118 replies to this topic

[D-Type]

I don't get it!

The VOLUME of the fuel tank is limited. At one time they used to chill the fuel to increase its density to fit more in. Now someone is saying that a lighter (i.e. lower density) fuel gives an advantage.

The only possibility is to increase the proportion of hydrogen to carbon in the compounds used. And isn't this what the rules on fuel composition are intended to prevent?

[Greg Locock]

Whoever reported that 20% figure is a credulous fool.

A quick check of hydrocarbons reveals calorific values between 36.4 to 50 MJ/kg

Gasoline comes in at 43.5

I suppose you could argue that 50/43.5 is nearly 20%... but it isn't. It is roughly 13%.

The problem with the ones over 46 is that they are all gases.

Incidentally hydrogen is at 120, so if you found a way of dissolving hydrogen into a fuel you would some hope of achieving a 20% boost in calorific value.

You'd also have created a viable way of storing gaseous hydrogen, you wouldn't be messing about with F1 you'd be building hydrogen fuel tanks for production cars.

[J. Edlund]

The racing fuel they use in NASCAR is supposed to have a calorific value of 47 MJ/kg!

[Wuzak]

The density range thatthe fuel can be is between 720kg/m³ and 775kg/m³.

Which gives a maximum possible improvement of 7%.

The contents of F1 fuel is very well defined, so I doubt that there could be a vast improvement in calorific values.

[Greg Locock]

I've just found one possibility: Octsilane

Silanes are like hydrocarbons but they use silicon instead of carbon to build the chain. They are less stable than the equivalent hydrocarbon - which is good, since that means it takes less energy to break the molecule up before oxidising it. They are so unstable you don't need a spark to ignite them. That means you'd have to use direct injection.

I can't find a calorific value for silanes, but rather entertainingly instead of carbon dioxide they'll be emitting glass!

[desmo]

That should speed up break-in!

[squidbreath]

Some of you guys should join the technical team on our new formula 1 team. Come check it out on the "Racing Comments forum - Let's start a new Team". You guys sound like you know something and we need to project that impression (at least while we're trying to line up sponsors).

[Wuzak]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
I've just found one possibility: Octsilane

Silanes are like hydrocarbons but they use silicon instead of carbon to build the chain. They are less stable than the equivalent hydrocarbon - which is good, since that means it takes less energy to break the molecule up before oxidising it. They are so unstable you don't need a spark to ignite them. That means you'd have to use direct injection.

I can't find a calorific value for silanes, but rather entertainingly instead of carbon dioxide they'll be emitting glass!

Do they fit inside the fuel regulations?

Are they found normally in pump fuel?

Quote

19.4.1 The composition of the petrol must comply with the specifications detailed below:
Component Units Min Max Test Method
Aromatics %v/v 35* ASTM D 1319
Olefins %v/v 18* ASTM D 1319
Total di-olefins %m/m 1 GCMS
Total styrene and alkyl derivatives %m/m 1 GCMS
* Values corrected for fuel oxygen content.

In addition, the fuel must contain no substance which is capable of exothermic reaction in the
absence of external oxygen.

19.4.2 The total of individual hydrocarbon components present at concentrations of less than 5% m/m must be at least 30% m/m of the fuel.

19.4.3 The total concentration of each hydrocarbon group in the total fuel sample (defined by carbon number and hydrocarbon type), must not exceed the limits given in the table below:
% m/m C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9+ Non PONA* Unassigned
Paraffins 10 30 25 25 55 20 - -
Naphthenes - 5 10 10 10 10 - -
Olefins 5 20 20 15 10 10 - -
Aromatics - - 1.2 35 35 30 - -
Maximum 15 40 45 50 60 45 1 5

19.4.4 The only oxygenates permitted are:
Methanol (MeOH)
Ethanol (EtOH)
Iso-propyl alcohol (IPA)
Iso-butyl alcohol (IBA)
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE)
Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME)
Di-Isopropyl Ether (DIPE)
n-Propyl alcohol (NPA)
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)
n-Butyl Alcohol (NBA)
Secondary Butyl Alcohol (SBA)

19.4.5 Manganese based additives are not permitted.

http://www.fia.com/r..._Tech_Reg_a.pdf

[Greg Locock]

Sorry, my tongue was firmly in my cheek. Silanes burn or explode on contact with air, and are rather expensive, and are not hydrocarbons at all.

