Sustainable fuels for 2026. V10's will be green!

[PlatinumZealot]

We had a thread on alternative engine regs for the future and I had suggested a NA V10 with a recovery turbine /mguh that is activated when the torque demand is reduced. This retains the WOT sound but recovers a bit of energy from the exhaust when the full toque of the engine is not needed.

[atanatizante]

I didn`t find the appropriate thread to debate about the new 2023 reg changes thus I took my liberty to discuss here the new fuel density change, I quote: "The fuel density check will also reduce the tolerance between the fuel being used and the figure taken during pre-approval analysis from 0.25% to 0.15%, limiting further any scope to gain performance between the two."

From my point of view, this 40% decrease in density (in module amount speaking and not the whole total fuel amount) would affect those teams/petrol companies which formulated such a fuel formula with a low/lower density than others ... it`s not a loophole that needed to be closed regarding the rigorous fuel temps they need to follow in 2023 rather than the gain they could make over it ...

Nowadays an ICE could not gain so much as we are speaking about 5 to 10HP and maybe 12HP in Ferrari`s case ... but these gains are more due to better combustion process hence a new and improved fuel formulation/chemical structure (another area of development for ICE is the one that allows them to run higher and longer but this is more due to mechanical side of the ICE system) ...

As rules stated, F1 engines run on petrol, or, in the words of the technical regulations 'petrol as this term is generally understood'. The regulations are designed to ensure the fuel used in F1 is not entirely dissimilar to that used on road cars... About this last phrase, I read some time ago that octane fuel must not pass the 100 figure. But what is really interesting to know is the fact that there is some 1.5 to 2% freedom in that fuel formulation something that goes along with gasoline/diesel fuel additives that differentiate a regular petrol station fuel from a premium one hence logically between the petrol companies tied with F1 teams ... further it is understood that even though we are speaking about small amount figures these are responsible for gains in all ICE functionality area but these days these gains are more down to a better formulation for better combustion and there are 2 factors involved: 1. energy density / calorific power and 2. fuel density at a constant temperature. The first factor played a big role this year when they increased to 10% E10 fuel in the total fuel amount, which led to a lower energy density, an area where Ferrari with Shell is understood to developed a new fuel formulation that both increased this energy and has better combustion capabilities with Petronas being caught on a wrong foot ...

Now regarding the second factor, we know that F1 cars can use a maximum of 110 kilograms of fuel per race. A lower fuel density means a lower fuel volume hence a lower CoG and what I understood is that on a full fuel tank, it could gain between 1.5 to 2 tenths per lap, track dependent ... in addition, it could lead to a better aero or better internal management and maybe cooling options ...

[PlatinumZealot]

A 0.25% to 0.15% is extemely small!!
This means the fuel density must not change from what was given for approval by more than 0.15%!

For example a team can submit fuel for approval that is 99.75% of the density of the fuel that they will put into the car and gain a benefit on race day.

Now the tolerance is tighter. The fuel they submit for approval must be no less than 99.85% as dense as they fuel they will use to race with.

It is not a 40% change in density as you say.

[Big Tea]

I was thinking about the change to 'energy' rather than weight or volume as it has been.
They changed from volume to weight when someone was getting an advantage from it, have they done the same now?
Maybe the Ferrari advantage which was not discussed?

[atanatizante]

A 0.25% to 0.15% is extemely small!!
This means the fuel density must not change from what was given for approval by more than 0.15%!

For example, a team can submit fuel for approval that is 99.75% of the density of the fuel that they will put into the car and gain a benefit on race day.

Now the tolerance is tighter. The fuel they submit for approval must be no less than 99.85% as dense as the fuel they will use to race with.

It is not a 40% change in density as you say.

You are right! My bad ... therefore I did this correction:

in module amount speaking and not the whole total fuel amount

So if we do the math, at an average density of 0.75 kg/cubic meter from a regular gasoline fuel in normal state conditions (temps and pressure wise) we should have 110kg of fuel some 147 litres of fuel which is let`s say 99.75% accurate to the fuel sample density they provided ... so the 0.25% density tolerance hence for mass (or volume had you like this physical parameter more) equates for some 0.25 kg or some 0.335 litres of fuel which is almost 0.01 sec/lap roughly saying ...

So in the end what was the reason they lowered this density tolerance?

[Tommy Cookers]

.. As rules stated, F1 engines run on petrol ... I read some time ago that octane fuel must not pass the 100 figure. ...

afaik
conspicuously there has never been an upper limit for current F1 fuel octane number
conspicuously there has only been a lower !!! limit of 75 ON (this presumably to prevent dieselisation of F1)
conspicuously there have been pious words but no definition of what ingredients are legal and what aren't

yes recently and only recently teams have been saying the fuel used is about 100 ON

so if anyone has different information I should be pleased to see that

[PlatinumZealot]

A 0.25% to 0.15% is extemely small!!
This means the fuel density must not change from what was given for approval by more than 0.15%!

For example, a team can submit fuel for approval that is 99.75% of the density of the fuel that they will put into the car and gain a benefit on race day.

