62 replies to this topic

[MWM]

Quick question...not technical enough for the Technical Forum I hope...

What is the approximate MPG of a modern F1 car?

[Mika Mika]

I think it's about 2-4 depending on the circuit

[MWM]

Originally posted by Mika Mika
I think it's about 2-4 depending on the circuit

Miles per litre or miles per gallon?

I was reckoning on cars using, what, around 150-200 litres in a race?

A race would be around 150-200 miles?

That would be around 1 mile per litre, or 4.5 miles to the gallon.

Anybody else?

[Mika Mika]

China was 3.3 miles per lap

Alonso had (according to james allen) 10 laps of fuel that weighed 30 kg (according to the FIA)
(roughly thats 8.2 imp gal or 10 us gal)

so.....
33 / 8.2 = 4MPG imp 3.3MPG us...

[One]

the races are just about, a lap or so, longer tan 300km in distances. the car gets refueeled twice like 75 litter, starting wit about the same or little less depending on the qualify strategy, whch makes about 210 litter of fuel.

so i assume your cals are about right.

[eoin]

I make it 4mpg on a standard track like china. The figure from the teams is about 2.7kg per lap and which is about 3.85L per 3.4miles. So that's .847 gallons(Imperial) which is 4.01mpg.

[MWM]

Great - thanks guys.

[Tenmantaylor]

Assuming a similar power output and laptimes, what MPG do you think a diesel F1 engine could achieve?

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Assuming a similar power output and laptimes, what MPG do you think a diesel F1 engine could achieve?

Please... If you continue to swear like that i'll have to report you to the mods ;)

[Slyder]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Assuming a similar power output and laptimes, what MPG do you think a diesel F1 engine could achieve?

Is there such a thing as a Diesel F1 engine?

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by Slyder


Is there such a thing as a Diesel F1 engine?

nope thank god!!!!

[wingwalker]

Originally posted by Slyder


Is there such a thing as a Diesel F1 engine?

Somewhere in the world, Max Mosley is now screaming "EUREKA!" with a light bulb over his head.

[RoutariEnjinu]

By Diesel, I assumed you mean Turbo-Charged Diesel vs Normally-Aspirated Petrol?

[Tony Mandara]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Assuming a similar power output and laptimes, what MPG do you think a diesel F1 engine could achieve?

OMG!! Post duly bookmarked so we know who to blame later!;)

(Only Kidding) Tony.

[RoutariEnjinu]

I once averaged 6MPG over two weeks of short trips in the Rex. It has since been remapped, and now gets a much healthier 10MPG under similar conditions.

Blame Tenmantaylor for Diesel in F1, and blame me for global warming

[Tenmantaylor]

Funny how no one dare even speculate how much more efficient it would be! Just think of the torque Would be at least double the 3L V10s were. There'd be loads more overtaking! And combined with KERs F1 will save the planet.

[rdebourbon]

Does anyone have any data about how the weight of fuel impacts lap times at each circuit? I am working on a program to try and more accurately predict fuelstops and strategies for the various cars after the weights are released...

[Buttoneer]

Audi and more recently Peugeot has proven that there should be no barrier to the introduction of high power diesel engines to motorsport. An equivalence formula with 2.4l petrol would see (IMO) all of them move to diesel because of the greater flexibility offered by the fuel savings in terms of strategy.

Diesel in F1 would be a good thing IMO.

Sorry.

[RoutariEnjinu]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Funny how no one dare even speculate how much more efficient it would be! Just think of the torque Would be at least double the 3L V10s were.

All you're doing is getting erect over FORCED INDUCTION. You're not comparing Diesel to Petrol, you're comparing Forced Induction to Normally Aspirated engines.

Just imagine what a modern Turbo Petrol Formula 1 engine could do.

If you have a N/A Petrol race engine, versus a N/A Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.
If you have a F/I Petrol race engine, versus a F/I Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.

It's not fair to compare a now frozen normally aspirated 2.4L V8 with forced minimum weight*, versus a new and thus highly developed forced induction 2.4L V8 Diesel.

*as petrol engines can get away with being built a bit lighter due to Diesel engines needing massive compression ratios.

Buttoneer, Diesel in Le Mans is just a publicity stunt. Diesel is just as different a technology as Rotary. The constraints on capacity and boost pressure are changed to give a desired result. If they really wanted to make Diesel a peer, neither helped nor hindered, they'd need to reduce it's capacity or boost pressure to bring it in line.
Just as they've tweaked capacities between F/I and N/A engines to try and strike a balance.

[Bos]

4 mpg is very impressive, considering all how much energy is spent pulling those wings through the air. I think Top Gear did a supercar fuel economy race and the Ferrari 599 managed around 1mpg, the best was the Audi R8 around 4-5 mpg.