But I do like the idea of molten glass running out of the exhausts.

[Wuzak]

No worries!

I have just read (2nd hand) that Elf have apparently reduced the density of their fuel from last season to this.

They claim to have the fuel 4% less dense than pump fuel.

[WACKO]

Maybe it is interesting to know that Shell and Ferrari use indeed a volumentrical fuel which contains a high percentage of octane. Moreover they cool the V-Power F1ULG58 to about 5'C to benefit even more from the contraction that comes from it. Cooler fuel leads to a higher energy density and prevents vaporization.

In combination with the light weight of the fuel this gives them the decisive competitive edge, as strategy windows are broadened.

We included a story in our latest issue. Although only in Dutch!
www.f1-planet.com/specials/main.htm

[kos]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
Moreover they cool the V-Power F1ULG58 to about 5'C

This can't be true, because if it is, they'll be in breach of the Technical Regulations:

Quote

6.5.5 No fuel on board the car may be more than ten degrees centigrade below ambient temperature.

[WACKO]

Quote

Originally posted by kos


This can't be true, because if it is, they'll be in breach of the Technical Regulations:

May be true, they may vary it a bit. In Silverstone it was 17'C ambient, which allows them to cool it to 7'C.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by HJK
Is this possible? How might it be done?

1. Well, no.

2. It can't be done, it's total bullshit.

Apparently there is some kind of contest on in the F1 paddock to see who can leak the most absurd tale to technically gullible members of the media. I give this one high marks. Well done, men. High fives all 'round.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Chevron developed an additive that only increased the volume. Very naughty boys.

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


1. Well, no.

2. It can't be done, it's total bullshit.

Apparently there is some kind of contest on in the F1 paddock to see who can leak the most absurd tale to technically gullible members of the media. I give this one high marks. Well done, men. High fives all 'round.

[desmo]

Quote

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
Chevron developed an additive that only increased the volume. Very naughty boys.

Now that's some lateral thinking!

[random]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


1. Well, no.

2. It can't be done, it's total bullshit.

Apparently there is some kind of contest on in the F1 paddock to see who can leak the most absurd tale to technically gullible members of the media. I give this one high marks. Well done, men. High fives all 'round.

I'd agree that the 20% figure in that article is probably BS. But I think there may be some truth in this. Two F1 fuel suppliers have been suggested to have developed and delivered this "lightweight fuel". Don't discount the chemical concoctions the geeks at the big oil company labs are capable of engineering. Back in the turbo days, the cars all smelled like chemical factories.

I'm thinking the chemistry geeks just cooked up a regular pump-fuel or additive with one hell of a power to weight ratio. Just a little of that stuff added to some lower mass filler petroleum and one would essentially have a "lighter fuel". Having the same power to volume ratio as the previous mix, although a much better power to mass ratio.

Creating a fuel like that would be simplicity itself for any of the F1 petrolium suppliers, keeping that fuel within those FIA regulations would be the tricky bit.

[jondoe955]

Sorry, my tongue was firmly in my cheek....

Sounds like the story (spread by an official looking web site) that developed in the States about the Environmental Protection Agency finding large amounts of dihydrate monoxide around the country and it was DANGEROUS TO BREATHE! Various states and counties rose to the occasion and looked into new laws to prevent occurance in their areas.
Eventually, someone realized dm was H2O - and tho it indead is dangerous to breathe, it helped trim the gene pool of those that would try.
This actually made the national news a month or so ago.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
Maybe it is interesting to know that Shell and Ferrari use indeed a volumentrical fuel which contains a high percentage of octane.

Really?

Care to explain this statement in further detail?

[WACKO]

I've studied several sources on the F1 fuel as well as V-Power for road cars. In principal both fuels have many similarities. The V-Power is known to inhabit a higher amount of octane in order to have a more efficient combustion.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
I've studied several sources on the F1 fuel as well as V-Power for road cars. In principal both fuels have many similarities. The V-Power is known to inhabit a higher amount of octane in order to have a more efficient combustion.

