2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

Specific energy-content in the fuel would make little difference under the current rules, but next year it will mean the world.

I disagree. This year they are pushing the energy content per weight in order to keep weight down. Next year they do it for more power. The motivation is different but it does not mean they have different tools at their disposal. AFAIK nothing will change in terms of what the fuel companies are allowed to do and because their objective does not change they will not make big break throughs in my humble opinion.

It's the density that they have tried to minimise for weight savings. But there is a limit to how far they can go with that (defined by the rules).

Playing around with energy density (per weight) is and has always been about performance.

[wuzak]

It's not just fuels that will benefit the teams. Lubricants will continue to be a major development avenue for the suppliers. How much would a 2% drop in friction be worth? 5%?

Plus lubricants don't seem to be regulated.

[rjsa]

It's not just fuels that will benefit the teams. Lubricants will continue to be a major development avenue for the suppliers. How much would a 2% drop in friction be worth? 5%?

Plus lubricants don't seem to be regulated.

Lest lubricants start bruning with the mixture.

[rjsa]

Effor and reward, basic arithmetics. Let's say 20% increased energy density.

Weight gain:

700Kg car, 150Kg fuel, 850Kg starting weight. After 20% gain in fuel, 125Kg fuel weight at the start, 825Kg total. Less than 3% gain. Last 4 laps, less than 0.05% gain.

Fuel flow limited, energy gain:

20% more power all around.

[WhiteBlue]

Again WB, the point is the relative gain, a 60MJ/kg superfuel would this year save your car perhaps 30 kg in starting weight,
not a small virtue indeed, but next year that same superfuel would make you believe it's 1986 all over again.

Only that a 60 MJ/kg fuel would be totally unrealistic under the regulations. If such things were possible they had been long done even with lesser incentives. You are chasing a red herring. There is a small scope in fuel development and it is being pursued by the teams for years.

[xpensive]

Only that a 47 vs 46 MJ/kg discrepancy will give a 15 Hp advantage, which is incentive enough to move development focus from the engineering office to the laboratory. The fuel regulations above is ample evidence that the FIA is aware of this, but judging from their inability to outlaw Newey's flexing inverted aircrafts, I doubt if they will have much luck against the lab-rats.

[wuzak]

Only that a 47 vs 46 MJ/kg discrepancy will give a 15 Hp advantage, which is incentive enough to move development focus from the engineering office to the laboratory. The fuel regulations above is ample evidence that the FIA is aware of this, but judging from their inability to outlaw Newey's flexing inverted aircrafts, I doubt if they will have much luck against the lab-rats.

The fuel has to be pre-approved before it can be used. That is, it is sent to the lab where they can determine what's in it and make a digital fingerprint, which can be quickly matched at the track. Any new fuel blend has to go through the testing process before it can be used.

In contrast, aero bits can be designed to comply with the letter of the law, if not its intent. Just by designing it to conform to load tests, etc.

[xpensive]

....
The fuel has to be pre-approved before it can be used. That is, it is sent to the lab where they can determine what's in it and make a digital fingerprint, which can be quickly matched at the track. Any new fuel blend has to go through the testing process before it can be used.
...

So? The fuel needs to comply with the regulations above, says nothing about the energy content, or did I miss something?

Newey's wings also has to pass a test, still they are all over the place on track and the FIA is impotent to do anything about it.

[WhiteBlue]

Only that a 47 vs 46 MJ/kg discrepancy will give a 15 Hp advantage, which is incentive enough to move development focus from the engineering office to the laboratory.

It would be useful to read:

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/19

------------- road fuel ---------- F1 race fuel




The image explains how the composition of the F1 fuel is fixed but the proportion of components are free to be mixed in a certain range. That is the toolbox available to the fuel suppliers.

We have already covered the aspect that a higher energy content was desirable before so that optimization in the past would have exploited proportions of the fuel components that would lend itself to higher specific energy content. But it is also clear that there are limits to this strategy because other desirable properties like prevention of wear would suffer. I have no doubt that the new formula will shift the equilibrium of fuel optimization a bit towards higher energy content compared to the past. But this effect will be exploited by all teams and it will probably be in the single digit percentage range. So in effect it will not bother the sport. If the small return available attracts an arms race by the fuel suppliers there is still the option of having a standard single fuel supplier, but I doubt that it will be necessary.

The comparison with the wing elasticity btw is not really helpful. There are vast differences in the metrology. Testing deformation under aerodynamic loads on a stationary car is a very difficult task compared to using gas chromatographic analysis of fuels. It is child's play to check the composition of a fuel. The standard measuring process is so accurate that you can detect a cup of sugar diluted in all of Loch Ness if you look for it. The fuel suppliers themselves have told us that again and again. So your picture of a toothless governing body that the lab rats run rings around is a bit misleading.

[wuzak]

....
The fuel has to be pre-approved before it can be used. That is, it is sent to the lab where they can determine what's in it and make a digital fingerprint, which can be quickly matched at the track. Any new fuel blend has to go through the testing process before it can be used.
...

So? The fuel needs to comply with the regulations above, says nothing about the energy content, or did I miss something?

Newey's wings also has to pass a test, still they are all over the place on track and the FIA is impotent to do anything about it.

No, you haven't missed anything.

There are only certain quantities of the different components of fuels that give the fuel its energy content, and only so much of the octane boosting agents, etc. So, they may be able to play around with the quantities to tailor the specific enthalpy, density, octane, etc, to suit their needs.

Aero rules are more easily interpreted. Take, for example, the F-duct and its developments. Personally I would have said the rules excluded wing sections that have holes (slots) in them for air to flow from their inside to the outside. But somehow that was found to be legal!

[xpensive]

...
We have already covered the aspect that a higher energy content was desirable before so that optimization in the past would have exploited proportions of the fuel components that would lend itself to higher specific energy content.
...

Please identify "We" and more specifically what "we have already covered"?

You are displaying a very disappointing debating technique WB, sadly enough nothing new from your side, but I suggest that you drop it if you wish to continue a constructive discussion in good spirits on this thread.

@Wuz; Somebody suggested a long time ago they should have gone methanol, allow refueling, and only focus on the flow.

That way the regulations would not have been a problem.

[WhiteBlue]

I mean that you and I have exchanged posts about that point. Please don't get excited by the way I make my points. No disrespect is intended. I'm more than prepared to agree on disagreeing on any aspect of the new engine formula and see who is right in the future. It isn't such a long time to wait.

[xpensive]

If you scroll back a bit, I'm sure you will agree with me that you had your position on the subject and everybody else the opposite one, that Formula 1 fuel's specific energy content means very little today, but might rock the world next year.

I belong to those who believe that it is vital on a discussion-thread like this not to try and re-write other posters' positions.

Changing your own is kosher however.

[pgfpro]

One of my thoughts is how different the new 2014 fuel will be compared to all fuels used from the past. In fact different then any fuel that is used today(me understanding the ingredients are already set by the rule makers but the % of them will be vastly different).

This will be due to for the first time a very high fuel pressure with boost DI that will delivery a ton of fuel in a very short time and the fuel will need to be able to mix very fast with the air due to less time available before SI. This will be leading edge fuel chemistry because of its infancy. Even the fuel company's will need to think out of their boxes.

[rjsa]

Rules can't stop what they do not mention, that meaning what rule makers do not know about yet.

Today the playing field is aero, and now and then again someone will come up with something no one thought of before. Then rules need to play catch up.

It's a bit naive to believe no one will come up with something that while complies with the letter of the rules will fail miserably regarding the spirit.