84 replies to this topic

[ardbeg]

What exactly are you getting at then, ardbeg? Your questions have been answered and there's no point in comparing to doping because that's got to do with health issues regarding the human body. Every athlete will taylor their chemical intake to optimise their performance through their diet. F1 fuel is similarly optimised. But whereas an athlete's body is something that should probably be looked after for many years, a prototype racing car is going to last a season at the most.

I was responding to a question, I did not ask another one.

[PayasYouRace]

I was responding to a question, I did not ask another one.

 

I've read the OP and as far as I can tell it's been answered.

[ardbeg]

I've read the OP and as far as I can tell it's been answered.

So therefore I should not respond to new questions asked by others, like yourself, who seeks clarification?

[PayasYouRace]

So therefore I should not respond to new questions asked by others, like yourself, who seeks clarification?

 

Saying, "Read the OP," is not doing that.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 06 December 2015 - 09:24.

[YoungGun]

Has there ever been an instance when the FIA has ruled that the fuel used by a team was not the correct formula?

[Kalmake]

In Brazil 1995 several cars lost constructor points for irregular fuel.

[ardbeg]

Saying, "Read the OP," is not doing that.

Of course it is, since any possible "accusations" that she referred to I made was in there, not in the post Sophie had issues with which only contained clarifications of the OP. 
Besides, the point you and Dolph try to make that doping is about health issues and therefore not comparable is invalid. There is no need for WADA to prove health issues before banning a substance. In fact, many drugs that are used because of health issues are on the list.

This seem to be the more popular definition of doping:

Today, doping can mean the administering or use of substances in any form alien to the body, of physiological substance in abnormal method with the exclusive aim or attaining an artificial and unfair increase of performance in competition.

http://www.prn.usm.m...1998/nst23.html

Ideally I would have liked to see a discussion involving chemists that could discuss for instance the possibility of  creating a fuel/oil combination that, maybe at a certain temperature, or by electricity, creates a bond, covalent, ionic or maybe one of the fancy new bonds that science have made available, that in turn changes the molecule structures to something it will no longer be when the fuel sample is tested.

http://www.scienceal...bond-discovered
 

Edited by ardbeg, 06 December 2015 - 10:23.

[Skaffen]

Of course it is, since any possible "accusations" that she referred to I made was in there, not in the post Sophie had issues with which only contained clarifications of the OP.
Besides, the point you and Dolph try to make that doping is about health issues and therefore not comparable is invalid. There is no need for WADA to prove health issues before banning a substance. In fact, many drugs that are used because of health issues are on the list.

This seem to be the more popular definition of doping:
Today, doping can mean the administering or use of substances in any form alien to the body, of physiological substance in abnormal method with the exclusive aim or attaining an artificial and unfair increase of performance in competition.
http://www.prn.usm.m...1998/nst23.html

Ideally I would have liked to see a discussion involving chemists that could discuss for instance the possibility of creating a fuel/oil combination that, maybe at a certain temperature, or by electricity, creates a bond, covalent, ionic or maybe one of the fancy new bonds that science have made available, that in turn changes the molecule structures to something it will no longer be when the fuel sample is tested.

http://www.scienceal...bond-discovered

I like the idea that scientists have "made available" new types of chemical bonds! I can't even think of a new bond description in a while. There's only going to be three types of bonds really relevant in a fuel; covalent, ionic and hydrogen - but it's not easy to change those on the fly without enough equipment in there that it would be obvious what you were doing (ie if you had a catalyst in the fuel flow system and heater to shorten/lengthen chains). It's more plausible to change the nature of the solution by introducing various compounds that change viscosity at certain temperatures but that's not going to massively change the energy release - that's more to do with which additives you can get in and what is allowed/controlled by the formula. Currently you're allowed only a small number of additives and non of the sparkly alcohol/benzene mixes that used to make the stuff Iike rocket fuel.

I'm pretty sure the main focus on development with fuel has been to optimise the mix on the hydrocarbon front to allow the greatest efficiency at higher temperatures. If you can get peak power at higher temperatures then that's less cooling required and better performance with a lean mixture.

[ardbeg]

I like the idea that scientists have "made available" new types of chemical bonds! I can't even think of a new bond description in a while. There's only going to be three types of bonds really relevant in a fuel; covalent, ionic and hydrogen - but it's not easy to change those on the fly without enough equipment in there that it would be obvious what you were doing (ie if you had a catalyst in the fuel flow system and heater to shorten/lengthen chains). It's more plausible to change the nature of the solution by introducing various compounds that change viscosity at certain temperatures but that's not going to massively change the energy release - that's more to do with which additives you can get in and what is allowed/controlled by the formula. Currently you're allowed only a small number of additives and non of the sparkly alcohol/benzene mixes that used to make the stuff Iike rocket fuel.

