42 replies to this topic

[murpia]

Hi,

This years cars have roughly 90kg (130litre) fuel cells. Next year refuelling is banned and the expectation is to double that fuel cell size.

How does that compare to fuel tank sizes from previous non-refuelling eras? Will the 2010 cars have the biggest fuel cells ever?

Thanks, Ian

[Victor_RO]

220 liters in 1984, I think. But the early turbo cars (1977-1981) probably had larger tanks, as there was no tank size limit, but also because nobody thought of reintroducing refuelling.

Until Brabham reintroduced it in mid-1982.

[Tony Matthews]

220 liters in 1984, I think. But the early turbo cars (1977-1981) probably had larger tanks, as there was no tank size limit, but also because nobody thought of reintroducing refuelling.

Until Brabham reintroduced it in mid-1982.

I have some figures somewhere, but 'out of reach', but I assume the current tanks will take a car over half way, so they shouldn't need to be doubled. 130 litres/220 litres doesn't sound too far from reality to me.

[cheapracer]

One would have to think the supercharged 600hp '37 Benz and Auto Unions running on alcohol at Avus for example would have had to have enormous tanks.

[Tony Matthews]

One would have to think the supercharged 600hp '37 Benz and Auto Unions running on alcohol at Avus for example would have had to have enormous tanks.

Ah, yes. I wasn't thinking that far back! I wonder what the largest tanks ever run where.

[cheapracer]

Ah, yes. I wasn't thinking that far back! I wonder what the largest tanks ever run where.

Edited by cheapracer, 24 May 2009 - 04:57.

[Tony Matthews]

http://en.wikipedia....Metro-maus1.jpg

Is that the best you can do? Pathetic...You wait 'til PHII sees this...

Edited by Tony Matthews, 22 May 2009 - 15:45.

[phantom II]

Rich

http://www.forbes.co...news_newsletter

name=]']]

[zac510]

It's hard to imagine a current car with a 200+ fuel tank. It'd change the shape a bit surely.
I suppose i better hurry up and start imaging it, considering that the rule is coming in next year!

[murpia]

So, the 1993 cars were non-refuelling and had 220litre tanks (roughly).

But, they were flat bottom, so I expect their fuel tanks were wider than the current 50cm reference plane width that all the current chassis fit within.

I think we'll see some long cars next year... I doubt the aerodynamicists will want to make the chassis higher or wider, to avoid aero impact on the rear wing or in the sidepods.

Regards, Ian

[cheapracer]

It's hard to imagine a current car with a 200+ fuel tank. It'd change the shape a bit surely.
I suppose i better hurry up and start imaging it, considering that the rule is coming in next year!

As with an aeroplane they can carry the fuel in the front wing, it's big enough!

[dolomite]

IIRC the max fuel tank size of the turbo cars was reduced from 220 to 195 litres in 1986/87 and then 150 litres in 1988.

[gruntguru]

One would have to think the supercharged 600hp '37 Benz and Auto Unions running on alcohol at Avus for example would have had to have enormous tanks.

Add the fact that various brews of alcohol and nitrobenzene were being used, the fuel consumption would have been horrific.

[cheapracer]

When F1 was running 200+ litres I just couldn't imagine how they got the equivelent of a 44 gallon drum in there!

[Victor_RO]

So, the 1993 cars were non-refuelling and had 220litre tanks (roughly).

From what I could gather, only the thirstiest engines (e.g. Ferrari's '93-spec V12) had to have 210-220 l tanks. The V10s and Ford V8s were in the ballpark of around 170-180 liters for a race distance. And designers never accounted for a fuel tank larger than what is absolutely necessary for the engine's fuel consumption requirements.

[gordmac]

Could they have several fuel tanks and use the fuel for active or passive ballast by pumping it about or using it to vary the weight distribution to say help the tyres at one end?

[DOF_power]

One would have to think the supercharged 600hp '37 Benz and Auto Unions running on alcohol at Avus for example would have had to have enormous tanks.

Actually the 1938-39 cars from MB had the biggest tanks and fuel loads.

