where exhaust backpressure is greater than the inlet pressure, the exhaust will push back into the cylinder and (given enough time) up into the inlet manifold. Typically in the older designed turbo engines, such as the WWII example you have constantly provided, their high backpressure ratios required an earlier-closing exhaust valve, most easily achieved with a wide lobe-separation angle of 112 to 114 degrees. Duration increases can also effect overlap even when moving cam lobe centerlines or opening event phases.
Modern more efficient and typically larger turbos significantly reduce that backpressure over your WWII examples. This minimizes the negative effect of exhaust dilution and allows tighter, more efficient LSA’s to be run.

Newer turbos with reduced backpressure also means the exhaust valve can be opened sooner and held open longer, which is generally accepted as beneficial to high-rpm power production, just like on a NA engine. Generally speaking, a modern high efficiency turbo engine can behave similarly to a NA engine with regard to valve timing. An early-opening exhaust valve can be beneficial for top-end power because even high-efficiency turbos still have to work against some exhaust backpressure. The earlier-opening exhaust helps to reduce residual pressure in the cylinder before the intake valve opens. Where there is overlap, the intake pressure is higher than the exhaust back pressure and actually helps evacuate the cylinder however intake charge and overall cylinder pressure can be lost if overlap has too great a duration.

There is also the issue of turbo manifolds using either a tuned length runners rather than the inefficient “log” design to help gas flow in exactly the same way as NA exhaust pulse “harvesting”. Modern twin scroll turbine housings allow better pulse separation to measurably increase turbine response through the reduction of exhaust pulse interference up to boost threshold. This also has an effect of reducing backpressure as it allows higher flowing, larger A/R turbine housings than single scroll designs.

As a general summary, modern multivalve engines control valve timing and utilise different techniques to reduce backpressure caused by turbocharger turbines to the point where exhaust backpressure is typically less than boost pressure.

Good luck with those turbos !

Thanks, so far we have had very reliable and powerful packages for our circuit racing endeavors. But as Louis Pasteur said, “chance favors the prepared mind” and we try to not leave too much to chance. She is an unforgiving mistress…

[Tommy Cookers]

I thank you for the extensive information !

No 'pump fuel' has or ever has had any spec for effect of mixture strength (independent of temperature) on detonation (and thereby on power from a forced induction engine).

Although in principle all fuels show such a benefit, the effect is highly variable with composition eg source of crude. The huge research that led to the mandatory RON then MON was driven by this; aircraft engines around 1917 had huge problems at full power with the introduction of fuel from Western hemisphere (US) crude. RON & MON intentionally disengage from this effect.

Today's Avgas was designed (for British air defence ie short range use) in 1936 to maximise the effect, and was thus difficult to make from US crude, hence at that time required a novel process (not needed today, especially with Far East crude? ).

The spec is 100/130 PN , this means that with best enrichment 30% more mep and power can be obtained supercharged from Avgas that tests like 100 Octane when supercharged at a disadvantageous mixture strength. The US fuel at that time tested at 100/108 PN or so.

100/130 became the standard, even a country making Avgas from coal followed this.
Some British planes had takeoff power increased in 1940 from 1050 to 1310 bhp by adjustment only of automatic throttles (and carburation ?) to allow higher mep. Fuel consumption was of course increased.

F1 ran on this fuel in 1958-1960 (with little or no power gain, as naturally aspirated).

Presumably some of the benefit with mixture richness is from the TEL (so what ?)
We've had this Avgas in the low lead version for 40 years now (for the benefit of light aircraft engines not designed for high lead content). It's still 100/130 PN.
Lower grade are/were 80/87 PN and 91/98 PN(still leaded but specifying only minimal effect of richness).

So there's some value in the use of 100/130 Avgas in supercharged engines.

Avgas may have less margin when rich for imperfect carburation (eg with a race camshaft) causing poor combustion due to further (accidental) richness, alcohols may be more tolerant of this.