Perhaps it may be more accurate to state "V-power has a higher octane rating" or something like that....

(ref: octane rating thread )

[McGuire]

A fuel's octane rating does not refer to its "combustion efficiency" or even to its rate of burn, but only to its resistance to knock.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
Maybe it is interesting to know that Shell and Ferrari use indeed a volumentrical fuel which contains a high percentage of octane.

The F1 regulations limit the fuel's octane to 102 RON. Is it your claim that Shell and Ferrari are cheating?

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by random

I'd agree that the 20% figure in that article is probably BS. But I think there may be some truth in this. Two F1 fuel suppliers have been suggested to have developed and delivered this "lightweight fuel". Don't discount the chemical concoctions the geeks at the big oil company labs are capable of engineering. Back in the turbo days, the cars all smelled like chemical factories.

I'm thinking the chemistry geeks just cooked up a regular pump-fuel or additive with one hell of a power to weight ratio. Just a little of that stuff added to some lower mass filler petroleum and one would essentially have a "lighter fuel". Having the same power to volume ratio as the previous mix, although a much better power to mass ratio.

Creating a fuel like that would be simplicity itself for any of the F1 petrolium suppliers, keeping that fuel within those FIA regulations would be the tricky bit.

It ain't rocket science or deep hoodoo. The double-secret magical mystery fuel in the F1 turbo era was toluene, which has been around for more than 50 years. Meanwhile, Article 19 of the 2004 F1 technical regulations spells out in exquisite and excruciating detail what is permitted in the current fuel, and what is not as well. If folks in the media would take the trouble to read it, these silly stories would never get off the ground.

[WACKO]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


The F1 regulations limit the fuel's octane to 102 RON. Is it your claim that Shell and Ferrari are cheating?

No definitely not. If it were illegal, they would never have passed the sample testing.
They will be on that limit, where others are not.

[kos]

WACKO, could you please explain why Shell's fuel has exactly 102 RON and why it is good?

all these articles about super-duper-light-high-octane-fuel along with the stories about a helmet that is good for extra 10 horsepower only show how little the media understands what it is writing about

[WACKO]

Although I understand your reservations, all the signs are there. Shell as well as Ross Brawn have hinted in this direction. The Shell website confirms the fuel has a high octane rating. If you look at the races, Ferrari always won considerably via pitstops and have always been able to stay out longer than others without losing performance. The advantages of high octane speak for themselves; it performs better under higher pressures, it limits vaporization, improves engine performance and it is cleaner for the engine as well.

[kos]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
The advantages of high octane speak for themselves;

I think that this statement speaks for itself.

If you would take trouble to do a search on this forum for the word "octane" you would discover that the advantages/disadvantages of the fuels with high octane ratings aren't as obvious as you say.

[desmo]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
The advantages of high octane speak for themselves; it performs better under higher pressures, it limits vaporization, improves engine performance and it is cleaner for the engine as well.

Do you have any citations for these assertions, particularly as they might apply to an F1 application? I don't know much about fuels and I'd like to learn more.

[LS 1]

Quote

Originally posted by VAR1016



There was another thread explaining why there is a minimum octane value for F1; this is because the engines run so fast, that a quicker-burning fuel is very useful.

PdeRL

Actually, that was my thread (under a different name) and while the above concept was posited, it was eventually shot down because octane level does not measure the speed at which fuel burns. Desmo correctly observed then, as now, that octane level has little effect on power output because engine speed is so high that preignition is not a concern. Ultimately, we were unable to determine why the regs specify a minimum octane, except perhaps for the political purpose of ensuring the cars run something approximating "pump" gas octane levels.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
The advantages of high octane speak for themselves; it performs better under higher pressures, it limits vaporization, improves engine performance and it is cleaner for the engine as well.

Octane rating refers only to a fuel's resistance to knock, nothing else.

[Greg Locock]

High octane fuels tend to have longer hydrocarbons in them. These are more complex, and the atoms interfere with each other before they can react, so they have to be heated to a higher temperature before they dissociate. So, they burn more slowly.