Now the tolerance is tighter. The fuel they submit for approval must be no less than 99.85% as dense as the fuel they will use to race with.

It is not a 40% change in density as you say.

You are right! My bad ... therefore I did this correction:

in module amount speaking and not the whole total fuel amount

So if we do the math, at an average density of 0.75 kg/cubic meter from a regular gasoline fuel in normal state conditions (temps and pressure wise) we should have 110kg of fuel some 147 litres of fuel which is let`s say 99.75% accurate to the fuel sample density they provided ... so the 0.25% density tolerance hence for mass (or volume had you like this physical parameter more) equates for some 0.25 kg or some 0.335 litres of fuel which is almost 0.01 sec/lap roughly saying ...

So in the end what was the reason they lowered this density tolerance?

Im guessing here... Maybe chiral compounds are making a difference comboustion behavior for small change in density.

[atanatizante]

A 0.25% to 0.15% is extemely small!!
This means the fuel density must not change from what was given for approval by more than 0.15%!

For example, a team can submit fuel for approval that is 99.75% of the density of the fuel that they will put into the car and gain a benefit on race day.

Now the tolerance is tighter. The fuel they submit for approval must be no less than 99.85% as dense as the fuel they will use to race with.

It is not a 40% change in density as you say.

You are right! My bad ... therefore I did this correction:

in module amount speaking and not the whole total fuel amount

So if we do the math, at an average density of 0.75 kg/cubic meter from a regular gasoline fuel in normal state conditions (temps and pressure wise) we should have 110kg of fuel some 147 litres of fuel which is let`s say 99.75% accurate to the fuel sample density they provided ... so the 0.25% density tolerance hence for mass (or volume had you like this physical parameter more) equates for some 0.25 kg or some 0.335 litres of fuel which is almost 0.01 sec/lap roughly saying ...

So in the end what was the reason they lowered this density tolerance?

Im guessing here... Maybe chiral compounds are making a difference comboustion behavior for small change in density.

Two chemical compounds with the same atomic/molecular structure but with different spatial orientations between atoms are called isomers.

There is a special class between isomers in which atomic structure could be mirror-watched from an outside reference axis. You could see that like a reflection ...

A sub-class of these stereoisomers are enantiomers, specific stereoisomers in which atoms/molecules cannot be made to coincide only by rotations or translations, something like a left hand and a right hand. The chirality phenomenon is practically this superimposed behaviour ... the other stereoisomers called distomers (with other 2 sub-classes) have this capability to coincide structural when rotated or translated ...

What is worth mentioning from all the above statements is the fact that those 2 enantiomers or chiral compounds have the same physical and chemical properties, except when reacting with other chiral compounds and often having opposite optical activities.

So in the end we are having the same fuel density even if they could develop a fuel based on chiral compounds. And furthermore, the combustion could be modified within at least 2 parameters: atomic/molecular structure change in fuel formulation (not spatiality like in the case of the chiral compounds) and the presence of additives known as the black art. And this is the real black art, not the tyres as they said, unfortunately ...

[johnny comelately]

You are right! My bad ... therefore I did this correction:

So if we do the math, at an average density of 0.75 kg/cubic meter from a regular gasoline fuel in normal state conditions (temps and pressure wise) we should have 110kg of fuel some 147 litres of fuel which is let`s say 99.75% accurate to the fuel sample density they provided ... so the 0.25% density tolerance hence for mass (or volume had you like this physical parameter more) equates for some 0.25 kg or some 0.335 litres of fuel which is almost 0.01 sec/lap roughly saying ...

So in the end what was the reason they lowered this density tolerance?

Im guessing here... Maybe chiral compounds are making a difference comboustion behavior for small change in density.

Two chemical compounds with the same atomic/molecular structure but with different spatial orientations between atoms are called isomers.

There is a special class between isomers in which atomic structure could be mirror-watched from an outside reference axis. You could see that like a reflection ...

A sub-class of these stereoisomers are enantiomers, specific stereoisomers in which atoms/molecules cannot be made to coincide only by rotations or translations, something like a left hand and a right hand. The chirality phenomenon is practically this superimposed behaviour ... the other stereoisomers called distomers (with other 2 sub-classes) have this capability to coincide structural when rotated or translated ...

What is worth mentioning from all the above statements is the fact that those 2 enantiomers or chiral compounds have the same physical and chemical properties, except when reacting with other chiral compounds and often having opposite optical activities. So in the end we are having the same fuel density even if they could develop a fuel based on chiral compounds .

Doesnt chirality in biology have very different behaviours?
But not so in non-organic?

[atanatizante]

Im guessing here... Maybe chiral compounds are making a difference comboustion behavior for small change in density.

Two chemical compounds with the same atomic/molecular structure but with different spatial orientations between atoms are called isomers.

There is a special class between isomers in which atomic structure could be mirror-watched from an outside reference axis. You could see that like a reflection ...