[Tenmantaylor]

Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu

If you have a N/A Petrol race engine, versus a N/A Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.
If you have a F/I Petrol race engine, versus a F/I Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.

Surely if they equated the capacity and induction a diesel would still win le mans on efficiency? And you havnt mentioned torque? A very important factor for a racing car.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Audi and more recently Peugeot has proven that there should be no barrier to the introduction of high power diesel engines to motorsport. An equivalence formula with 2.4l petrol would see (IMO) all of them move to diesel because of the greater flexibility offered by the fuel savings in terms of strategy.

Diesel in F1 would be a good thing IMO.

Sorry.

No its the fuel of the devil....
Next thing all the drivers will have to sit around eating South African peace crisps...

[armchair expert]

Originally posted by Bos
4 mpg is very impressive, considering all how much energy is spent pulling those wings through the air. I think Top Gear did a supercar fuel economy race and the Ferrari 599 managed around 1mpg, the best was the Audi R8 around 4-5 mpg.

Top Gear also did a segment where a BMW M3 got better fuel economy than a Toyota Prius. Race the Prius round a track flat out and have an M3 follow (which would have it on half throttle!).

[DOF_power]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Audi and more recently Peugeot has proven that there should be no barrier to the introduction of high power diesel engines to motorsport. An equivalence formula with 2.4l petrol would see (IMO) all of them move to diesel because of the greater flexibility offered by the fuel savings in terms of strategy.

Diesel in F1 would be a good thing IMO.

Sorry.

I'd also like to see turbo diesels in F1.

[alfa1]

Originally posted by eoin
The figure from the teams is about 2.7kg per lap...

And remembering that they do these miles and laps rather quicker than one would do it in a road car,
so assuming a lap time of 100 seconds, thats 1 litre of fuel used every 37 seconds.

[mikerr]

If F1 was really about innovation engine wise (and not a frozen v8) we could see rotary engines in F1

Edited by mikerr, 23 October 2009 - 12:22.

[DOF_power]

Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu


If you have a N/A Petrol race engine, versus a N/A Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.
If you have a F/I Petrol race engine, versus a F/I Diesel race engine of the same capacity, Petrol wins.

According to whom ?!
Diesels could still win on account of the torque (plateau) and fuel efficiency.

[DOF_power]

Originally posted by mikerr
Well, as an RX8 owner, I'd love to see the ban on rotary engines lifted for F1 ;)

>
^ Me too.

[muramasa]

i know i'm being naive here but 4-5mpg is shockingly low even tho i knew racing cars would have low mpg.

[Tenmantaylor]

Originally posted by muramasa
i know i'm being naive here but 4-5mpg is shockingly low even tho i knew racing cars would have low mpg.

As some else said, when you consider the amount of energy generated and dissipated by an F1 car its actually bloody impressive.

[muramasa]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor


As some else said, when you consider the amount of energy generated and dissipated by an F1 car its actually bloody impressive.

yeah i know. i couldnt help even tho i knew. impressive in both ways.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by muramasa
i know i'm being naive here but 4-5mpg is shockingly low even tho i knew racing cars would have low mpg.

Not when you consider the performance. Drive your average road car hard and you will get very poor MPG but with nowhere near the performance. This was a great comparison that Top Gear did between the Prius and an M3.

I was wondering a while ago about what MPG an F1 car would get if driven conservatively.

[RoutariEnjinu]

Originally posted by mikerr
If F1 was really about innovation engine wise (and not a frozen v8) we could see rotary engines in F1

I'd love that as an Rx8 owner ;)

As a 7 owner I'd love to see that as well. Piston spark-ignition engine has had a century of development? Diesel has had an accellerated decades long development with fierce competition, and Rotary just seems to be headed up by one company, and smited from motorsport events. Or if it's allowed, it's completely penalised with an intake restriction making it not worth the hassle of working with something less conventional.
There are plenty of challenges with Rotary, but there were with the first Piston engines. It's comparing a mature acomplished technology, versus a brand new one.
Just imagine what F1 teams could have done with the concept, because tuning for winning races, and tuning for economy aren't that different.
To highlight the scope available, some small private rotary enthusiast outfit in America made some CNC Billet rotors, and they've turned out to be a hit. They are capable of massive RPM safely, and thus massively higher power gains.

Originally posted by DOF_power
According to whom ?!
Diesels could still win on account of the torque (plateau) and fuel efficiency.

A petrol engine with modern low latency sequential turbos can have a nice torque curve too to go with the fact it can do more work for the same weight/size.
Again this is it, a high revving N/A Petrol engine, being compared to a turbo-charged diesel (because that IS what people actually mean when they say 'diesel') is not a fair comparison.

