2014 Fuel Composition

[CBeck113]

Just a thought, since I didn't like chemistry all too much, I'm not too sure of the physical limits, but ...

What if the fuel suppliers tried to create lighter fuel?

Wouldn't this be the innovation that F1 is supposed to trigger? You would be reducing the mass of the vehicle, which in turn also reduces the fuel consumption (very obvious example is a rocket, but trucks could also have a small benefit from it). Wiki lists the density to be 0.71 to 0.78kg/l, and you would logically want to be on the low side, without sacrificing the positive characteristics.

For those out there with the knowledge, how far could they go, before their product would no longer be considered to be within the specifications?

[mep]

The question to start is how is this rule enforced?
I can see some difficulties there.

[langwadt]

Just a thought, since I didn't like chemistry all too much, I'm not too sure of the physical limits, but ...

What if the fuel suppliers tried to create lighter fuel?

Wouldn't this be the innovation that F1 is supposed to trigger? You would be reducing the mass of the vehicle, which in turn also reduces the fuel consumption (very obvious example is a rocket, but trucks could also have a small benefit from it). Wiki lists the density to be 0.71 to 0.78kg/l, and you would logically want to be on the low side, without sacrificing the positive characteristics.

For those out there with the knowledge, how far could they go, before their product would no longer be considered to be within the specifications?

for road going cars the weight you could possible save is nothing, and energy content is pretty much tied directly to weight
there is a reason they went with 100kg and not ~130liters

[Tommy Cookers]

....... What if the fuel suppliers tried to create lighter fuel?
Wouldn't this be the innovation that F1 is supposed to trigger?
For those out there with the knowledge, how far could they go, before their product would no longer be considered to be within the specifications?

there has been much discussion of 2014 fuels
the question of fuel being made lighter relative to its energy content and volume .....
is similar to the usual question of fuel being made with greater energy content relative to its weight (surely the way they will go)
it's not unrelated to the question of how far have they already gone eg as available for the engines pre-2014
Shell said for some tracks they blend for the least fuel weight, at others for most power per tankfull
(though all these pre-2014 fuels are made primarily for super-fast combustion)

but for 2014 the greatest (Lower) Calorific Value/kg should always win (if it is otherwise competitive eg in 'Octane number')
(LCV is the heat content discounting the latent heat trapped in the combustion water vapour)
FWIW I predicted 50 Mw/kg easily, about 7% more power than we might get otherwise
the rules can't prevent this development for F1
worldwide there's at least 1500 possible ingredients in real gasolines, the rules can only classify these in broad families
the engine-related properties of all 1500 are not even known
the rules primarily prevent packing the fuel with just one or two favoured ingredients
but the big change is the fuel rules seem to allow unlimited Octane number, convenient for a slow-running supercharged engine

my tip ..... maximise the Isobutene (no not isobutane) and use some 'cottonseed oil' type product
also the mandatory 5% biofuel is an open goal, use bio-Isobutanol derived products (instead of the usual ethanol)

in principle 'better' road fuel is possible, but the extra cost would not be worthwhile
whether lighter for the same energy (more energy/litre) or more energy for the same weight (more energy/kg)
existing road fuel is relatively economic, but tries to give good energy relative to air use (good energy/engine size)
this property could be improved for some extra cost (maybe this is behind some of the adverts for some road fuels)
and of course is desirable in 2014 F1
but best energy/kg will be the dominant property here (because the power is limited by fuel weight not by engine size)

[Mikey_s]

Just a quick response as I am on the road, but...
Chemistry happens in Moles, and moles are related to the molecular mass, therefore more moles = more mass...

Thereafter the variables will come down to how well the molecules can be packed into the liquid, which affects the density of the liquid (volume per mass, or vice versa). So the number of molecules you can carry will be limited by the molecular mass and the size of the fuel tank by the fuel density.

The next consideration is bond energy. When you combust the molecules you break the bonds between the atoms and make new ones with atmospheric oxygen (and nitrogen!). This is an area where there is room for improvement, although the nice people at the FIA constrain the types and numbers of molecules that can be used.

I haven't done the sums for the isobutene example above, but would add that oil companies tend not to use unsaturated molecules in fuels as they tent to lead to gum formation in the fuel system and they do tend to focus on highly branched fuels (isomers) , which give better octane performance.

The main items to focus on in my view would be the highest bond energy per kilo of fuel, within the FIA limits for types of molecules permitted.

[FrukostScones]

LaStampa reports that he 100Kg rule together with custom fuel could spark a controversy (war). Is this possibility real?

(like proposed lighter fuel with the same amount of energy)???

http://www.lastampa.it/2013/12/21/blogs ... agina.html

[bhall]

LaStampa reports that he 100Kg rule together with custom fuel could spark a controversy (war). Is this possibility real?

[...]

It's inevitable. Any time a resource, any resource, is restricted, it becomes more valuable. Moreover...

Over 50 versions of Shell V-Power fuel have already been developed and the best of them are currently being evaluated on the engine test beds in Maranello, prior to making their track debut in the opening group test of 2014, which takes place from 28 January at Jerez.

