2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Clew]

Do the same 2015 turbo engine test rules for current F1 teams also apply to Honda's 2015 unit for McLaren? If not, does Honda have a test advantage other teams can not enjoy unless they, current F1 teams, subcontract their engines.

[xpensive]

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.

My point precisely, I'm certain that Total's and Shell's chemistry wizards have already penetrated the above fuel regulations and are cooking up some mean brews for 2014. What defines energy content anyway, molecular structure!

Petronas I'm not so sure, not the partner of choice in a lab-race like this, my prediction is that MHPE will be left behind.

[Skippon]

Well not HPE (HPP) but maybe MGP!!
MRL and FIF1 aren't Petronas nor I guess Williams in 2014 .

[Tommy Cookers]

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

[ringo]

The fuel rating says it all really. It's all down to the C-H bonds in the fuel. I don't expect any deparatures from the typical energy content of the fuel. Maybe some improvements in other areas like lubrication, hydroscopy, foaming properties etc.

The most interesting thing to me, and this might sound simple, is the turbing and MGUH placement for the other engines that have not been revealed as yet. That has an impact on the shape of the car, the size, the aerodynamics etc.
And it affect all cars using that particular engine.

If mercedes is going to have their turbine poking out the back, then you can imagine how different that car will look compared to renault who have their turbine tucked behind the engine.

[xpensive]

The fuel rating says it all really.
...

ASTM D 2699/D 2700 is not a fuel rating, it's a test method.

The properties allowed are listed and it's a long list as you can tell.

[ringo]

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

Oh i figured you stated this above, which is 87.0

[xpensive]

I don't know what TC is trying to say really and I thought you were referring to his post, mea culpa.

[chip engineer]

The fuel rating says it all really.
...

ASTM D 2699/D 2700 is not a fuel rating, it's a test method.

The properties allowed are listed and it's a long list as you can tell.

Even though it is a long list, there is not much (other than Acetylene) that would be useful that has a larger energy content per kg than the common gasoline components:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
Fuel MJ/kg (LHV)
Methane 50.009
Acetylene 48.241
Ethane 47.794
Propane 46.357
Butane 45.752
Pentane 45.357
Hexane 44.752
Heptane 44.566
Octane 44.427
Nonane 44.311

So no energy content (LHV) higher than ~45 MJ/kg seems likely.

[xpensive]

Actually, I doubt if anyone had ever planned to run his engine on Acetylene, I suggest you read the regulations in its entirety.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

I agree with that and I don't do such things. Needless to say that I don't share the enthusiastic estimates of the sudden appearance of miracle fuels. I have not read a single point here that addresses my concerns why there will not be a landslide of changes. I have equally not read a single line that would substantiate the claim that the FiA cannot control fuel development and stop cheating with the rules.

Quite contrary the rules still allow only certain content and the approved components can only vary in terms of their percentage in the mix. Compounding the problem is that the trend towards higher specific energy content is nothing new. The same has been done with basically the same limitations to development for many years. So the low hanging fruits are all taken. Hence my scepticism that there will be jumps in the properties of the 2014 fuels. I still expect rather small improvements with relatively high capital and resource utilization.

I don't mind other people having a different view but it would be interesting to hear some substantial points that would contradict those I have made above.

[zztopless]

Hey,

I only have a fair rudimentary understanding of the technical side of F1, but a video I stumbled upon got me thinking about the 2014 engine regulations relating to camshafts and valves. I had a read through and I all the references relating to them are about their dimensions, materials etc.

I remember towards the end of the V10 era, circa 2010, Renault were experimenting with electronically controlled, pneumatic intake and exhaust valves, thus not requiring a mechanical connecting to the crankshaft for timing, hence no camshaft.

In the video above, he makes some impressive claims (skip to around 4:00 for the really interesting stuff).
- Can handle high speeds (up to 20k if necessary).
- Infinitely variable timing - displays a graph showing the valve pausing when it is fully opened, claims can allow the engine to breathe better (sounds plausible for certain conditions, power/torque requirements).
- They have retrofitted a Saab wagon with their system, put 60,000km in testing on it, totally cam-less. He shows visually how much space this saves.
- Claims they've had performance gains tested by AVL
- Up to 20% improvement fuel efficiency with the non-optimised retrofitted Saab (he claims they're expecting 30% when fully optimised).
- 30% more torque.
- 30% more power.

All just claims by a guy with a vested interest, but a serious company nonetheless and this technology is known to have been seriously considered (I believe Renault even got to the testing stage?) in the past by at least one F1 team. The Tech to make this feasible has likely have moved on quite a bit since the engines were last frozen.

It's probably nothing in terms of a possibility for F1 in 2014, but personally, being a programmer, I've always been frustrated that we still can't, or can but don't have a way to do away with the camshafts and timing belts in road cars. Essentially the mechanical link from the crankshaft to the camshaft seems like a heavy and limiting way to communicate timing information that could be done digitally with more control over the combustion process and less moving parts, space and weight.

But then again, I know very little about the technical challenges of designing independent valves with a powerful and accurate enough in it's physical response to input requests - not the sensing and data processing side of things needed to make this happen should be child's play for an f1 team, compared to other dynamic processes that require transistor time. Current vvti systems involves them being actuated in such a way already, but I'm assuming this requires only a fraction of the total valve movement, the rest of which is still controlled by the camshaft rotation and lobe profile?

With reports in the last month or so of the new engines supposedly going to be much more powerful than expected, I'm just wondering if:
a) this would be possible under the rules,
b) Has the technology improved enough since Renault looked into it?
c) Do you think this would benefit an F1 an engine enough to consider implementing it?
c) Would the potential space saving/packaging improvements be worth considering?

With so many changes next year, if this is within the rules and there are benefits, is it even the biggest challenge in terms of the new engines, the two types of energy recovery, electrically spinning up the turbo, can they charge the ERS completely and use the provision for unlimited recovered energy if it's sent directly from the MGUH to the MGUK for added power? (did I get that right?).

Apologies if the answers to these questions are self-evident, but curious minds...

Cheers.

[xpensive]

To begin with, "gasoline" or "petrol" is not strictly identified;

The bulk of a typical gasoline consists of hydrocarbons with between four and 12 carbon atoms per molecule (commonly referred to as C4-C12).

They would have been better off with methanol, CH3OH, that stuff is strictly identified.

[langwadt]

To begin with, "gasoline" or "petrol" is not strictly identified;

The bulk of a typical gasoline consists of hydrocarbons with between four and 12 carbon atoms per molecule (commonly referred to as C4-C12).

They would have been better off with methanol, CH3OH, that stuff is strictly identified.

they would need huge tanks, Methanol is only ~15MJ/Kg, gasoline is ~34MJ/l , they could go "green" and use ethanol it is a bit better at ~24MJ/l

[xpensive]

We obviously need to bring refueling back, the 100 kg idea was stupid to begin with, a flow restriction is quite enough.

Methanol from cellulose is far "greener" than ethanol from eatable crops, not to mention morally superior.

I tell you again, next year's fuel-situation will be a mess, leading to a single-supplier for 2015.