Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

5.7% biobutanol would have about the same heat as 4% of the non-bio fuel
the above 5.7% would give about 1.5% more ICE power

I can't interpret this sentence. Not sure what you're trying to say.

5.7% of the fuel blend must be biofuel (something that a manufacturer has commercial intent to supply to the public)
the clear candidate for this job is bio-butanol or something made from bio-butanol
butanol has less than 80% of the heat value/kg that gasoline has
if (bio) butanol was 5.7kg of race fuel blend that 105 kg contains the same heat as 103.6 kg of fuel blend without bio-ingredient

but a bio-fuel ingredient with the same heat value as gasoline would give ....
105 kg of race fuel blend containing the same heat as 105 kg of fuel blend without bio-ingredient
1.5% more heat than if butanol was the bio-ingredient
ie 1.5% more power for the same time (or the same power for 1.5% longer)

[mzso]

5.7% of the fuel blend must be biofuel (something that a manufacturer has commercial intent to supply to the public)
the clear candidate for this job is bio-butanol or something made from bio-butanol
butanol has less than 80% of the heat value/kg that gasoline has
if (bio) butanol was 5.7kg of race fuel blend that 105 kg contains the same heat as 103.6 kg of fuel blend without bio-ingredient

but a bio-fuel ingredient with the same heat value as gasoline would give ....
105 kg of race fuel blend containing the same heat as 105 kg of fuel blend without bio-ingredient
1.5% more heat than if butanol was the bio-ingredient
ie 1.5% more power for the same time (or the same power for 1.5% longer)

I see. But why would they go with bio-butanol in the first place? Alcohols have a lot lower energy density than alkanes, which are bio-producible and allowed by the regulations:
[*]19.4.5 "Hydrocarbons (as defined in 19.2, but not including di-olefins) 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% bio-components quota"
[*]19.2 "Paraffins - Straight chain and branched alkanes."

So the most reasonable thing to do would be to use the shortest chain that's practical.
I don't even see restrictions on minimum boiling point (only maximum). So it might as well be propane/butane, which have a better energy density than common petrol. (I don't think methane and ethane are practical)

[gruntguru]

So it might as well be propane/butane, which have a better energy density than common petrol. (I don't think methane and ethane are practical)

Propane and Butane are gases at room temp and pressure. Will they remain liquid when mixed with gasoline?

I don't think the F1 rules would permit a pressurised fuel tank.

[mzso]

So it might as well be propane/butane, which have a better energy density than common petrol. (I don't think methane and ethane are practical)

Propane and Butane are gases at room temp and pressure.

I don't think the F1 rules would permit a pressurised fuel tank.

I saw nothing to ban gaseous bio-fuels. And butane for one would require little pressure.
(But pentane, heptane is also bio-producible if this fails.)

Will they remain liquid when mixed with gasoline?

My feeling is that they wouldn't but I'm no chemist for sure.

[Tommy Cookers]

Propane and Butane are gases at room temp and pressure. Will they remain liquid when mixed with gasoline?

yes they will remain liquid when mixed with gasoline
that's where these gases come from - that's why they're called petroleum gases
they are removed from solution because they are worth more as gas

this idea is one I suggested 5 years ago
iirc propenes are good eg isopropene (and cyclopropene has an LCV of 48.7 MJ) but the rules limit 3 carbon molecules
cyclobutene seems promising ie something related to cyclobutene
it's used in JP9 and JP10

isn't there a rule on fuel vapour pressure ?

yes we know some (eg Honda ?) in this F1 use or used butanol as the bio ingredient
bio fuels produced only for F1 etc are not allowed
the bio ingredient must have commercial intent
an F1 bio ingredient war is banned

[mzso]

iirc propenes are good (cyclopropene has an LCV of 48.7 MJ) but the rules limit 3 carbon molecules

So propane?
Where is this rule? I didn't see it.

bio fuels produced only for F1 etc are not allowed
the bio ingredient must have commercial intent

Well, alkanes certainly have commercial intent.

an F1 bio ingredient war is banned

I don't see a basis for this statement. Nor is it clear what you mean by it.