Regarding the benefits of evaporative cooling (eg with alcohol), every molecule evaporated causes cooling, so EC is largely generated by the basic fuelling (extra fuel causes some more cooling which could be useful of course).


Toluene; I could believe that it was introduced as part of the fuel blend to allow higher powers with turbo etc development without having to redesign the car for greater tankage (in 1988 I heard forecast a 38 bhp immediate gain to Williams for Hungary). Presumably this blend didn't need heating.
I don't think they went straight at very high Toluene content, but that it soon progressed to a point where the teams were vulnerable to rule changes (to contain power growth).
I don't think it is outstanding apart from its density (ie more power for 280 litres not more power for say 200 kg). What matters is the heat content of the amount of fuel burn allowed by a cylinderful of air.
It was ok costwise and hazardwise in my school chemistry days.
There's a lot of lurid but vague 'information' from one basic source, unqualified to write on such subjects. IMO of course
There's a lack of solid 'who did what,when' type information.

[aussiegman]

This is now a fuel composition debate rather than an F1 engine relevance debate, however it seems interesting so here we go.

No 'pump fuel' has or ever has had any spec for effect of mixture strength (independent of temperature) on detonation (and thereby on power from a forced induction engine).

I would have to disagree with this.

Firstly, I would like to know how you can make that definite assumption as modern pump fuels are definitively produced with detonation resistance due to reduced mixture strength as a primary goal which gives evidence that is in direct conflict with your statement.

Never-the-less, as you seem preoccupied with Avgas and early 20th century ICE's, the addition of tetraethyl lead into pump fuels goes as far back as the 1920’s where it was used as an inexpensive agent to increase fuel octane ratings, which allowed for engine compression ratios to be increased, more advantageous ignition timing to be used AND mixtures to be leaned off, all of which increased power and economy. This specifically resulted and allowed the reduction of mixture strength.

Secondly, various international regulations have specifically required fuels that provide the ability for leaner burning engines (Japan, Australia and the State of California in the USA for instance), which in turn require detonation resistance due to “lean mixture strength”. The proliferation of these high efficiency engines has required specific types of higher octane pump fuels to be available where they are in usage.

Additionally, “Clean Air” policies have now mandated that “pump fuels” are of specific compositions and octane (RON/MON) values to allow for exactly what you are saying these fuels have not set out to achieve. This is a specification to allow detonation resistance at mandated leaner mixtures.

Unleaded fuels which cannot rely on tetraethyl lead have resorted to various means to specifically increase fuel detonation resistance to allow for these lean burning requirements and not those mixture strengths related to out dated and out modded engines such as to those seen in 1917, WWI and WWII automotive and aircraft engines.

If this is not the case, what has been the basis for refineries producing more expensive and complex pump fuels of increased octane from the usually prevalent leaded 91 octane to now ubiquitous unleaded 95, 98, 99 and 100 octane blends and even the ethanol based 108+ rated E85 fuels. These fuels were specifically provided after regulatory mandate to allow leaner burning engines (reduction in pollution) which require leaner mixtures that necessitate increased detonation resistance.

Although in principle all fuels show such a benefit, the effect is highly variable with composition eg source of crude. The huge research that led to the mandatory RON then MON was driven by this; aircraft engines around 1917 had huge problems at full power with the introduction of fuel from Western hemisphere (US) crude. RON & MON intentionally disengage from this effect.

I am not sure why you are repeatedly showing anecdotal evidence from the very early to mid 20th century, however current requirements and technologies have moved on. Variation based on crude feed stock with modern thermal decomposition and catalyst derived cracking technologies are now considerably more efficient. This includes Catalytic Reformation or Reforming.

This chemical process is used to convert typically low octane naphthas into more valuable and usable high-octane fractions. These are called “Reformates”. The end result is a Reformate that contains hydrocarbons with more complex molecular shapes holding higher octane values than the original naphtha feedstock fractions is derived. This is all totally independent of crude feed stock source and was first implemented on a commercial scale in the 1950’s after WWII and where you seem to be gathering most of the basis for you argument.