As for fuel efficiency, it wont make any difference in F1 as if you want to be competitive, you still need to come in for tyres a few times. The weight saved from the lesser amount of fuel required per stint would need to be spent on a heavier bulkier, less responsive engine, and if 30KG of KERS is that much of a problem to package, I think a TDI would be a nightmare.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu


As for fuel efficiency, it wont make any difference in F1 as if you want to be competitive, you still need to come in for tyres a few times. The weight saved from the lesser amount of fuel required per stint would need to be spent on a heavier bulkier, less responsive engine, and if 30KG of KERS is that much of a problem to package, I think a TDI would be a nightmare.

It would be no effort at all to tinker with the rules to change this. The tricky bit is getting diesels into the formula. Anything else is a piece of piss.

[RoutariEnjinu]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
It would be no effort at all to tinker with the rules to change this. The tricky bit is getting diesels into the formula. Anything else is a piece of piss.

Yes, and due to green politics, the favour will fall on the side of TDi. They'd have to up the minimum weight by a LOOOONG way, as you'd NEVER get a TDi running over 5500rpm effectively. So all it has is capacity and boost pressure to play with. With larger capacity comes weight. The petrol counterparts then would need to carry a mass of extra weight serving no purpose other than to give the diesels an advantage.

The race winner will then be the guy in a humming dull engine that one/none-stops his way to a smooth victory every race on a harder tyre, exempt from running a softer one, and not the peer in a petrol N/A artificially overweight car driving for his life.

LMP1 Forced Induction:
Diesel: 5500cc @ 2.75bar boost + 50% larger restrictor advantage
Petrol: 4000cc @ 1.5bar boost

http://www.motorspor...-technology.htm

“Because the power is at relatively low speed, there is higher torque than we have but engine torque doesn’t really matter: the only thing that counts is tractive effort. It doesn’t matter what speed the engine is running at and what torque figure it is giving, that will all wash out through the gear ratios: what counts is the tractive effort at the rear wheels and that is a product of the horsepower the engine is making.

“One thing I think that is wrong with the regulations is that I don’t think the petrol engined cars should have to run the same car minimum weight as the diesels. The diesel is permitted to exploit certain engine advantages – they have got more power than we have – but they would have a very hard job to get their car below 925 kg We could run less and to my mind the petrol engined cars are having to run the minimum weight that the diesels need.

[...]

"I think that 880 kg for the petrol LMP1 cars would be fairer for Le Mans and the ALMS.

So there you go. The weight saved in carrying less fuel is bogus. Unless they arbitrarily upped the minumum weight of F1 to penalise petrol and help diesel, as they have done for Le Mans.

Diesel would RUIN Formula 1. It's a long sprint race punctuated by pit-stops, not an endurance race. I don't WANT the tortoise to beat the hare. I want to see a pack of lightweight responsive rabid hares barking past on the brink.

There's a reason people are screaming heresey at the very idea of it in F1. I love the Diesels in Le Mans, but Le Mans is a different kind of race. F1 doesn't NEED them, it would be better avoiding them. KERS, and later maybe any kind of energy recovery is far better initiative.

I turn my nose up at the idea for good reason I think. Bollocks to Diesels. And my sympathy for Rotaries, which are suited as racing engines.

[Kooper]

Originally posted by Clatter


I was wondering a while ago about what MPG an F1 car would get if driven conservatively.

ask Piquet, Jr ;)

[Scotracer]

It's about 4.5mpg these days.

[RoutariEnjinu]

Originally posted by Scotracer
It's about 4.5mpg these days.

It's excellent really. A Mitsubishi FQ-400 does that driven in anger, and doesn't even begin to be anywhere near as fast (obviously and understandably)

[Tenmantaylor]

Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu

I turn my nose up at the idea for good reason I think. Bollocks to Diesels. And my sympathy for Rotaries, which are suited as racing engines.

Verging on technical forum territory now.

Do you not think its a tad hyprocritical to whinge that rotaries should be allowed and that diesels shouldnt? Anything to do with your road car choice?;)

I say may the best engine win. As always though opening up the entries makes making the competition more difficult to keep close, as we've seen this year already.

[MWM]

Originally posted by Kooper


ask Piquet, Jr ;)

lol

[leomax]

Since its been brought up,what are the typical consumption figures of a petrol and diesel lmp's?

[RoutariEnjinu]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor


Verging on technical forum territory now.

Do you not think its a tad hyprocritical to whinge that rotaries should be allowed and that diesels shouldnt? Anything to do with your road car choice?;)

Damn right. I'm unashamedly a rotary fan, but I can't see the hypocrisy?