The new engine proved to be extremely heavy on both fuel and oil. A hatch for adding oil during the pitstop had to be added and as fuel was used to cool the high reving engine the fuel consumption went up to 1.2 - 1.5 litre/km (1.6 - 2.0 mpg). That meant that special consideration had to be made about the tank location. A 142 litre saddle tank over the driver's legs plus a 242 litre rear tank gave a total of 340 litres which was enough to make a GP with one stop. The saddle tank was first filled with the overflow going to the rear tank. Chassis 1 and 14 were later rebuilt with a new tank combination with a 227 litre saddle tank and a 170 litre rear tank and raced by Caracciola in the Coppa Ciano.
...

.
.
Incorrectly known as the W163 in most motor books, the 1939 cars featured a new body on the old chassis. The saddle tank now had a volume of 185 litres and the rear tank 235 litres giving a total of 420 litres!

http://www.kolumbus....snellman/c9.htm

[ralt12]

When F1 was running 200+ litres I just couldn't imagine how they got the equivelent of a 44 gallon drum in there!

From what I could gather, only the thirstiest engines (e.g. Ferrari's '93-spec V12) had to have 210-220 l tanks. The V10s and Ford V8s were in the ballpark of around 170-180 liters for a race distance. And designers never accounted for a fuel tank larger than what is absolutely necessary for the engine's fuel consumption requirements.


1988 Tyrrell 017 (V8) ran a 215 (47+ gallon) tank, '89's ran 200's...

[Bill Sherwood]

Just wonder how the KERS-equipped car will go with the larger fuel tanks, because AFAIK at the moment the existing KERS gadgetry takes up space that the fuel tank otherwise would. Will they end up being rather fat in the middle ... ?

Edited by desmo, 12 June 2009 - 01:15.

[Wuzak]

Could they have several fuel tanks and use the fuel for active or passive ballast by pumping it about or using it to vary the weight distribution to say help the tyres at one end?

I don't believe that would be allowed or deemed legal.

[gruntguru]

I don't believe that would be allowed or deemed legal.

If more than one tank was permitted, the order in which the tanks were emptied would be a useful tool.

[mariner]

It is not F1 but I would think the 1970's Can Am cars had dome of the biggest tanks ever. I beleive they were reported as carrying up to 70 gallons. Even if that were US gallons it would be 270 litres and it could be over 300 litres if it was imperial gallons. The consumption was down the 3 mpg I think.

[Bill Sherwood]

If more than one tank was permitted, the order in which the tanks were emptied would be a useful tool.

I have occasionally wondered if the engine could stand a high fuel temperature, if it would be worthwhile doing something along the lines of what the SR-71 spyplane used to do.
The SR-71 had a number of fuel tanks, and what they did with the fuel system was to suck fuel from the hottest fuel tank to feed the engines (They'd also shuffle fuel around to keep the CoG exactly where it was needed for stability & control purposes) with the reason being the mass of the fuel would help keep the airframe cool.
So the whole thing worked so that the heat from the airframe would dsiappear out the tailpipe of the big J58 engines. This was one of the limiting factors with the maximum speed of the aeroplane; if the fuel temperature into the fuel pump exceeded a certain temperature, they had to slow down. There were other restrictions as well, but that was the odd one I thought was clever.
So.
As mentioned I have occasionally wondered if you could stand a higher fuel temperature into the engine, because you used the fuel to cool (say) the heads and have that heat be rejected out the exhaust pipes. The heat from the rest of the engine would go through a regular radiator but it could be quite a bit smaller of course, with all the advantages that entails.
But AFAIK hot fuel is not a good thing.

Edited by desmo, 12 June 2009 - 01:15.

[cheapracer]

It is not F1 but I would think the 1970's Can Am cars had dome of the biggest tanks ever. I beleive they were reported as carrying up to 70 gallons. Even if that were US gallons it would be 270 litres and it could be over 300 litres if it was imperial gallons. The consumption was down the 3 mpg I think.

The 30's Benz wins I think but your right and the 1200hp Turbo 8 litre Shadow must have sucked some.