[Shrieker]

We're gonna get a fuel war ? That sounds exciting. I just pray we don't get fuel saving parades instead lol.

[Moxie]

The question to start is how is this rule enforced?
I can see some difficulties there.

I won't even pretend to know the F1 rules on fuel composition. I can tell you that the rules are easily enforceable. Organic chemists use a machine called a gas chromatograph. With this machine the chemist is perfectly capable of identifying the molecular constituents of a fuel and their relative quantities.

As for a "fuel war" I doubt it. The chemistry involved here is nothing new. For a long time it has been possible to distill the individual components of "gasoline" and remix them into any desired proportion. Of course teams will attempt to find the ideal balance between weight, volume, and power output. Do not expect to see the chemical equivalent of active suspension, or the double diffuser, however.

For the record, I am a former biochemist ... no PhD. I left the field 16 years ago.

[langwadt]

The question to start is how is this rule enforced?
I can see some difficulties there.

I won't even pretend to know the F1 rules on fuel composition. I can tell you that the rules are easily enforceable. Organic chemists use a machine called a gas chromatograph. With this machine the chemist is perfectly capable of identifying the molecular constituents of a fuel and their relative quantities.

As for a "fuel war" I doubt it. The chemistry involved here is nothing new. For a long time it has been possible to distill the individual components of "gasoline" and remix them into any desired proportion. Of course teams will attempt to find the ideal balance between weight, volume, and power output. Do not expect to see the chemical equivalent of active suspension, or the double diffuser, however.

For the record, I am a former biochemist ... no PhD. I left the field 16 years ago.

and they already make many different fuels tailored to each track, each has to be approved and the fuel samples taken from the cars after qual and race has to match the approved fuels

[Mikey_s]

The question to start is how is this rule enforced?
I can see some difficulties there.

I won't even pretend to know the F1 rules on fuel composition. I can tell you that the rules are easily enforceable. Organic chemists use a machine called a gas chromatograph. With this machine the chemist is perfectly capable of identifying the molecular constituents of a fuel and their relative quantities.

As for a "fuel war" I doubt it. The chemistry involved here is nothing new. For a long time it has been possible to distill the individual components of "gasoline" and remix them into any desired proportion. Of course teams will attempt to find the ideal balance between weight, volume, and power output. Do not expect to see the chemical equivalent of active suspension, or the double diffuser, however.

For the record, I am a former biochemist ... no PhD. I left the field 16 years ago.

and they already make many different fuels tailored to each track, each has to be approved and the fuel samples taken from the cars after qual and race has to match the approved fuels

The fuel manufacturers have a number of areas that they can exploit; Indeed they can and do formulate fuels for different circuits; e.g. a circuit such as Monza, where the cars are spending ~70% of the lap on full throttle, will require a fuel that burns quickly, whereas at a circuit such as Monaco the average revs are lower and therefore a fuel that delivers low rev power is required.
Fuels are also tailored to engine characteristics, so you can bet that the main technical sponsors for each of the engine manufacturers have had the new MPUs in their labs since they have been available to see what they like to drink.
Another issue where the fuel can make a small difference is internal friction; A company I used to work for developed a fuel with friction modifiers in with the objective of reducing the piston/cylinder wall friction on the compression stroke. I don't have any data and I'm guessing the benefit was extremely small, but when multiplied by the very large number of strokes in a race was deemed to be significant.
Just to pick up on an earlier point about fuel analysis; A gas chromatograph is a relatively crude tool as it separates only on the basis of molecular mass and shape. GC trace is specified in the regulations, but if you want to characterise the fuel properly you will need to use a Mass Spectrometer (or better still a Mass Spec coupled to a Gas Chromatograph (GC-MS).

[Tommy Cookers]

I won't even pretend to know the F1 rules on fuel composition. I can tell you that the rules are easily enforceable. Organic chemists use a machine called a gas chromatograph. With this machine the chemist is perfectly capable of identifying the molecular constituents of a fuel and their relative quantities.

As for a "fuel war" I doubt it. The chemistry involved here is nothing new. For a long time it has been possible to distill the individual components of "gasoline" and remix them into any desired proportion. Of course teams will attempt to find the ideal balance between weight, volume, and power output. Do not expect to see the chemical equivalent of active suspension, or the double diffuser, however.

typically an individual gasoline has around 800 constituents, worldwide around 1500 constituents
so the rules are written in broad and so loose terms ie classification into rather meaningless chemical 'families'
loose because these families include huge spreads of 'Octane No' and combustion speeds in an unpredictable way
eg N Heptane is 0 Octane and the usual Isooctane is 100 Octane
but N Octane is minus 12 Octane, and Isoheptane is 68 Octane .... IIRC
(actually there's 7 isomers of Heptane and 21? of Octane .... and about 30-50 isomers of Nonane, Decane .... Dodecane etc)
and significant spreads of their lower calorific values/kg (enthalpy)
to this day some of the minor ingredients have not had their Octane No or their enthalpies determined
and prediction of Octane No is notoriously unreliable

distilling individual components of gasoline has never been done for production
(gasoline is basically a lot of constant boiling mixes, with much improvement by processing after initial broad distillation)
so other seperation methods are necessary anyway, these are hugely uneconomic and pointless for production
not so for 2014 F1