As such, the largest issue with crude feed stock variation is the efficient production of the resulting end-product (fuel) for specific short to medium hydrocarbon chains (fractions) as a percentage of feed stock utilised, rather than any individual issue with specific qualities of hydrocarbon compositions.

Different feed stocks will allow for more or less efficient production of a higher or lower percentage quantity of certain short to medium hydrocarbon fractions. The quality of these fractions is rarely impacted, only the quantity produced. Poor quality feed stock generally results in greater numbers of the longer chain hydrocarbon fractions that cannot be cracked like bitumen etc due to impurities.

Personally, I fail to see the relevance of a 1917 issue that resulted in the RON/MON classifications which are present today. By their very existence, they negate the argument and are not relevant. Modern fuels are governed legislative mandate based on specific RON/MON rating requirements, not the will and whim of the refineries.

Today's Avgas was designed (for British air defence ie short range use) in 1936 to maximise the effect, and was thus difficult to make from US crude, hence at that time required a novel process (not needed today, especially with Far East crude? ).

Today’s Avgas is not classified as a “commercially available pump fuel” by regulation and is therefore specifically outlawed for road use in most countries and even for use in motorsport in most others. This is specifically due to the tetraethyl lead content of the fuel. Today’s Avgas has a very different profile (to my understanding of previous incarnations) as both the currently commercially available variations have lower concentrations of tetraethyl lead than previously found.

The spec is 100/130 PN , this means that with best enrichment 30% more mep and power can be obtained supercharged from Avgas that tests like 100 Octane when supercharged at a disadvantageous mixture strength. The US fuel at that time tested at 100/108 PN or so.

Agreed, they still conform to pre-determined mixture ratio requirements of 100/130, however this is more a case of regulatory standardization that the use of feed stock which has zero bearing on the end product, only the quanity oif the end product produced. The use of Far East crude coupled with modern distillation techniques allow for greater purities, if not greater quantities, of certain fractions and control during the blending of the end product fuel.

100/130 became the standard, even a country making Avgas from coal followed this. Some British planes had takeoff power increased in 1940 from 1050 to 1310 bhp by adjustment only of automatic throttles (and carburation ?) to allow higher mep. Fuel consumption was of course increased.

Yep OK, I agree on the standardization however my knowledge doesn’t extend to 1940’s aircraft so defer to your experience.

F1 ran on this fuel in 1958-1960 (with little or no power gain, as naturally aspirated).

OK, but they sure couldn’t run on Avgas now due to tetraethly lead content, simple.

As for any power gain, a modern NA engine with digital control would allow for increases in compression ratio to take advantage of the increased detonation resistance. Of course, simply pouring a higher octane fuel into a carburetor based engine not designed to take advantage of it will give a net small or no increase in performance, even with mixtures adjusted.

Presumably some of the benefit with mixture richness is from the TEL (so what ?) We've had this Avgas in the low lead version for 40 years now (for the benefit of light aircraft engines not designed for high lead content). It's still 100/130 PN. Lower grade are/were 80/87 PN and 91/98 PN(still leaded but specifying only minimal effect of richness). So there's some value in the use of 100/130 Avgas in supercharged engines.

Avgas is generally less dense than most racing fuels and modern pumps fuels, and as a result, tuners must compensate by resorting to richer mixtures when using to Avgas. Avgas also has a very different hydrocarbon profile to optimize volatility properties at high altitude and can contain high level of aromatics, which can contribute to poor throttle response when used in engines that require constant throttle variations which typically aviation engines due not. They generally are required to run at long periods and stable RPM's and as such, throttle response is a secondary concern.

Another primary differential is Avgas' octane quality. Avgas is short on octane compared to modern fuels due to the specific requirements for high altitude use. Inadequate octane quality is one of the quickest ways to destroy an engine. Aluminum piston forgings can be severely eroded or cracked during acceleration events where detonation is present due to the inherent properties of low quality Avgas octane.