[J. Edlund]

I have occasionally wondered if the engine could stand a high fuel temperature, if it would be worthwhile doing something along the lines of what the SR-71 spyplane used to do.
The SR-71 had a number of fuel tanks, and what they did with the fuel system was to suck fuel from the hottest fuel tank to feed the engines (They'd also shuffle fuel around to keep the CoG exactly where it was needed for stability & control purposes) with the reason being the mass of the fuel would help keep the airframe cool.
So the whole thing worked so that the heat from the airframe would dsiappear out the tailpipe of the big J58 engines. This was one of the limiting factors with the maximum speed of the aeroplane; if the fuel temperature into the fuel pump exceeded a certain temperature, they had to slow down. There were other restrictions as well, but that was the odd one I thought was clever.
So.
As mentioned I have occasionally wondered if you could stand a higher fuel temperature into the engine, because you used the fuel to cool (say) the heads and have that heat be rejected out the exhaust pipes. The heat from the rest of the engine would go through a regular radiator but it could be quite a bit smaller of course, with all the advantages that entails.
But AFAIK hot fuel is not a good thing.

What mainly limited the top speed of the SR-71 was the air temperature at the compressor inlet, if I remember correctly the maximum temperature was 410 degrees Fahrenheit. The SR-71 flight manual can be found on the internet these days (well, most of it), so it's not that hard to check up anyway.

With gas turbine engines it's not that uncommon to use fuel as coolant (mainly for oil cooling), but these engines generally have a quite high fuel flow rate for the amount of heat than needs to removed unlike piston engines. An increase in fuel temperature also have little effect on engine operation as long as the fuel doesn't vaporise in the fuel lines. The fuel used by the SR-71 had a high boiling point because of that reason. The fuel was also used as hydraulic fluid, which meant it required additives specifically for that use.

At take off the SR-71 always had a low fuel load. After take off it did a 'sprint' to heat up the airframe which was neccesary to seal the leaking fuel tanks. After the sprint it was refueled in the air for it's mission.

Liquid fueled rocket engines also tend to use fuel as a coolant and some even use it as a lubricant for the turbopumps.

[Aubwi]

A very rough guesstimate...

1993 Ferrari: 3.5L engine, ~15000 RPM, 220L fuel cell
2010 F1 car: 2.4L engine, 18000 RPM

220L x 2.4L / 3.5L x 18000RPM / 15000RPM = 181L tank

Edited by Aubwi, 27 May 2009 - 04:12.

[Bill Sherwood]

What mainly limited the top speed of the SR-71 was the air temperature at the compressor inlet, if I remember correctly the maximum temperature was 410 degrees Fahrenheit. The SR-71 flight manual can be found on the internet these days (well, most of it), so it's not that hard to check up anyway.

Yes I have a paper copy sitting a few metres away from me right now. I can check the inlet air temp restriction if you like, and any others.

[gordmac]

According to a book I am looking at Alfa Romeo 159 had 66gal (300l) capacity and still had to refuel in races, 1.6mpg apparently!

[Racer D]

didnt the F1 BAR team once get done for having a extra fuel tank that was collapsible maybe that will come back in to play??

[Wuzak]

didnt the F1 BAR team once get done for having a extra fuel tank that was collapsible maybe that will come back in to play??

Not a separate tank as such, but the collection area within the tank for the fuel pump. This contained a minimum amount of fuel at all times during the race (so BAR said), but fell foul of the rules because the cars were underweight when drained of all fuel.

[phantom II]

Didn't Honda use an extra fuel tank that remained empty during the race in order for the car to be underweight, and fill it up at the last pit stop in case it got weighed in park ferme?

[cheapracer]

Not a separate tank as such, but the collection area within the tank for the fuel pump. This contained a minimum amount of fuel at all times during the race (so BAR said), but fell foul of the rules because the cars were underweight when drained of all fuel.

It was Honda themselves who said their engine required 6 litres always just to run - never could quite work out why and they didn't say.

[murpia]

It was Honda themselves who said their engine required 6 litres always just to run - never could quite work out why and they didn't say.

In one race (I forget when / where) Jaguar claimed a fuel pickup problem that required them to leave 20litres in the tank. They just ran overweight by that 20litres of fuel and took the performance hit... Because they KNEW that fuel is not equivalent to ballast, in the eyes of the scrutineers.