I'm pretty sure the main focus on development with fuel has been to optimise the mix on the hydrocarbon front to allow the greatest efficiency at higher temperatures. If you can get peak power at higher temperatures then that's less cooling required and better performance with a lean mixture.

Well, there is the "vibrational bond" I linked to above and you know how it is - there is always one more.

Thing that makes me suspicious is that custom fuel mixes has been used and researched  for many many years now and there has been a gradual performance gain by doing so. But suddenly Mercedes brings an engine that is claimed to be 50HP stronger and  they claim the actual engine upgrade is only an adaption to the new Petronas fuel. Now Shell claims their fuel "upgrade" gave Ferrari 0.5 per lap. That is a quite a substantial amount of extra horse power. Quite big almost simultaneous leaps by two separate companies that has been tuning their fuel and oil for many many years.

I googled a bit and found this:
http://www.motorspor...-1-oil-systems/

I remember the days of two stroke motorcycles when oil was mixed into the fuel so surely it must be possible to mix fuel into the oil. I am not saying they are doing that, the original question was a more general one - how well is FiA equipped to handle these analysis. 

Before anyone claim that mixing 20kg of fuel into the oil is highly impractical, remember that the 100kg per race limit is not really an issue, the big outright performance limiter is the fuel flow. If they have the possibility get around the current fuel flow limit of basically 0.03 litres per second, around 27 gram, the one lap performance could be increased. If it is possible to create burnables by having a certain oil/fuel mix at a certain temperature, then, if I was a F1 team boss, I would explore that path.

 

[Gilles4Ever]

Has there ever been an instance when the FIA has ruled that the fuel used by a team was not the correct formula?

I don't know when a car has ever been excluded for fuel that was outside the rules. There have been exclusions for fuel that hasn't matched the sample given to the FIA, a kind of fingerprint.

[Skaffen]

Well, there is the "vibrational bond" I linked to above and you know how it is - there is always one more.

Thing that makes me suspicious is that custom fuel mixes has been used and researched for many many years now and there has been a gradual performance gain by doing so. But suddenly Mercedes brings an engine that is claimed to be 50HP stronger and they claim the actual engine upgrade is only an adaption to the new Petronas fuel. Now Shell claims their fuel "upgrade" gave Ferrari 0.5 per lap. That is a quite a substantial amount of extra horse power. Quite big almost simultaneous leaps by two separate companies that has been tuning their fuel and oil for many many years.

I googled a bit and found this:
http://www.motorspor...-1-oil-systems/

I remember the days of two stroke motorcycles when oil was mixed into the fuel so surely it must be possible to mix fuel into the oil. I am not saying they are doing that, the original question was a more general one - how well is FiA equipped to handle these analysis.

Before anyone claim that mixing 20kg of fuel into the oil is highly impractical, remember that the 100kg per race limit is not really an issue, the big outright performance limiter is the fuel flow. If they have the possibility get around the current fuel flow limit of basically 0.03 litres per second, around 27 gram, the one lap performance could be increased. If it is possible to create burnables by having a certain oil/fuel mix at a certain temperature, then, if I was a F1 team boss, I would explore that path.

Vibrational bonds were described in the 80s, they're not new - there's just been new measurements of them. They also only exist for tiny amounts of time - they're not really on the order of ionic and covalent bonds.

The reason there were large performance gains with these engines and fuel is that the thermal characteristics of the engine are very different - so there was scope for optimising that.

Burning the oil at volumes that would have any effect is forbidden and the FIA tested oils to ensure that wasn't happening this year.

Edited by Skaffen, 06 December 2015 - 19:23.

[Gretsch]

I think that of all the development areas within F1, fuel is the one that is of least interest for the fans. But it has a potential huge impact of the performance. I'd like them to go standard here. 

"Our fuel and engine package has a decent competitive advantage, so we are quite pleased with the initial outcome to the programme, and we are pushing now for further improvements."

http://www.autosport...ect-title-fight

[Cornholio]

I must admit I find it interesting* how the various switches in supplier will affect things this year, and any extra variable is always welcome.

 

 

 

*Cue the FIA mandating a spec-fuel supplier in 5...4...3....2....

[minime]

I wonder how much the fancy brew fuels aid the claims of world leading fuel efficiency? 

[Clatter]

Do the engines have to meet any emissions limits?

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Do the engines have to meet any emissions limits?

I don't think so!

