F1technical.net

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2020, 23:59

GhostF1 wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2020, 00:33

..... the increased bio-fuel content. Shell's F1 chief believe the increased ethanol fuel could give PU manufacturers the opportunity to operate the PU at a different temperature band......

(lots of posts mentioning E5 and E10 .....)

the rules don't require bio-ethanol - they require a bio-ingredient

I wonder why would anyone now or ever use bio-ethanol ?
haven't Honda been using bio-butanol ? (as per their articles in the Japanese press)
ethanol's mass-specific energy is very poor - butanol's is much better (much closer to gasoline's)

the rules mention 2nd generation bio components and advanced sustainable components (possible carbon capture/reuse)
they don't mention E5 or E10 or ethanol - and they never have

While you are right with all the years so far, the fuel regulations recently changed. From 2022 its a prescribed E10 fuel:
From the 2022 Technical Regulations:

16.4.4 A minimum of 10% (m/m) of the fuel must comprise advanced sustainable Ethanol

Another big change is expected in the fuel from what I've heard in that the new PU regulations will require a 100% "advanced sustainable" fuel - so all components from carbon capture or non-food source biomass.

For the current fuel though, I completely agree. The reduced energy content of ethanol makes it a poor fuel in a fuel flow (read energy) limited formula.

thanks - (to me) a useful clarification .....

redwan_ wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 11:28

.... the fuel regulations recently changed. From 2022 its a prescribed E10 fuel:
From the 2022 Technical Regulations:

16.4.4 A minimum of 10% (m/m) of the fuel must comprise advanced sustainable Ethanol

Another big change is expected in the fuel from what I've heard in that the new PU regulations will require a 100% "advanced sustainable" fuel - so all components from carbon capture or non-food source biomass.

For the current fuel though, I completely agree. The reduced energy content of ethanol makes it a poor fuel in a fuel flow (read energy) limited formula.

so .....
the 2022 regs demand 10% 'properly green' ethanol ....but ......
when does the other 90% become 'properly green' ie carbon capture or non-food biomass ? .....
2022 ? .... or .... 2025ish ?

people argued in 2014 whether F1 was significantly a 'fuel formula' - or not
won't this 90% make F1 massively a 'fuel formula' ?

NOTE TO SELF
E5 is 5% ethanol/95% gasoline by volume - this seems to explain why the FIA requires 5.75% biofuel by weight .....
ethanol being about 10% denser than gasoline - and butanol (or isobutanol) about 15% denser)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 14:00

the 2022 regs demand 10% 'properly green' ethanol ....but ......
when does the other 90% become 'properly green' ie carbon capture or non-food biomass ? .....
2022 ? .... or .... 2025ish ?

So I think the change is to happen concurrently with the PU regs change, so they can develop the new PU around the new fuel. As I understand it, this is currently 2026, but this might change if Red Bull manage to get a development freeze in place from 2022. This might bring the new PU and fuel regs forward to 2025 or so.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 14:00

people argued in 2014 whether F1 was significantly a 'fuel formula' - or not
won't this 90% make F1 massively a 'fuel formula' ?

I certainly think so. This is a current field of development - there aren't large quantities of "advanced sustainable" fuel being made anywhere in the world - so there is definitely the potential for the fuel to be one of the performance differentiators in the new regs.

Most pumps have as much as 10% ethanol, there really is very little difference in energy potential between 5 and 10% ethanol. While the 10% gives the fuel slightly less energy content, it also increases resistance to knock. So the differences sort of cancel each other out. Fuel economy isn't really affected too much, not in any appreciable amount.

redwan_ wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 15:35

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 14:00

the 2022 regs demand 10% 'properly green' ethanol ....but ......
when does the other 90% become 'properly green' ie carbon capture or non-food biomass ? .....
2022 ? .... or .... 2025ish ?

