dren wrote:I'm surprised he thinks there will be that many failures. The regulations are very strict, not allowing teams to push to higher reliability boundaries like they were with the V10s. That's also why we used to see many more failures in a season. I don't really expect many, but I hold Brawn's opinions high, so maybe we will have an exciting season ahead.
We got this opinion from Mercedes and from Ferrari so I think you can take it to the bank. And it makes a lot of sense to me. If you have alternator failures from a very old and established design what do you think a water cooled 125.000 rpm MGU will return in terms of teething problems? Or just think about the way cooling is done on all these units. It is all natural convection. When the cars are on the grid and something happens we could be seeing a bunch of cars simply stop from their inverters over heating.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
On request I have decided to make anther appearence in order to trigger some thinking on what the 2014 rules mean.
We're heading into a pure energy-driven formula and it's difficult for an engineer to elaborate a bit more, here we go;
- Rules say maximum 100 kg/h fuel flow, which is more precisely 27. 78 gram/sec.
- The metering unit has an accuracy of +/-0.25%, which gives a 27.71 to 27.85 g/s window, this seems narrow enough but speaks of a potential power discrepancy of 3 Hp at 46.6 MJ/kg energy content and 35% efficiency.
Don't sound like much, but I know F1 engineers can spend millions to gain that much under the current rules.
- The energy content of gasoline is not written in stone either, it can range from 44.8 to 48.5 MJ/kg according to US EPA.
And this is different, we're beholding a potential power discrepancy of 49 Hp at 27.78 g/s flow content and 35% efficiency.
Are we looking at a coming standard fuel-supply as well, goodbye fuel differentiation, are they now going for a Pirelli of fuel?
Obviously the FIA is doing its best to keep fuel-development under control with the 2014 regulations;
ARTICLE 19 : FUEL
19.1 Purpose of Article 19 :
19.1.1 The purpose of this Article is to ensure that the fuel used in Formula One is petrol as this term is generally understood.
19.1.2 The detailed requirements of this Article are intended to ensure the use of fuels that are composed of compounds normally found in commercial fuels and to prohibit the use of specific power-boosting chemical compounds. Acceptable compounds and compound classes are defined in 19.2 and 19.4.3. In addition, to cover the presence of low level impurities, the sum of components lying outside the 19.2 and 19.4.3 definitions are limited to 1% max m/m of the total fuel.
19.1.3 Any petrol, which appears to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of this regulation, will be deemed to be outside it.
19.2 Definitions :
Paraffins - Straight chain and branched alkanes.
Olefins - Straight chain and branched mono-olefins and di-olefins.
- Monocyclic mono-olefins (with five or more carbon atoms in the ring) with or without paraffinic side chains.
Di-olefins - Straight chain or branched or monocyclic hydrocarbons (with five or more carbon atoms in any ring) with or without paraffinic side chains, containing two double bonds per molecule.
Naphthenes - Monocyclic alkanes (with five or more carbon atoms in the ring) with or without paraffinic side chains.
Aromatics - Monocyclic and bicyclic aromatic rings with or without paraffinic or olefinic side chains. Only one double bond may be present outside the aromatic ring.
Oxygenates - Organic compounds containing oxygen.
Biocomponents - Paraffins, olefins, di-olefins, naphthenes, aromatics and oxygenates, as defined above, derived in whole or part from biological origins. For the purposes of quantification, the biocomponent contribution of a given molecule is defined as the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms from biological origin as a percent of the total molecule, on a mass/mass basis. The biocomponent contribution of a co-produced stream is determined as the bio feedstock percentage on a mass/mass basis.
19.3 Properties :
The only fuel permitted is petrol having the following characteristics :
Property Units Min Max Test Method
(RON+MON)/2 87.0 ASTM D 2699/D 2700
Oxygen wt% 3.7 Elemental Analysis
Nitrogen mg/kg 500 ASTM D 5762
Benzene wt% 1.0 GC-MS
DVPE kPa 45 60(1) EN13016-1
Lead mg/l 5 ASTM D 3237
Oxidation Stability minutes 360 ASTM D 525
Sulphur mg/kg 10 EN ISO 20846
Electrical conductivity pS/m 200 ASTM D 2624
Final Boiling Point oC 210 ISO 3405
Distillation Residue %v/v 2.0 ISO 3405
(1) The maximum DVPE may rise to 68kPa if a minimum of 2% bio-methanol and/or bio-ethanol are included in the fuel.