2014-useful work has been done in the last 20 years of F1 fuel development anyway
2013 etc fuel is primarily optimised for combustion speed, but LCV/litre, then LCV/kg will be high also (ON is unimportant)
so round 1 in a 'fuel war is to use existing knowlege to make 2014 fuel (this was done 2 years ago?)
and round 2 has passed - the development of eg bio-Isobutane derivatives rule-qualified by 'commercial intent'
as substitute for the usual ie current 5.7% bioethanol that is such a weak link for 2014 (having very poor LCV)

so AFAIK 50.5 MJ/kg is on for 2014 fuel (about 12% more than the European roadside or 5% mores than simple US race gasoline)
logically there would be a freeze beyond that (but this intent has not been expressed)
maintained via the 'fuel fingerprint' concept (this appeared 20 years ago, but seems mysteriously to have vanished since)
the FF might allow some FIA-convenient drift as per the engine freeze of recent years
the 2014 rules are exactly not a 'fuel fingerprint'

[Moxie]

Just to pick up on an earlier point about fuel analysis; A gas chromatograph is a relatively crude tool as it separates only on the basis of molecular mass and shape. GC trace is specified in the regulations, but if you want to characterise the fuel properly you will need to use a Mass Spectrometer (or better still a Mass Spec coupled to a Gas Chromatograph (GC-MS).

Yeah this is what I get for giving a simple answer to a layman in front of the nerds. (said with affection...I'm one too).

distilling individual components of gasoline has never been done for production
(gasoline is basically a lot of constant boiling mixes, with much improvement by processing after initial broad distillation)
so other seperation methods are necessary anyway, these are hugely uneconomic and pointless for production
not so for 2014 F1

Production? Of course not. If the rules demand that the fuel be a publicly available product then I see your point. I plead ignorance on the rules.

I did not mean to suggest that there is not room for innovation. There is always room for innovation in science. I just expect that the innovations in this area will be teeeny teeeeny tiny. Personally I do not expect to see development of a secret speed and efficiency chemical, that would have an immediate dramatic effect. To continue my comparison to other technologies, I see this as more of a adjustment of the front wing element kind of development rather than an F-duct kind of development.

[hollus]

I'll take the gauntlet of the OP: lighter fuel.

Before I get there, and before fuel companies get there, I fully agree with X that in a formula with limited fuel weight, we'll see a molecule by molecule fuel composition war. The first order weapon will be going for all the iso-whatever and cyclo-whatever one can, which means increasing the energy content of the molecules present, rather than reducing weight. Then there will be an impurity war: how much nitro-whatever can be introduced as an impurity before it is considered a component? Then, reliability permitting, we might see an "oil leak" war, getting whatever can burn into the cylinders.
But then, then yes, we might wet into a proper weight war, which I think will only be a second order factor.

In a world with no cost limitations, we would see an isotope war. Take heptane (C7H16) as your reference molecule. The dominant isotopes are of course 1H and 12C. But one might also want to take into account the 1.1% natural abundance of 13C. There is also a 0.01% of deuterium and traces of tritium and 14C, but I'll discard those as too small to have an effect. So, looking at 13C alone, we get approx. a 0.08% weight increase compared to a pure 12C based fuel, for no energy gain. With the often cited 600HP figure for the ICE alone, that is half a HP difference. Will it be worth the cost? Very doubtful, but interesting to consider. The technologies involved in isotope enrichment are also, umm.. "interesting".
Then I can think of gases and other things naturally dissolved in fuel. How much water is there in normal fuel? Does any significant amount do N2 or O2 from the air get in? Maybe CO2? That would also be "dead weight" in your fuel. But for that, I have no idea if we are talking of a 5HP or 0.001HP difference. Does anybody know how much "air" can dissolve in automotive fuel?

Hmmm, worth a bit of research with all the time available over the holidays.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ Moxie
for years the fast-combusting F1 fuel (compliant with long-established rules written around road fuel) was denied to other classes
eg to Le Mans (for which in 1995 ? RCE said an ex-F1 V12 engine was said to lose 60 bhp for this reason)
... and to Moto GP (where eg the 1000cc 5 cyl Hondas were run at only 13000 rpm as F1 fuel was denied to Moto GP then)
IIRC this because of limitations on quantities available from the manufacturing methods used

@ Hollus
AFAIK a significant amount of atmospheric gas dissolves in fuel
limits are mandated for airline type fuel (at least on the rates of emergence of gas when the plane climbs)
dissolved gas must be more in gasolines ?

(unrelated) ... there is a (recent ?) rule against any action of using internal Oxygen eg Nitromethane, Nitrobenzene etc

and talking of dissolved gases
much of what we call gases, like propane, butane etc are naturally in what becomes what we call gasoline
(the easier parts of this are removed as a high value product)
but eg butanes and butenes etc could be left in or added to F1 advantage, they have higher LCV and Octane No than gasoline
some pentane and pentene etc isomers also