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I think that of all the development areas within F1, fuel is the one that is of least interest for the fans. But it has a potential huge impact of the performance. I'd like them to go standard here.

"Our fuel and engine package has a decent competitive advantage, so we are quite pleased with the initial outcome to the programme, and we are pushing now for further improvements."
http://www.autosport...ect-title-fight

No spec fuels here! Just no please!

[Gretsch]

No spec fuels here! Just no please!

Oh, because it would destroy... what exactly?

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Oh, because it would destroy... what exactly?

Because it takes away YET another area of development that is WHY... whats next spec Aero? I personally do not want another "spec" series there are enough of those already!

[Clatter]

I don't think so!

Neither do I, but maybe they should, as they want to pretend to be road relevant.

[Clatter]

Because it takes away YET another area of development that is WHY... whats next spec Aero? I personally do not want another "spec" series there are enough of those already!

If there's anything they could make spec and it would not make a bit of difference it's the fuel. And to maintain their road relevant claims they should be using standard pump fuel.

[Gretsch]

Because it takes away YET another area of development that is WHY... whats next spec Aero? I personally do not want another "spec" series there are enough of those already!

It would take away an area that is completely invisible for the fans and useless for road cars while being a huge area where loopholes can be found. Remember, it is not only the fuel, it is also the oil. It is also a development area that benefits the only big teams, development that they do not have to pay themselves.  

[Gretsch]

(yes, seeing the Merc's leaving the pits with a smoke trail like a 40 year old Ford makes me suspicious)

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It would take away an area that is completely invisible for the fans and useless for road cars while being a huge area where loopholes can be found. Remember, it is not only the fuel, it is also the oil. It is also a development area that benefits the only big teams, development that they do not have to pay themselves.  

In that case lets ban aero development too, that is more or less invisible and is of no use of road cars?

[Kalmake]

I must admit I find it interesting* how the various switches in supplier will affect things this year, and any extra variable is always welcome.

 

 

 

*Cue the FIA mandating a spec-fuel supplier in 5...4...3....2....

FIA can't mandate it. It gets voted on. They pushed for spec fuel few years ago and failed.

[Gretsch]

In that case lets ban aero development too, that is more or less invisible and is of no use of road cars?

Yes, let's go one step further and ban F1 altogether!

What's wrong with people...

[kevinracefan]

 

F1 is less and less about drivers and cars, and more and more about technological wizardry and cheating the rulebook at every opportunity.

it's always been about wizardry, at least since ground effects started..

 

Agree that local pump gas should be used..

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Yes, let's go one step further and ban F1 altogether!

What's wrong with people...

Is that aimed at me? if so I am not sure why, as I am against all SPEC components, if that is what you are getting at?

[Gretsch]

Is that aimed at me? if so I am not sure why, as I am against all SPEC components, if that is what you are getting at?

There are spec components. There will be more spec components. The attitude of "if X is made spec than we might as well make Y spec and if we make Y spec we might as well make Z spec" is tiresome and pretty lame. Fuel has little to do with aero and specially when you consider my main point that is: Fuel and oil are not developed by the team. It is something that is not only too expensive for the small teams, it is inaccessible. It is impossible for them to compete in that area even if they had the money. An area that obviously have become a "goldmine" for performance.

Edited by Gretsch, 10 February 2017 - 14:04.

[redreni]

From a 2011 article:
 

"Shell has 50 scientists dedicated to working on Ferrari's F1 fuel and oil and, between them, they spend something in the region of 21,000 man hours a year on the project, blending 200,000L of fuel in any given year - enough to power a road car for 50 years."

http://www.thenation...d-at-every-turn

 

I mean, if it has no application outside F1, that is mental.... but that's F1 for you.

[Kalmake]

21000 hours a year shared between 50 people doesn't sound that "dedicated". Most of them are not working on it full time. That might suggest there is some crossover to the real world.

[blacky]

Read an interview with one of the Exxon bosses about their work for Honda/McLaren. He said around 10 people are working in the development area for the f1 fuel. Big difference to the 50 people from Shell.

[PayasYouRace]

In that case lets ban aero development too, that is more or less invisible and is of no use of road cars?

Aero development is the most visible. Unless it's under the car, it's impossible to hide it.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Aero development is the most visible. Unless it's under the car, it's impossible to hide it.

But it's totally pointless to road car relevance... that was my point where as fuel development may filter down or the knowledge anyway...

[lio007]

Read an interview with one of the Exxon bosses about their work for Honda/McLaren. He said around 10 people are working in the development area for the f1 fuel. Big difference to the 50 people from Shell.

Quality before quantity ;-)