Regards, Ian

[gshevlin]

I recall that the 1983 Lotus F1 chassis (a not very nice-handling dog) had a fuel tank capacity of 250 litres...remember that until the end of 983 there was no limit on tank size. The fuel tank capacity limits were first introduced in 1984 at 220 litres.

[Henri Greuter]

Ah, yes. I wasn't thinking that far back! I wonder what the largest tanks ever run where.

NO F1 car acoording the rules but a GP car nonetheless.

When Indy countend for the world title, that made the Front Wheel Drive Novi's eligible as point scoring cars.
For those who don't know, the Novi had a 3 liter supercharged V8, it ran on a blend based on methanol.

The FWD Novi that raced in the championship counting Indy's of 1950 till 1953 had a 112 gallon or 435 liter fuel tank.
The car needed to be refueled once during the race to make the distnace.
That is the biggest tank volume for a WCC eligible car I can come up with


gordmac Posted May 29 2009, 11:47
According to a book I am looking at Alfa Romeo 159 had 66gal (300l) capacity and still had to refuel in races, 1.6mpg apparently!

Don't forget that the Alfa raced in a time when GP's ere 500km instead of 300-and-a-bit.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 July 2009 - 11:04.

[Tenmantaylor]

Quick Q: Saw 90kg of F1 fuel by OP is 130L. Is 1kg = 1.44L an accurate conversion rate or does temperature affect the conversion alot?

Racing sim I use measures fuel in L, trying to work out real F1 fuel loads and consumption in comparison.

[GeorgeTheCar]

I look at the 2010 fuel tank issue quite differently.

The fuel tank size will be determined by the fuel consumption of the engine, so I think the championship will be won by the team that has the most fuel efficient engine which will require a lighter fuel load means that for any given lap of the race, they will have a faster car.

Additionally in the inverse of the turbo days when they added all manner of stuff to the fuel and the density went way up, 2010 will reward the fuel supplier than can have the lightest fuel which gives the best fuel mileage. Who will be supplying fuel?

Unfortunately, none of this will be visible to the fans.

[Tony Matthews]

The fuel tank size will be determined by the fuel consumption of the engine, so I think the championship will be won by the team that has the most fuel efficient engine which will require a lighter fuel load means that for any given lap of the race, they will have a faster car.

Additionally in the inverse of the turbo days when they added all manner of stuff to the fuel and the density went way up, 2010 will reward the fuel supplier than can have the lightest fuel which gives the best fuel mileage. Who will be supplying fuel?

I can't see the fuel consumption varying very much, or the fuel varying much in weight, not enough to have a serious effect on tank size - but we shall see!

[desmo]

Surely in F1 where millions are spent chasing weight savings amounting to grams, every possible avenue to decreased fuel consumption has already been well explored. What's the point of a $50,000 carbon fiber steering wheel if you are burning an unnecessary couple of liters of fuel over the course of a race?

[GeorgeTheCar]

The F1 teams are so focussed on weight that they don't talk in terms of adding litres in a fuel stop but kilos of fuel!

Edited by GeorgeTheCar, 23 August 2009 - 20:52.

[gruntguru]

I look at the 2010 fuel tank issue quite differently.

The fuel tank size will be determined by the fuel consumption of the engine, so I think the championship will be won by the team that has the most fuel efficient engine which will require a lighter fuel load means that for any given lap of the race, they will have a faster car.

Additionally in the inverse of the turbo days when they added all manner of stuff to the fuel and the density went way up, 2010 will reward the fuel supplier than can have the lightest fuel which gives the best fuel mileage. Who will be supplying fuel?

Unfortunately, none of this will be visible to the fans.

Although fuels vary in density, the heating value (energy per kg) doesn't get much above the value of gasolene (42-45 MJ/kg) so I can't see much happening in the way of lightweight fuels anytime soon.

Note. Hydrogen is the most energetic of the "hydrocarbon" fuels at 120 MJ/kg but current tank technology is very heavy.

[Tony Matthews]

The F1 teams are so focussed on weight that they don't talk in terms of adding litres in a fuel stop but kilos of fuel!

That is the standard way of refering to fuel in F1 and the aviation industry.

[Greg Locock]

That is the standard way of refering to fuel in F1 and the aviation industry.

Makes sense since the energy content is really per kg rather than per litre.