A sub-class of these stereoisomers are enantiomers, specific stereoisomers in which atoms/molecules cannot be made to coincide only by rotations or translations, something like a left hand and a right hand. The chirality phenomenon is practically this superimposed behaviour ... the other stereoisomers called distomers (with other 2 sub-classes) have this capability to coincide structural when rotated or translated ...

What is worth mentioning from all the above statements is the fact that those 2 enantiomers or chiral compounds have the same physical and chemical properties, except when reacting with other chiral compounds and often having opposite optical activities. So in the end we are having the same fuel density even if they could develop a fuel based on chiral compounds .

Doesnt chirality in biology have very different behaviours?
But not so in non-organic?

Do you mean by DNA behaviour? unfortunately, biology is not my level of competence, although this must be governed by the same chemical&phisical laws and other anatomic/physiological ones, after all, with a little twist: we are speaking about the organic world now ...

[johnny comelately]

Two chemical compounds with the same atomic/molecular structure but with different spatial orientations between atoms are called isomers.

There is a special class between isomers in which atomic structure could be mirror-watched from an outside reference axis. You could see that like a reflection ...

A sub-class of these stereoisomers are enantiomers, specific stereoisomers in which atoms/molecules cannot be made to coincide only by rotations or translations, something like a left hand and a right hand. The chirality phenomenon is practically this superimposed behaviour ... the other stereoisomers called distomers (with other 2 sub-classes) have this capability to coincide structural when rotated or translated ...

What is worth mentioning from all the above statements is the fact that those 2 enantiomers or chiral compounds have the same physical and chemical properties, except when reacting with other chiral compounds and often having opposite optical activities. So in the end we are having the same fuel density even if they could develop a fuel based on chiral compounds .

Doesnt chirality in biology have very different behaviours?
But not so in non-organic?

Do you mean by DNA behaviour? unfortunately, biology is not my level of competence, although this must be governed by the same chemical&phisical laws and other anatomic/physiological ones, after all, with a little twist: we are speaking about the organic world now ...

(Only what I have been told) For example in pharmaceutical development left and right "versions" produce unrelated effects. As molecules become more complicated the 3D structure ( as opposed to 1D or 2D) almost defeats the chirality model.
I'm just imagining that with fuel structures it may be an unpredictable factor??
But I am in territory I dont know about really.
You are right about the SG, which could be very helpful.

[casper]

I think you are confusing protein molecules against fuel hydrocarbon molecules. The desirable carbon number for
fuel is between C3 and C4. In fact C5 pentane is not desirable at all. Compare this with proteins having more than 10 hydrocarbons. Chirality is not relevant for HC fuel molecules because straight chain alkanes or single bond carbon chains burns efficiently compared to double bond alkenes, where chirality can occur. Of course additives having 5 to 7 carbon s can be added but chirality is not a consideration for these molecules. The type oxygenated functional group is the more important consideration, example an ester or ether.

[johnny comelately]

I think you are confusing protein molecules against fuel hydrocarbon molecules. The desirable carbon number for
fuel is between C3 and C4. In fact C5 pentane is not desirable at all. Compare this with proteins having more than 10 hydrocarbons. Chirality is not relevant for HC fuel molecules because straight chain alkanes or single bond carbon chains burns efficiently compared to double bond alkenes, where chirality can occur. Of course additives having 5 to 7 carbon s can be added but chirality is not a consideration for these molecules. The type oxygenated functional group is the more important consideration, example an ester or ether.

OK, thank you for that.
I wasnt confusing, just looking at how handedness can completely alter behaviour and I was hypothesising that with fuel molecules maybe something similar could happen...
With VP fuels there are C14, C16 etc etc, is that with the additive C's included?
The double bond alkenes give a bigger bang for your buck? like nitro has a double bond

[PlatinumZealot]

Two chemical compounds with the same atomic/molecular structure but with different spatial orientations between atoms are called isomers.

There is a special class between isomers in which atomic structure could be mirror-watched from an outside reference axis. You could see that like a reflection ...

A sub-class of these stereoisomers are enantiomers, specific stereoisomers in which atoms/molecules cannot be made to coincide only by rotations or translations, something like a left hand and a right hand. The chirality phenomenon is practically this superimposed behaviour ... the other stereoisomers called distomers (with other 2 sub-classes) have this capability to coincide structural when rotated or translated ...

What is worth mentioning from all the above statements is the fact that those 2 enantiomers or chiral compounds have the same physical and chemical properties, except when reacting with other chiral compounds and often having opposite optical activities.

So in the end we are having the same fuel density even if they could develop a fuel based on chiral compounds. And furthermore, the combustion could be modified within at least 2 parameters: atomic/molecular structure change in fuel formulation (not spatiality like in the case of the chiral compounds) and the presence of additives known as the black art. And this is the real black art, not the tyres as they said, unfortunately ...

You forget one thing my friend...
Stereo-specific interactions with other compounds.

The fuel is not only one compound. So you could take advantage of this. It could be the way alcohols interact with the fuel for example.

[atanatizante]

Define this phrase ("Stereo-specific interactions") and then I'll tell you further more, my teacher ...