So I think the change is to happen concurrently with the PU regs change, so they can develop the new PU around the new fuel. As I understand it, this is currently 2026, but this might change if Red Bull manage to get a development freeze in place from 2022. This might bring the new PU and fuel regs forward to 2025 or so.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 14:00

people argued in 2014 whether F1 was significantly a 'fuel formula' - or not
won't this 90% make F1 massively a 'fuel formula' ?

I certainly think so. This is a current field of development - there aren't large quantities of "advanced sustainable" fuel being made anywhere in the world - so there is definitely the potential for the fuel to be one of the performance differentiators in the new regs.

They say 10% renewable, it is a shame they do not allow for instance 10 to be used through something like methane.
SpaceX used methane in the rockets and it is recovered from Co2 via solar. It would involve a tank, but more options to develop

car manufacturers will dodge the first shock of full electric cars I think. this maybe first step of accepting it is hybrid era not full electric.
Audi set to quit Formula E, start LMDh project
https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/aud ... n=widget-1

etusch wrote: ↑

30 Nov 2020, 20:02

car manufacturers will dodge the first shock of full electric cars I think. this maybe first step of accepting it is hybrid era not full electric.
Audi set to quit Formula E, start LMDh project
https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/aud ... n=widget-1

Agreed, I think this is the beginning of manufacturers realising alternative fuel ICE hybrids are the next era. Battery reliant, full electric vehicles much less so.

https://www.24h-lemans.com/fr/actualite ... ance-54659
This article with Audi's official statement is interesting though.

Julius Seebach, Managing Director of Audi Sport GmbH, commented: “We are evaluating other possible fields of activity for us in international motorsport… This is why we are intensively preparing to enter the new sports prototype category LMDh with its highlight races, the Daytona 24 Hours and Le Mans 24 Hours. The most important message for our fans is that motorsport will continue to play an important role at Audi.”

VW Group F1 intrigue?

BMW to quit Formula E after 2020-21 season

https://www.motorsport.com/formula-e/ne ... n=widget-1

godlameroso wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 17:19

Most pumps have as much as 10% ethanol, there really is very little difference in energy potential between 5 and 10% ethanol. While the 10% gives the fuel slightly less energy content, it also increases resistance to knock. So the differences sort of cancel each other out. Fuel economy isn't really affected too much, not in any appreciable amount.

at 100 kg/h 5% ethanol loses roughly 15 hp and 10% loses 30 hp assuming 50% thermal efficiency
10% ethanol requires just under 2% increase in thermal efficiency to recover the deficit to straight unleaded.

I am not sure that the extra resistance to knock and generally lower combustion temperatures are enough to offset the loss in heating value..

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 01:44

godlameroso wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 17:19

Most pumps have as much as 10% ethanol, there really is very little difference in energy potential between 5 and 10% ethanol. While the 10% gives the fuel slightly less energy content, it also increases resistance to knock. So the differences sort of cancel each other out. Fuel economy isn't really affected too much, not in any appreciable amount.

at 100 kg/h 5% ethanol loses roughly 15 hp and 10% loses 30 hp assuming 50% thermal efficiency
10% ethanol requires just under 2% increase in thermal efficiency to recover the deficit to straight unleaded.

I am not sure that the extra resistance to knock and generally lower combustion temperatures are enough to offset the loss in heating value..

You have a buffer as to how close to the edge you can run, you can get closer to that edge with more control over knock, so you gain a little power from that. You also lose a bit of energy, but it's not 30hp, funny all these OEMs claiming 30hp gain this, and 30hp that. I guess the 2022 regulations with 10% bio fuel are to peg them to 2021 levels despite a year of development? May as well freeze development, and save the trouble of forcing OEMs to keep dumping money into these engines already. ESPECIALLY, if all the money and development spend will only be to recover what the regulations are taking away to begin with. That, to me highlights the silliness of this sport at times. Less money could be spent doing things more logically.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:12

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 01:44

godlameroso wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 17:19

Most pumps have as much as 10% ethanol, there really is very little difference in energy potential between 5 and 10% ethanol. While the 10% gives the fuel slightly less energy content, it also increases resistance to knock. So the differences sort of cancel each other out. Fuel economy isn't really affected too much, not in any appreciable amount.

at 100 kg/h 5% ethanol loses roughly 15 hp and 10% loses 30 hp assuming 50% thermal efficiency
10% ethanol requires just under 2% increase in thermal efficiency to recover the deficit to straight unleaded.