These long chains contain more carbon, weight for weight, and less hydrogen, than shorter chains.
Carbon+Oxygen gives much less power per weight of carbon than hydrogen+oxygen does per weight of hydrgen. Therefore, weight for weight high octane fuels have lower calorific values (ie energy of burning) than short chain fuels. The ideal fuel for an engine is hydrogen, weight for weight, that's why rockets use it in their upper stages.

It is difficult to draw any conclusions based on density, it varies quite a lot for the different chain lengths isomers and so on.

Adding oxygen and so on to a fuel is generally bad as effectively you are carrying around partially burnt fuel. This why ethanol is a con.

[McGuire]

Folks apparently have been flummoxed by the V-Power marketing twaddle. This fuel is pitched as both high-octane and high-detergent, and the claims have become confused. (Probably on purpose. This fuel also claims to be more "powerful," whatever that means.)

Octane refers only to a fuel's resistance to knock, nothing else. By itself, increasing a fuel's octane rating does not improve its caloric value, vaporization properties, detergent index or anything else. In fact, all things being equal they may well be reduced with increased octane.

This is especially true with current retail pump gasolines. Since tetraethyl lead was phased out, most of the additives since used to raise octane tend to cause problems of their own. Olefins are what leave those nasty waxy deposits on the fuel injector orifices, ruining the spray pattern. Aromatics and ethers are often at the root of vapor lock and hot soak starting problems. (If you fill your car's tank with high-octane fuel blended for in Minnesota in January, the car may barely start in Miami. The cold-weather blend's Reid vapor pressure is too high for tropical conditions and the fuel boils in the lines.)

In general, the F1 engine builders can exploit all they octane they can get. However, this is NOT true for you and your road car. If an engine does not knock on 87 RON fuel, there is no reason to assume that using a fuel of 92 or even 102 octane will improve its performance, emissions, or economy one iota. The consumer is only wasting money, and may even be inviting unnecessary driveability problems. Not to mention unduly jeopardizing the environment: virtually every octane additive now in use has an environmental issue of some kind. (At least we're not using lead anymore. God, what were we thinking?)

Using a higher-than-required octane can easily hurt performance. In many parts of the world the higher octane in premium fuel is achieved by blending the gasoline with ethyl or methyl alcohol up to 10%. (In the USA we call it Gasohol -- thanks Bob. That would be Bob Dole, the Senator from Archer-Daniels-Midland). Alcohol has a higher resistance to knock than gasoline. But it also has lower caloric value, reducing the engine's output and fuel economy if its tune is calibrated for straight gasoline.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by WACKO
They will be on that limit, where others are not.

If you seriously think that Elf or Petronas are supplying fuels that are well below the limit....then I have a bridge in New York City to sell to you.

All teams are on the limit of all the rules. Some just do a better job of it.

And to intimate that Ferrari is "winning in the pits" because of this miracle fuel is utter BS. Ferrari are winning because they have a better car/driver/management package than the other teams, pure and simple.

[perseus3]

Can you say that they aren't either? I agree with you 100% that Ferrari are just doing a better job than everyone else, but you cant say with certainty that perhaps they dont have a slightly lighter or more powerful fuel. They are winning because they are the best right now, maybe their fuel is part of that.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3
Can you say that they aren't either?

With 100% certainty? No.

But....there is a limit to fuel chemistry, which is (supposedly) checked by FIA technical reps. Assuming there isn't any "funny business" (bribery, chicanery, etc) and the scrutineering is effective, I can't imagine there is something special about the fuel.

Quote

...but you cant say with certainty that perhaps they dont have a slightly lighter or more powerful fuel. They are winning because they are the best right now, maybe their fuel is part of that.

No, I can't. But then they're cheating and are allowed to get away with it. Which, I suppose, is possible.

However.....isn't it in the best interest of the FIA to let Ferrari lose? People are in arms about Ferrari's dominance....and the rules have been changed to try to limit the damage caused by Ferrari.....

You have a point. But I think the idea of "light fuel" just isn't supported by what is available in fuels, technology, experience, etc.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3
Can you say that they aren't either? I agree with you 100% that Ferrari are just doing a better job than everyone else, but you cant say with certainty that perhaps they dont have a slightly lighter or more powerful fuel. They are winning because they are the best right now, maybe their fuel is part of that.