All being said, Avgas, today/right now, is not a standard pump fuel (unless you are fueling an aircraft at an aerodrome or have specific licensing permits to purchase in bulk for distribution depots) and will never return to usage as a staple in motorsport or as a road legal fuel. It is even outlawed in amateur level motorsport classes in some countries. The tetraethyl lead content will always see to this.

Avgas may have less margin when rich for imperfect carburation (eg with a race camshaft) causing poor combustion due to further (accidental) richness, alcohols may be more tolerant of this.

OK again, however, motorsports is not aviation nor does it require operation at altitude or ensure as close to perfect reliability as possible. A person’s existence does not rely on it in motorsport as it does in aviation. At worse it’s a long walk home, not a long fall from 15,000 feet. Regardless of this, digital fuel, ignition and knock control as well as closed loop running allow for reduced concerns such as those above.

Regarding the benefits of evaporative cooling (eg with alcohol), every molecule evaporated causes cooling, so EC is largely generated by the basic fuelling (extra fuel causes some more cooling which could be useful of course).

Again, I strongly disagree.

Yes, every molecule that “evaporates” removes heat from its surrounding area agreed. However, I again disagree with your assertion that this “is largely generated by the basic fuelling” or more correctly base fueling.

EC is a tool used specifically when the base heat loads that appear under high load conditions and in which base fueling is insufficient requiring additional fuel to increase net effect of fuel evaporation to control temperatures.

So EC is primarily a tool used by the implementation of overly rich mixtures within the fuel tables. If this was largely achieved by “base” fueling, there would be no need to force overly rich mixtures (10.5:1 or greater, way outside the optimum 14.7:1 to 12.5:1 generally accepted) under load when in cylinder heat management becomes an issue.

What you are saying is that the addition of extra fuel under load to these high AFR's has no net tangible benefit with relation to in cylinder heat management. If that is the case then OEM and motorsport engine tuners are simply pouring extra fuel into the combustion process for no net tangible benefit.

As said I strongly disagree and have substantial experience garnered while testing various engines at various states of tune that definitively shows otherwise, especially where forced induction is utilised.

Toluene; I could believe that it was introduced as part of the fuel blend to allow higher powers with turbo etc development without having to redesign the car for greater tankage (in 1988 I heard forecast a 38 bhp immediate gain to Williams for Hungary). Presumably this blend didn't need heating. I don't think they went straight at very high Toluene content, but that it soon progressed to a point where the teams were vulnerable to rule changes (to contain power growth).

Toluene was certainly used in F1 fuels as an anti detonation agent and rose to prominence during the turbo era. This is an undisputed and inconsequential fact.

I don't think it is outstanding apart from its density (ie more power for 280 litres not more power for say 200 kg). What matters is the heat content of the amount of fuel burn allowed by a cylinderful of air.

Toluene has many advantages for forced induction engines aside from energy value.

Yes, Toluene is denser than ordinary pump fuel (0.87 g/mL vs. 0.72-0.74gr/ml) with a higher caloric content per unit volume {standard molecular entropy of 220.6J/(mol K)}and high latent heat of evaporation being 351kJ/kg vs. Heptane at 318kJ/kg. Toluene also compares favorably against oxygenated fuel types such as ethanol or MTBE, which contain lower energy per unit volume when compared to pump fuel.

The high calorific content of Toluene results in higher exhaust temperatures which contain more kinetic and thermal energy available for harvesting by the turbine of the turbo. This provides the practical effect of allowing larger A/R housings without detrimental effects to boost response or boost threshold usually associated with large A/R turbine housings on small capacity engines.

Additionally, as Toluene has a RON octane rating of 121 and a MON rating of 107, it is catagorised as a low sensitivity fuel with a sensitivity rating of 14 (121-107=14), which compares well against alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol which have sensitivities in the 20-30 range. All this results in a fuel that matches the performance profile for a heavily loaded engine which maybe prone to detonation, such as forced induction engines running high boost pressures.

