Engineering Student Resources

[Tommy Cookers]

battery chemistry for 2026 etc
the chemical fuel rule-makers were idiots
eg for 1958 mandating pump fuel (without definition) then limiting minimum 'octane' thinking it was a maximum
eg for 1980something trying to limit turbocharged power by reducing the fuel volume but leaving open the fuel mass
mere engineers defeated these rules (and others)

Any articles about it?

well there was a Honda paper on the 1988 F1 engines ....
(& I wrote many posts in thread 2025/2026 Hybrid Power Unit Speculation eg p18 p136 and others and other threads)

in 1988 the fuel volume was cut to only 150 litres (and abs induction pressure cut to 2.5 bar)
Honda engines won everything using 84% toluene and 16% n-heptane (this latter being zero octane number)
before 88 both NA and turbo cars were restricted in fuel volume so some toluene was used for its very high density
(similarly it was used eg in 1950s submarine-launched cruise missiles - hence the 'rocket-fuel' nonsense in F1)

before 1958 .....nitromethane was allowed but above stoichiometric it carries combustion-available oxygen
this (oxidant in liquid form) would defeat the rules intent to limit oxidant by the engine capacity limits NA or SC
in 1958-60 .... after the undefinable 'pump' fuel they mandated 100/130 Avgas but ....
100/130 are minima not maxima and even 108/135 Avgas meets 100/130 specs (primotipo maybe shows a user doing this)

[hollus]

Well. The pirellis are pure chemistry. Fitting your tire with dry air (or splash or water) is physical chemistry. Fuel mixes and pre-ignition is chemistry. Berillium” pistons are chemistry. Tungsten ballast is arguably chemistry, as are ceramic brake disks.
It is everywhere, but labeling it “chemistry” is a guaranteed way to get zero clicks. Chemistry is very unsexy for most pre-2020 neural networks, I never understood why.

It just tends to bee complicated and specialized, while being the easiest thing to keep secret for a while.

[majki2111]

well there was a Honda paper on the 1988 F1 engines ....
(& I wrote many posts in thread 2025/2026 Hybrid Power Unit Speculation eg p18 p136 and others and other threads)

in 1988 the fuel volume was cut to only 150 litres (and abs induction pressure cut to 2.5 bar)
Honda engines won everything using 84% toluene and 16% n-heptane (this latter being zero octane number)
before 88 both NA and turbo cars were restricted in fuel volume so some toluene was used for its very high density
(similarly it was used eg in 1950s submarine-launched cruise missiles - hence the 'rocket-fuel' nonsense in F1)

before 1958 .....nitromethane was allowed but above stoichiometric it carries combustion-available oxygen
this (oxidant in liquid form) would defeat the rules intent to limit oxidant by the engine capacity limits NA or SC
in 1958-60 .... after the undefinable 'pump' fuel they mandated 100/130 Avgas but ....
100/130 are minima not maxima and even 108/135 Avgas meets 100/130 specs (primotipo maybe shows a user doing this)

Thanks.

Well. The pirellis are pure chemistry. Fitting your tire with dry air (or splash or water) is physical chemistry. Fuel mixes and pre-ignition is chemistry. Berillium” pistons are chemistry. Tungsten ballast is arguably chemistry, as are ceramic brake disks.
It is everywhere, but labeling it “chemistry” is a guaranteed way to get zero clicks. Chemistry is very unsexy for most pre-2020 neural networks, I never understood why.

It just tends to bee complicated and specialized, while being the easiest thing to keep secret for a while.

What do you mean exactly? People wont usually search for this stuff on internet an that's why it is easy to be kept in secret?

Have I understood you correctly?

[hollus]

I mean that explaining (to the public) any chemistry thing is usually complicated text with complicated words and taken by most readers as “word salad”.
So it is not flashy or sexy to explain the chemistry beyond “our very clever labcoats with PhDs developed some magic”.
So detail rarely get in the news.