Maybe this, maybe that. Maybe Schumacher has a hollow titanium leg in which he conceals two liters of fuel. Can you say he doesn't? Let me guess...social sciences major?

If you believe Ferrari has some advantage in fuel formulation, I will take the intuitive leap and assume you probably have some reason to think so. Please share with us what that might be, no matter how unfounded the speculation, and then we will have something to talk about. This is a technical forum; we discuss technical subjects. Take gasoline for example. The title of this thread is "Shell Superlight F1 fuel?" not "knowledge is ultimately unknowable."

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire
Maybe Schumacher has a hollow titanium leg in which he conceals two liters of fuel. Can you say he doesn't?

Ah, the true secret of Schumi's success.....excellent.

[random]

Don't discount the possibility of molecular engineering to create a product technically within the bounds of the rules, but having differing properties.

If, as in most of Formula One, no cost is too high, then molecular engineering is well witching the capabilities of the top oil companies. So I wouldn't entirely discount these stories of lightened fuel...

As for Schumi's hollow titanium leg, that's just barmy. Everyone knows he had it replaced after his Silverstone accident with a hollow carbon fiber model.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by random
Don't discount the possibility of molecular engineering to create a product technically within the bounds of the rules, but having differing properties.

I don't discount it, however, I don't see any evidence pointing to this as fact.

OTOH, I'm hearing a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors about how their "special fuel" is helping them win. And exactly what kind of "molecular engineering" is going to yield a fuel with the same thermal properties as pump fuel, the same denisty, etc etc etc yet somehow is "lighter"?

I suppose there is the off chance that this is happening, but from a technical standpoint, I just can't see it.

[perseus3]

Quote

Let me guess...social sciences major?

No, Junior in mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech. And i don't think that was necessary. What I was getting at was that there is often a vehement response to people accusing Ferrari of, not even cheating, but going to the limits of the rules (which is what everyone should be doing, im not slagging ferrari). It annoys me that there are two entrenched camps: ferrari haters and ferrari lovers. Im not saying that about the technical forum because it seems that this is not as bad here. I just get irritated that people will bring up some mentioned points about having a lighter or more powerful fuel, and immediately people will start saying some ridiculous things that people are calling ferrari cheaters.

And no, i dont have any facts that they are using a lighter fuel. Nor do you have any facts that they aren't. Maybe if more people on this forum thought like a "social sciences" major it wouldn't be all that bad.

-Dan

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3

No, Junior in mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech.

You don't say. So it's too late to ask for your money back now, I suppose. :








...JUST KIDDING.

Actually we CAN state with near-metaphysical certainty that Ferrari and Shell have NOT developed a fuel which carries the same or more caloric value with less weight, at least to any meaningful degree. In fact we already did that, via the board's usual free-wheeling socratic dialogue. You just weren't courteous or curious enough to read it before chiming in with what must be the most inane and tiresome mode of circular argument yet invented: "can you say they don't?" So no, my good-natured japes were not exactly uncalled for. But since I am a nice old goat and ever-solicitous toward young peoples' unquenchable thirst for knowledge etc., I will take you by the hand and walk you back through it:

Please refer to Article 19 of the 2004 F1 Technical Regulations (link kindly provided by Wuzak above). It effectively states that a liter of fuel may weigh no more than .775 kg but no less than .720 kg. So given a fuel load of 100 liters, from max to min allowable there is a potential weight savings of only 5.5 kg, by fiat...if this could even be achieved.

Meanwhile, note that all the allowable components in the fuel blend are specifically listed in the regulations, with their maximum (and often minimum as well) allowable percentages also specified. The regulations further state that the total amount of unlisted components in the fuel cannot exceed 5%.

Obviously, the rumored fuel cannot be achieved with any allowable blend of the listed components, while unlisted components are limited to 5%. That leaves us to locate a suitable substance which, when added to gasoline to 5%, maintains or increases the fuel's caloric value while also decreasing its density any significant amount. Such a material apparently does not exist in our physical world, as Greg Locock noted. Unless Shell has created a new element or changed the rules of molecular chemistry, this story is hooey.