The high octane allows the use of more favourable ignition tables before retardation is required due to the onset of detonation, which is detectable by the ECU via “knock sensors” that can be set on a per cylinder basis. This also allows the use of higher static compression ratios in forced induction engines as seen by the increase over the past 20 years where standard engines have gone from 7.0:1 up to and in excess of 10.0:1 for standard road cars due to fuel detonation resistance and ability to run on "leaner mixtures".

It was ok costwise and hazardwise in my school chemistry days. There's a lot of lurid but vague 'information' from one basic source, unqualified to write on such subjects. IMO of course There's a lack of solid 'who did what,when' type information.

I am not sure when you went to school, but i sounds like a long time ago (no offense).Toluene is definitively not OK in school chemistry now without substantial precautions.

Toluene is rated as:
1: Teratogenic (reproductive toxicity);
2: Mutagenic (genetic toxicity);
3: Carcinogenic (cancer causing); and
4: A strong skin irritant.

It can be absorbed through inhalation (acute vapor toxicity) and skin contact and as such requires a respirator at a minimum and usually goggles, gloves and protective clothing.

[Speng]

Didn't read all the thread but the 2014 rules are probably more applicable to what the big manufacturers are looking to do with production car engines than the current rules BUT they have restricted things that would increase that relevance. eg:
- no VNT/VGT turbos which is precisely a major enabling tech for increased turbo use in road cars.
- Severe materials limits on turbos (i.e no ceramic turbines or exotic material compressors). Honda were running ceramic turbos in the 80s and I'm sure you can buy a TiAl compressor wheel today for your road car.
- no VVT or lift which is an enabling tech for variable cycle engines ie engines that vary between Otto and Atkinson cycle. You can have a compression ratio that does not equal your expansion ratio but the relation ship is fixed. my understanding is that to optimise efficiency and power you'd want to go more Atkinson-ish (greater expansion ratio than compression ratio) when you want efficiency and more Otto-ish when you want more power.
- KERS/TERS is a good idea but with restriction on how much can be used they're underdoing it. My guess is the rulemakers will progressively increase the amount of stored energy over time to make the cars more hybrid but as it is, my guess is that more energy could be recovered.
- DI is a good thing as we all know this is one thing that virtually every major car manufacturer is doing. Today's engine concepts are blurring the line between spark ignition engines (Otto cycle) and compression ignition (Diesel cycle) and the new rules allow that to be explored but if the ECUs are standardized and frozen how much can the engine providers play with that.
- The min weight and CG, cylinder spacing rules don't allow/encourage advanced fabrication techniques which has always been something that the engine manufacturers have learned from racing.

On another note: turbos improve efficiency because on a enthalpy-entropy (mollier) diagram it is a property of air/exhaust gasses that the constant pressure lines diverge so for the same compression and expansion ratios there is always "leftover" energy to be found in exhaust from an air-breathing engine. This is why a fundamental way to improve cycle efficiency is to "overexpand". If you do it in the cylinder you have an Atkinson cycle while if you do it thru a turbine you can either recover the energy in a compressor (i.e. turbo) or to drive a load (i.e. TERS). I'm not so up on my IC engine thermo but there is generally excess pressure at the exhaust port by definition which can always be used to drive a turbine (i.e. you can't "Atkinson" it all away). The rest is heat which is more difficult to extract in a space/weight effective way although I've read articles where BMW is looking to put a small steam turbine cycle on their exhausts on road cars in the near future but this is not likely for F1 cars.


Right now the highest tech engines in a race car are probably the Audi sports car engines and as we know Audi has a history of taking that tech from the race car to the street. According to what I've read all the tech listed above is used on their current turbodiesel race engine so I wouldn't be surprised to see Audi putting out a lot of "race proven technology" on their next generation of diesel cars just like they did after using GDI on their R8s back in the day. if I were a big car company only the higher profile of F1 over prototypes would get me into F1 instead.