As for easy to keep secret, say Pirelly gets a new additive in their rubber mix, and don't tell anyone. It will be months or at least weeks before anyone gets enough data to prove that it must be a new mix, and then you still don’t know what makes the new mix better.
While rake or a flexible rear wing tend to be found out quickly, as they are “visible” in pictures, and once you figure out that there is a difference, it immediately follows what the difference must be and why it works.
In the first case if you find a competitive advantage and keep it secret, you get to enjoy it in exclusive for a few months and hence there is a big incentive for secrecy. In the second case, rivals have started to copy by the second next race.

[majki2111]

I mean that explaining (to the public) any chemistry thing is usually complicated text with complicated words and taken by most readers as “word salad”.
So it is not flashy or sexy to explain the chemistry beyond “our very clever labcoats with PhDs developed some magic”.
So detail rarely get in the news.

As for easy to keep secret, say Pirelly gets a new additive in their rubber mix, and don't tell anyone. It will be months or at least weeks before anyone gets enough data to prove that it must be a new mix, and then you still don’t know what makes the new mix better.
While rake or a flexible rear wing tend to be found out quickly, as they are “visible” in pictures, and once you figure out that there is a difference, it immediately follows what the difference must be and why it works.
In the first case if you find a competitive advantage and keep it secret, you get to enjoy it in exclusive for a few months and hence there is a big incentive for secrecy. In the second case, rivals have started to copy by the second next race.

In that case there is no performance differential because everybody is using Pirelli. It would be the same mixture for everyone.

[hollus]

But change Pirelli for Beryllium pistons, or for Michelin, back then, and there is a huge performance difference, which is why you don’t tell anyone about it.

[majki2111]

But change Pirelli for Beryllium piston, or fro Michelin, back then, and there is a huge performance difference, which is why you don’t tell anyone about it.

Fair point. I Agree. Chemistry is amazing.

[Tommy Cookers]

people don't see chemistry for the same reason they don't see other things they should see (or vice-versa) .....
confirmation/expectation bias

we exist because 300 years ago in the UK someone turned coal into carbon and 'smelted' (extracted) iron 90% cheaper
iron extraction is a chemical process (reduction by hot carbon) not a physical process (melting eg by electric furnace)
but 99% of UK people think it's a physical process - and think we can reduce carbon emissions by changing to electric furnaces
(yes furnaces melt scrap (iron & steel) - but that's recycling existing steel not steel-making)
(& if we could make steel by electric furnaces carbon emissions would increase because of carbon cost of electricity)
we exist also because 150 years ago someone in Germany made nitrate fertiliser (to supplement the natural stuff)
population increased, then farmed land increased, pushing more biosphere CO2/CH4 into the atmosphere, so global-warming it
(they don't notice that mechanism of warming because of their confirmation/expectation bias)

yes (afaik) such viability as tungsten and beryllium have is chemistry-related
actually one or other T.H.A (tungsten heavy alloy) or AlBeMet (aluminium/beryllium) ....
& road cars have small % of tungsten in steels and a small % of beryllium in CuBe valve guides/seats and relays/contacts

[majki2111]

people don't see chemistry for the same reason they don't see other things they should see (or vice-versa) .....
confirmation/expectation bias

we exist because 300 years ago in the UK someone turned coal into carbon and 'smelted' (extracted) iron 90% cheaper
iron extraction is a chemical process (reduction by hot carbon) not a physical process (melting eg by electric furnace)
but 99% of UK people think it's a physical process - and think we can reduce carbon emissions by changing to electric furnaces
(yes furnaces melt scrap (iron & steel) - but that's recycling existing steel not steel-making)
(& if we could make steel by electric furnaces carbon emissions would increase because of carbon cost of electricity)
we exist also because 150 years ago someone in Germany made nitrate fertiliser (to supplement the natural stuff)
population increased, then farmed land increased, pushing more biosphere CO2/CH4 into the atmosphere, so global-warming it
(they don't notice that mechanism of warming because of their confirmation/expectation bias)

yes (afaik) such viability as tungsten and beryllium have is chemistry-related
actually one or other T.H.A (tungsten heavy alloy) or AlBeMet (aluminium/beryllium) ....
& road cars have small % of tungsten in steels and a small % of beryllium in CuBe valve guides/seats and relays/contacts

In Croatia chemistry industry is non existent.