I am not sure that the extra resistance to knock and generally lower combustion temperatures are enough to offset the loss in heating value..

You have a buffer as to how close to the edge you can run, you can get closer to that edge with more control over knock, so you gain a little power from that. You also lose a bit of energy, but it's not 30hp, funny all these OEMs claiming 30hp gain this, and 30hp that. I guess the 2022 regulations with 10% bio fuel are to peg them to 2021 levels despite a year of development? May as well freeze development, and save the trouble of forcing OEMs to keep dumping money into these engines already.

It is 30 hp, it's just basic maths..

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:13

godlameroso wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:12

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 01:44

at 100 kg/h 5% ethanol loses roughly 15 hp and 10% loses 30 hp assuming 50% thermal efficiency
10% ethanol requires just under 2% increase in thermal efficiency to recover the deficit to straight unleaded.

I am not sure that the extra resistance to knock and generally lower combustion temperatures are enough to offset the loss in heating value..

You have a buffer as to how close to the edge you can run, you can get closer to that edge with more control over knock, so you gain a little power from that. You also lose a bit of energy, but it's not 30hp, funny all these OEMs claiming 30hp gain this, and 30hp that. I guess the 2022 regulations with 10% bio fuel are to peg them to 2021 levels despite a year of development? May as well freeze development, and save the trouble of forcing OEMs to keep dumping money into these engines already.

It is 30 hp, it's just basic maths..

It's roughly 30 hp, you don't consider merely bumping up CR can partially offset this, but again, how much is it going to cost to find the perfect CR to lessen the power penalty? Or whatever other thing you can do, in the end you spend all this money to stand still. I can see why Honda leaves.

Mudflap wrote:

godlameroso wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2020, 17:19

Most pumps have as much as 10% ethanol, there really is very little difference in energy potential between 5 and 10% ethanol. While the 10% gives the fuel slightly less energy content, it also increases resistance to knock. So the differences sort of cancel each other out. Fuel economy isn't really affected too much, not in any appreciable amount.

at 100 kg/h 5% ethanol loses roughly 15 hp and 10% loses 30 hp assuming 50% thermal efficiency
10% ethanol requires just under 2% increase in thermal efficiency to recover the deficit to straight unleaded.

I am not sure that the extra resistance to knock and generally lower combustion temperatures are enough to offset the loss in heating value..

This might be irrelevant to the discussion, but at least in my car, going from E10 at the pump, to E75 (sold as E85, but measured to be E75) implies an increase in HP of a bit more than 25% (410 WHP @ E10, 540 WHP @ E75)... My fuel consumption does goes up dramatically though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

godlameroso wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:17

Mudflap wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:13

godlameroso wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2020, 02:12

You have a buffer as to how close to the edge you can run, you can get closer to that edge with more control over knock, so you gain a little power from that. You also lose a bit of energy, but it's not 30hp, funny all these OEMs claiming 30hp gain this, and 30hp that. I guess the 2022 regulations with 10% bio fuel are to peg them to 2021 levels despite a year of development? May as well freeze development, and save the trouble of forcing OEMs to keep dumping money into these engines already.

It is 30 hp, it's just basic maths..

It's roughly 30 hp, you don't consider merely bumping up CR can partially offset this, but again, how much is it going to cost to find the perfect CR to lessen the power penalty? Or whatever other thing you can do, in the end you spend all this money to stand still. I can see why Honda leaves.

Except there is no maximum allowed octane limit on the fuel used by F1 cars. So if they have the same octane rating as an E10 fuel then you will lose the calculated 30hp as both fuels will have the same knock limit.