F1technical.net

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 ?

It was said that Ferrari made a step for China in terms of fuel. There would be some logic to it. Obviously you want to be careful with aggressive fuel tailoring when your power units are complete unknowns. With four races under their belt teams will become more aggressive and fuel will be one of the issues of performance optimization.

you seem to have changed your mind on the scope for fuel development, WB !
IIRC you said there was further scope was negligible. ie everything possible had already been done

IIRC I was the one saying NA eg 2013 engines needed fuel with very high combustion speed but that Octane was unimportant
and that 2014 engines needed very high Octane but combustion speed was less important
and in 2014 fuel mass-specific energy is critical rather than energy relative to stoichiometric mass of fuel (so to air mass)

it appears that Ferrari have not yet arranged for their engine make the best use of 100 kg of the latest type of fuel
as in the last race they only fed the engine about 95 kg of fuel
when 5% more power and energy from using 100 kg would have given them better results
this in clear contrast to the apparently fuel-greedy character shown by their engine before

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 ?

WB, Tommy, in the pre-season documentary Horse Power it was revealed that the preferred fuel that Shell had come up with was great for power and economy, but was problematic for longevity (it is mentioned that one test only ran 40 minutes before problems developed), so had to go back to the drawing board. They come up with a more conservative option.

Perhaps for China they have been able to get the preferred fuel working to their satisfaction?

Or it could just be that the new engines (all Ferrari engined cars got their second ICE for China) have improvements and are working better.

Or that they are slowly getting their head around how to use the MGU-H.

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 ?

minimum 87 Octane is presumably intended to avoid future dieselisation of F1 (eg relevant when fuel is cut to 90, then 80 kg)
this seems fair, as more-complete- expansion SI engines are banned from F1, despite being in mass production

pump petrol has a pool of around 1000 undefined ingredients, this total and the proportions (blend) being based on economic factors
changing the blend drawn from the pool will (when cost issues are waived) improve the fuel in one or more ways
as mentioned before, the ideal blend for 2014 will be different to the ideal blend for 2013

also the biofuel content will surely be a bioIsobutane derivative, not a eg bioalcohol
and Triptane (IMO regardable as a normal ingredient) would be useful even with the trivial amount of TEL implied by the lead limit
though much better (in boosting 'Octane') with some higher level of non-lead organometallic additive

interestingly, the Shell footage linked by Wuzak even refers to 1% of the 2014 blend being not found in road fuel
(though mysteriouly compliant, which I regard as vindication)
'son-of-Triptane' ??

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?

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?

well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !
fascinating anyway , a bit like water expanding as it cools !

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.

lebesset wrote:

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?

well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !
fascinating anyway , a bit like water expanding as it cools !

I wonder how much oil they can burn off before it will be considered cheating, any oil you can sneak in via the breather
pipe is MJs not measured by the flow meter

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.

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. Isopentane 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 density, so complex and less common compounds are unlikely to be able to improve on pentane.
Even if a way is found to lower vapor pressure enough to use 50% butane, that would only increase power by about 0.5%, or less than 4 HP.

Lower heating value for some organic compounds (at 25 °C)
Fuel MJ/kg MJ/L BTU/lb kJ/mol
Alkanes
Methane 50.009 — 21,504 802.34
Ethane 47.794 — 20,551 1,437.2
Propane 46.357 — 19,934 2,044.2
Butane 45.752 — 19,673 2,659.3
Pentane 45.357 28.39 21,706 3,272.6
Hexane 44.752 29.30 19,504 3,856.7
Heptane 44.566 30.48 19,163 4,465.8
Octane 44.427 — 19,104 5,074.9
Nonane 44.311 31.82 19,054 5,683.3
Decane 44.240 33.29 19,023 6,294.5
Undecane 44.194 32.70 19,003 6,908.0
Dodecane 44.147 33.11 18,983 7,519.6
Isoparaffins
Isobutane 45.613 — 19,614 2,651.0
Isopentane 45.241 27.87 19,454 3,264.1
2-Methylpentane 44.682 29.18 19,213 6,850.7
2,3-Dimethylbutane 44.659 29.56 19,203 3,848.7
2,3-Dimethylpentane 44.496 30.92 19,133 4,458.5
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 44.310 30.49 19,053 5,061.5
Naphthenes
Cyclopentane 44.636 33.52 19,193 3,129.0
Methylcyclopentane 44.636? 33.43? 19,193? 3,756.6?
Cyclohexane 43.450 33.85 18,684 3,656.8
Methylcyclohexane 43.380 33.40 18,653 4,259.5
Monoolefins
Ethylene 47.195 — — —
Propylene 45.799 — — —
1-Butene 45.334 — — —
cis-2-Butene 45.194 — — —
trans-2-Butene 45.124 — — —
Isobutene 45.055 — — —
1-Pentene 45.031 — — —
2-Methyl-1-pentene 44.799 — — —
1-Hexene 44.426 — — —
Diolefins
1,3-Butadiene 44.613 — — —
Isoprene 44.078 - — —
Nitrous derivated
Nitromethane 10.513 — — —
Nitropropane 20.693 — — —
Acetylenes
Acetylene 48.241 — — —
Methylacetylene 46.194 — — —
1-Butyne 45.590 — — —
1-Pentyne 45.217 — — —
info from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

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.

what is 'much more energy per kg' ? .... who can't use 1% or 2% or 5% ? (that's the question)

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

and detonation resistance ('Octane rating') is unlimited, so potentially producing more power relative to the fuel heat

Tommy Cookers wrote:

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.

what is 'much more energy per kg' ? .... who can't use 1% or 2% or 5% ? (that's the question)

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

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.
Pentene is on the list (45.03 MJ/kg); it has less energy density than pentane. I believe the same is true for the iso version (if you have other info, please let me know). Cyclopentene is also worse than pentane, 43.15 MJ/kg according to this reference: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 7613,d.aWw

Tommy Cookers wrote: and detonation resistance ('Octane rating') is unlimited, so potentially producing more power relative to the fuel heat

I did not address detonation resistance. There might be some significant value there.

langwadt wrote:

lebesset wrote:

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?

well , engines consume their oil so not much of a deviation !
fascinating anyway , a bit like water expanding as it cools !

I wonder how much oil they can burn off before it will be considered cheating, any oil you can sneak in via the breather
pipe is MJs not measured by the flow meter

2T F1 engines ?

@ chip engineer etc

dissociation behaviour (of the fuel ?) can be a big factor
disadvantageuosly delaying the emergence of heat

even at A/F of 0.056 the Wright Turbocompound was exhausting shocking amounts of CO and CH4
high temperatures are good for physical thermodynamics but bad for chemical thermodynamics
athough it can be said that dissociation followed by reassociation before EVO may be just part of the factors governing HUCR
IMO if the fuel/additive chemistry can also act against dissociation this must be good