For a Turbo Diesel to be competitive in F1, you'd have to artificially adjust the rules to slow down the current petrol engined powered cars. Because Diesel engines cannot rev high, as they are limited by the speed at which the fuel burns, the engine would have to be vastly bigger and heavier, as described in the Le Mans article I linked to. Bear in mind, that Le Mans article was versus cars with an acheiveable minimum weight of 880KG, and a Petrol engine that only revs to 7500 or so.
The Petrol cars were forced to carry a minimum weight, far heavier than they needed, just to accomodate the Diesels, which are running next to no ballast. This is wasted petrol, and sapped power from an engine that already has 50% tighter restrictor than Diesel.

So what do you think it would do to a Formula with a 600KG minimum weight, with Petrol engines that rev to 18,000rpm?

A rotary engine however, could be cheaply and reliably made to the same weight as a modern 2.4L V8, and easily rev just as high.

It would be a simple choice between fuel-consumption and more low down torque (conventional) vs smaller packaged and cheaper (rotary).
The theoretical £30m capped teams could benefit from it. A rotary engine built to the same minimum weight as a modern V8 would be of a size that means it could produce a similar power, without being overly stressed. They're also cheap and very quick to rebuild to keep costs down. As the £30m capped teams wouldn't have engine freeze, they could also develop new seals, and who knows what other innovations and mature the engine, like the V8 has since the days of push-rods and side-valves.

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor

I say may the best engine win.

I agree. But rotary and the current V8's could run together without one being compromised, as they can both make power through high-revs where the Diesel cannot. Thus they are light, and the minimum weight can stay the same. There are pros and cons to either technology, and the fierce competition would advance the rotary cycle that has remained largely stagnant.

[ForeverF1]

I would love to see rotary engines in F1.

Talk of rotary engines made me cast my mind back to the Norton F1 which was quite dominant in it's day, if only Spondon could have made a frame that could hold it.

[German Tony]

Originally posted by leomax
Since its been brought up,what are the typical consumption figures of a petrol and diesel lmp's?

I have a 1.8 litre turbo diesel. That does about 50 mpg. My 2.0 litre petrol turbo achieves half of that but as it's way over twice as fast I'll forgive it.

That's not the right way to see it though. You need to compare engines of similar performance. So you only need a 1.3 or 1.4 litre turbo petrol* to give the same performance as a 2.0 litre turbo diesel & guess what? The fuel consumption is close to being identical.

This is 'cos petrol has more energy per litre than diesel, in the same way that aero fuel has more than petrol has ('cos weight/energy is really important in planes).

Turbo diesel only works at Le Mans 'cos the regs let it work - regs written for Peugeot to beat Audi with, used by Audi to beat Peugeot with & changed just this week to give the petrol runners a fair go.

[SevenTwoSeven]

I once got through £60 of Shell optimax (now V-power) in my Mitsubishi Evo on a saturday. Thats two tankfulls. But i never actualy went anywhere outside of the town where i live. Pointless, but boy it was fun.

I shudder to think what the mpg was...

[German Tony]

Originally posted by SevenTwoSeven
I once got through £60 of Shell optimax (now V-power) in my Mitsubishi Evo on a saturday. Thats two tankfulls. But i never actualy went anywhere outside of the town where i live. Pointless, but boy it was fun.

I shudder to think what the mpg was...

Would you say that you were slower than the 2.0 litre turbo diesel next to you at the lights or not?

[SevenTwoSeven]

Originally posted by German Tony


Would you say that you were slower than the 2.0 litre turbo diesel next to you at the lights or not?

The 2.0 TD id say no, but some of those BMW/Audi/Volkswagen TD's have serious torque. Only the vehicles weight on some of there larger models id say is a hindrance to some rather impressive figures performance wise, but granted they would outdo me on mpg.

[sreevishnu]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Funny how no one dare even speculate how much more efficient it would be! Just think of the torque Would be at least double the 3L V10s were. There'd be loads more overtaking! And combined with KERs F1 will save the planet.

Nope....it will destroy the planet faster than Petrol cars!
Diesel cars emits more green house gases than Petrol cars!

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by German Tony


This is 'cos petrol has more energy per litre than diesel, in the same way that aero fuel has more than petrol has ('cos weight/energy is really important in planes).

I think diesel has more energy per litre than petrol.

Petrol gets more out of a litre capacity engine by higher revs which means more combustion and hence more power. But I don't think that petrol gets more energy per litre of fuel.

[German Tony]

Energy is perhaps the wrong word - it's about how the engines get the energy out of the fuel that counts.

The answer to petrol's low rpm efficiency seems to be to supercharge it & then add a turbo on top in the way VW currently does with some of it's smaller engines.