If you think we are wrong and there is a substance which can accomplish this, would you at least be kind enough to tell us what you think it is? This is a technical forum and that is the kind of stuff we talk about.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3
I just get irritated that people will bring up some mentioned points about having a lighter or more powerful fuel, and immediately people will start saying some ridiculous things that people are calling ferrari cheaters.

Well, if they have a fuel that lies outside the technical specifications, they are indeed cheating.

FWIW, Ferrari has the best driver, the best engineering, the best management. They are also stable (having the best driver, engineers, and management since 1996). And they make all their stuff in-house, so they have the best control over their manufacturing processes.

Add a serious desire to "be better" and win, and you have the makings of a winning team. Pure and simple.

To state they are winning because of their fuel, or other hocus-pocus intimates a fundamental lack of understanding of how they have risen to their current level (and how other teams have fallen behind).

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3
Maybe if more people on this forum thought like a "social sciences" major it wouldn't be all that bad.

Utter tripe.

Our lines of questioning are based on technical facts and merits, not quesitoning for the sake of questioning.

How is "radical skepticism" going to improve things on this BB? We've had a couple of trolls wander through here (the most egregious in recent memory was Franklin) who questioned for the sake of quesitoning, and displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of anything technical. That's progress?

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3
Maybe if more people on this forum thought like a "social sciences" major it wouldn't be all that bad.

-Dan

We are not members of the social sciences. We are objects of study for the social sciences.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by dosco
How is "radical skepticism" going to improve things on this BB? We've had a couple of trolls wander through here (the most egregious in recent memory was Franklin) who questioned for the sake of quesitoning, and displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of anything technical. That's progress?

I miss Franklin. He knew one or two things about race cars, and he wasn't afraid to prove it. I also admired his bombastic manner, which essentially amounted to megalomania. Instead of asking "why is there air?" he would write "people who think we need air are IDIOTS." This simple, head-on approach to every issue energized the dialogue.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

There was a time in F1when the alchemists were able concoct some pretty volatile fuels. The FIA came along and imposed limitations. The fuel that F1 cars have now since 2000 is the same as the average citizen will be able to purchase at any European Union gas station in 2005. These decisions were stipulated by not the FIA but the European Parliament. All race cars and F1 in Europe will use this fuel. Each fuel supplier to a F1 must be highly creative to achieve a diffirentiated performance. A sample is taken from each car and tested by the FIA with very elaborate methods after each race.
There is a slight loophole and each manufacturer can add oxygenated products such as methanol, ethanol,isopropyl alcohol,isobutyl alcohol, MTBE, ETBE,TAME, di-isopropyl ether, n-propyl alcohol, tr-butyl alcohol, n-butyl alcohol and sec-butyl alcohol.
The loopholes are there to allow manufacturers to improve pump gas.
These compounds must not interfere with the test methods and no literature is available for these closely guarded secrets including the rocket 'Fuels of the 70's used in F1.
.. No other team or even the team itself has access to this information in most cases.
Extensive tests are made in partnership with the engine manufactures.
Once their fuel composition is determined the final mixture is prepared with the necessary additives. After analysis to check physic-chemical properties by M-scan and a chromatography to asses the fuel, final composition is made and a fuel sample is sent to the FIA's laboritory in England for homologation. This is where Mosley accepts bribes from Ferrari.
There are 64 allowable compounds with some pretty fancy names that have maximum and minimum percentages content. For instance there is a minimum percentage of Nitrogen but no maximum. There is a maximum percentage of oxygen and no minimum for obvious reasons.
There're also limits for hydrocarbons be they saturated, aromatics,olefins or Di-olefins.
Here are some of the main requirements for F1 fuel.

Min Max Test Method
Octane 95 102 ASTM D 2699-86&2700-86
Oxygen %m/m 2.7 elemental analysis
Nitrogen %m/m .02 ASTM D 3228
Benzine %v/v 1.1 1.1 EM 238
vapour pressure kPa 450 600 ASTM D 323
Lead g/l .005 ASTM 3237
Density @15'c kg/m(cubed) 775 ASTM D 4052
Oxygen stability minutes 360 ASTM d 525
Gum mg/100ml 5.0 5.0 EM-ISO/DIS 14596
Sulpher ppm 150 50 ISO 8754
Electric conductivity pS/m 200 ASTM D 2624
Distillation
at 70'C 20 48
at 100'C 46 71
at 140'C 75 ISO 3405

For full table and charts and fuel specifications see FIA. Unless you are a chemical engineer, don't bother.