[Tommy Cookers]

my view of the rules is what others have posted after looking for and at the rules
when about 5 years ago after I started nominating plausibly valuable fuel ingredients ....
someone posted quoting rules eg the 3 carbon rule severely limiting the use of my nominations

my guess is this was in the 'big thread' from late Dec 2013 ie page 320s and 350s onwards
not in the thread Fuel Composition etc (start date April 1st 2012)
the page 12 thread 2014 Fuel Composition (start date 29 11 2013) seems to have come after this
likewise the thread Fuel Improvements (start date 26 11 2015)

there's lots of threads c. page 11- page 15 - but none seems to contain the fuel rules post(s) that I had in mind
they may have been off-topic in some non-fuel thread

[mzso]

but the rules limit 3 carbon molecules

someone posted quoting rules eg the 3 carbon rule severely limiting the use of my nominations

I see no such restrictions right now, besides butanol has four carbon atoms. Nothing for alkanes or "biocomponents".
Other categories have a minimum number of (five) carbon atoms.

[NL_Fer]

would formation inside the tank, after fueling be possible for the desired components?

[Tommy Cookers]

.....Other categories have a minimum number of (five) carbon atoms.

to me this seems consistent with what I thought the rules were doing

and to be clear .....
is the bio ingredient exempt from some of the formulation restrictions that apply to the non-bio ingredients ?
will the bio ingredient(s) progress (or have they progressed already) to exceed the 5.75% mandated ?
has the bio ingredient 'commercial intent' rule been revoked ?

and ....
regarding the amount of eg butane, propane, ethane etc (whether bio or non-bio) in the liquid fuel
doubters should know distillation at atmospheric pressure of crude oil is needed to extract these gases from the crude
this real physical possibility could be limited in extent by rulemaker limitation of the fuel volatility curve
GDI liberates these engines from the volatility curve limitations traditionally necessary
this is why I ask if there is any ruling eg expressed in terms of vapour pressure/temperature specification

[mzso]

and to be clear .....
is the bio ingredient exempt from some of the formulation restrictions that apply to the non-bio ingredients ?
will the bio ingredient(s) progress (or have they progressed already) to exceed the 5.75% mandated ?
has the bio ingredient 'commercial intent' rule been revoked ?

Well, see for yourself:
https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110
https://www.fia.com/file/78015/download/26184

[Just_a_fan]

would formation inside the tank, after fueling be possible for the desired components?

Any clever formulation like that would still need to pass the post race test and match the approved sample composition.

[NL_Fer]

The other way around, some additive, which dissolves itself withing 90-100 minutes during the race?

[LM10]

[AMuS] Christian Horner found out in Australia that Ferrari's fuel smells like grapefruit juice. What about Haas, who get their engines from Ferrari?

Günther Steiner: "We were asked before the season which fragrance we wanted. We chose raspberry."

[zibby43]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ht-gerade/

Power deficit difficult to make up

Some excerpts:

"Mercedes has observed a power explosion in the engine at Ferrari in Bahrain. Ferrari insists that air resistance (drag) plays a major role. Who is right? We asked around in both camps."

"Team boss Toto Wolff put the proportion of air resistance at a maximum of one tenth. This would give three tenths of the engine power. His colleague Mattia Binotto thinks this is exaggerated: 'I looked at the Mercedes rear wing. They drove in Bahrain with clearly more downforce than we did.' For the Ferrari boss, air resistance therefore plays the decisive role."

"Binotto also explains this by comparing Ferrari and its customer teams. HaasF1 did much worse on the straights than Sauber. The Swiss would have shown a very similar speed profile on the straights as the factory team. HaasF1 on the other hand lost six tenths. It is known from HaasF1 that they were on the road with a lot of downforce."

"The Mercedes engineers don't want to be blinded by the theory of drag. 'Ferrari was much faster than us in both [DRS and non-DRS] conditions. That's why the drag factor couldn't have played a big role.'"

​"According to Mercedes, the difference between Ferrari and its customer teams can also be explained by the fact that the factory racing team drives with a different specification of petrol and oil. "

"Mercedes wants to watch in Shanghai whether the pattern shown in Bahrain repeats itself on a completely different type of track. "