The fuel will be accepted or rejected according to ASTM D 3244 with a confidence limit of 95%.
19.4 Composition of the fuel :
19.4.1 The composition of the petrol must comply with the specifications detailed below :
Component Units Min Max Test Method
Aromatics wt% 40* GCMS
Olefins wt% 17* GCMS
Total di-olefins wt% 1.0 GCMS
Total styrene and alkyl derivatives wt% 1.0 GCMS
* Values corrected for fuel oxygen content.
In addition, the fuel must contain no substance which is capable of exothermic reaction in the absence of external oxygen.
19.4.2 The total of individual hydrocarbon components present at concentrations of less than 5% m/m of the total fuel must be at least 30% m/m of the hydrocarbon component of the fuel.
19.4.3 The only oxygenates permitted are paraffinic mono-alcohols and paraffinic mono-ethers with a final boiling point below 210°C.
19.4.4 A minimum of 5.75% (m/m) of the fuel must comprise bio-components.
19.4.5 Initially the bio-components are restricted to oxygenates. However, hydrocarbons (as defined in 19.2) and oxygenates (lying outside the 19.4.3 definition) or mixtures thereof, which have been produced from biomass, may be included in Formula One fuel as part of the 5.75% biocomponents quota, provided that a suitable analytical procedure is available for their quantification and to verify their biological origin. Their use in F1 fuel will be dependent on evidence indicating that the supplier is genuinely developing these compounds for use in commercial fuels.
19.4.6 Manganese based additives are not permitted.
I think we're headed for a Championship for lab-rats and chemical wizards, what do you think WB?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
I think there is some scope for tweaking the fuel and the rich teams will all do it. But it will not be decisive for the championship. I expect reliability to play a much bigger role next year. You also have to remember that we are heading for another very narrow spec formula with rapid freeze. After two years the engines will produce all very similar power and the victory will fall to the team with the most aerodynamically efficient chassis as it is now. In that regard Red Bull's politicking was brilliant. You have to pull your hat to the guys although it is probably not what we really want to see as fans with an engineering background. We are supposed to see motor sport and not aerodynamics sport. Those are my thoughts on the latest trends we see for the 2014 engines.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
The engines will perhaps be equalized but never the fuels, small discrepancies in energy-content will make worlds of difference.
I predict a giant fuel-row in 2014, resulting in a single fuel-supplier for 2015 or 2016, ending up with Eni I'm sure.
It's in the cards, if the FIA is impotent to police a flexing wing, how could they possibly keep up with the lab-rats, CW auditing?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive wrote:The engines will perhaps be equalized but never the fuels, small discrepancies in energy-content will make world of difference.
I predict a giant fuel-row in 2014, resulting in a single fuel-supplier for 2015 or 2016, ending up with Eni I'm sure.
It's in the cards, if the FIA is impotent to police a flexing wing, how could they possibly keep up with the lab-rats, CW auditing?
Actually the fuel situation is unchanged for some years. If clever fuels could make a huge difference it would have happened by now. I'm not saying that a single fuel supplier could not happen. It obviously is a possibility because it would save money for the teams which they can invest in their aero games. So whatever happens fuels are not going to be the big thing you expect them to be.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
It's been a long time since fuel amount was restricted in any form. We have a lot of rules today that appeared while curbing the development in that era.
Rest assured that with new consumption restrictions in place and more than 2 decades where the gain from condesing energy into the fuel was marginal there is a lot of room from 'magic' to happen.
EDIT:
A little research, fuel volume limits dropped in 1989. Last 'big' movement restraining fuel formulation and use of exoctic components in 1994. According to the all knowing wikipedia.
Last edited by rjsa on 20 Jul 2013, 00:41, edited 1 time in total.
xpensive wrote: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.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
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.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