Quote

Originally posted by perseus3

I just get irritated that people will bring up some mentioned points about having a lighter or more powerful fuel, and immediately people will start saying some ridiculous things that people are calling ferrari cheaters.

And no, i dont have any facts that they are using a lighter fuel. Nor do you have any facts that they aren't. Maybe if more people on this forum thought like a "social sciences" major it wouldn't be all that bad.

-Dan

[BRIAN GLOVER]

oops, I don't know what happened to my nice table. Let me try again.

Min Max test method
Octane 95 102 ASTM D 2699-86&2700-86
Oxygen %m/m 2.7 elemental analysis
Nitrogen %m/m .02 ASTM D 3228
Benzine %v/v 1.1 1.1 EM 238
vapour pressure kPa 450 600 ASTM D 323
Lead g/l .005 ASTM 3237
Density @15'c kg/m(cubed) 775 ASTM D 4052
Oxygen stability minutes 360 ASTM d 525
Gum mg/100ml 5.0 5.0 EM-ISO/DIS 14596
Sulpher ppm 150 50 ISO 8754
Electric conductivity pS/m 200 ASTM D 2624
Distillation
at 70'C 20 48
at 100'C 46 71
at 140'C 75 ISO 3405

For full table and charts and fuel specifications see FIA. European Fuel Directive 98/70/EC 2005. Unless you are a chemical engineer, don't bother.


[/B][/QUOTE]

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Hear hear. No one laughed at Jim Hall's fan car or Bugattis twin beams.

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


I miss Franklin. He knew one or two things about race cars, and he wasn't afraid to prove it. I also admired his bombastic manner, which essentially amounted to megalomania. Instead of asking "why is there air?" he would write "people who think we need air are IDIOTS." This simple, head-on approach to every issue energized the dialogue.

[kos]

Brian, try using "code" "/code" tags for table formatting

		Unit		Min 	Max 	test method

Octane 				95 	102 	ASTM D 2699-86&2700-86

Oxygen 		%m/m 			2.7	elemental analysis

Nitrogen 	%m/m 			.02 	ASTM D 3228

Benzine 	%v/v 			1.0 	EM 238

vapour 

pressure 	kPa 		450 	600 	ASTM D 323

Lead 		g/l 			.005 	ASTM 3237

Density @15'c 	kg/m3 		720	775	ASTM D 4052

Oxygen 

stability 	minutes 	360 		ASTM d 525

Gum 		mg/100m		l5.0 	5.0 	EM-ISO/DIS 14596

Sulpher 	ppm 		50 	150 	ISO 8754

Electric 

conductivity 	pS/m 		200 		ASTM D 2624

Distillation

	at 70'C 		20 	48

	at 100'C 		46 	71

	at 140'C 			75 	ISO 3405

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Thanks man. A couple of corrections. Nitogen .02 min. electrical conductivity 200pS/m max.
Let's see if it works this time.

Quote

Originally posted by kos
Brian, try using "code" "/code" tags for table formatting

		Unit		Min 	Max 	test method

Octane 				95 	102 	ASTM D 2699-86&2700-86

Oxygen 		%m/m 			2.7	elemental analysis

Nitrogen 	%m/m 			.02 					   ASTM D 3228

Benzine 	%v/v 			1.0 						EM 238

vapour 

pressure 	kPa 						 450 	 600 	ASTM D 323

Lead 		g/l 			.005 	ASTM 3237

Density @15'c 	kg/m3 		720	775	ASTM D 4052

Oxygen 

stability 	minutes 	360 											ASTM d 525

Gum 		mg/100m		l5.0 	5.0 	EM-ISO/DIS 14596

Sulpher 	ppm 						   50 	150 	ISO 8754

Electric 

conductivity 	pS/m 						   200 	ASTM D 2624

Distillation

	at 70'C 						  20 	48

	at 100'C 						  46 	71

	at 140'C 							  75 	ISO 3405