12 replies to this topic

[The Vulcan]

I was just wondering on how much different the type of fuel for F1 cars are as opposed to the normal road cars. Is there a significant difference in the octane level?

[Chevy II Nova]

Yes. A faster flame-front as well.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

There are limitations to octane ratings, (102RON) oxygen and nitrogen contents, distillation curves, vapor pressure, sulphor,MON, aromatic, olefin contents and density. That's why I cant understand why Ferrari is allowed to pre cool it's fuel. Octane is limited to 102 RON.

The fuel cannot contain compounds not found in commercially available in Europe. The hydrocarbon groups also have composition limitations and part of the fuel must contain compounds at 5% max concentration, preventing it from being made only with pure substances, which would render it too different from commercial fuels.
There is a chart published by the FIAs Fuel Advisory Panel. As for oxygenation, the only products allowed are methanol, ethanol, isopropyl-alcohol, isobutyl-alcohol, MTBE, ETBE,TAME, disopropyl ether, n-propyl alcohol, ter-butyl alcohol and sec-butyl alcohol.
The development of F1 fuel is not a simple matter and requires many tests and the use of high formulation technologies. Practically no literature is available on the topic, as each company keeps it's development secret.

Stolen from Racecar Magazine. Don't ask me to explain any of it.

Originally posted by The Vulcan
I was just wondering on how much different the type of fuel for F1 cars are as opposed to the normal road cars. Is there a significant difference in the octane level?

[Bladrian]

What made me laugh was when a fan asked a Sauber engineer if his road car would run on their race fuel.

'Sure' was the reply. 'But it would wreck your engine in short order ...'


So much for the notion of 'pump' fuel.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

What do you know about this?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bladrian

Flairing an aircraft to land is like squating to take a poop.

[Bladrian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
What do you know about this?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bladrian

Flairing an aircraft to land is like squating to take a poop. [/QUOTE]


Apart from the fact that it's atrociously spelled .... not a lot.

[Chevy II Nova]

I believe the original quote has something to do with the pilots desire to come in a little hot and catch the cable, rather than flare it and land a bit slower.

[Bladrian]

Oh, is that what Brian meant?

Yeah, quite right. Trapping successfully on a carrier means you have to fly the aircraft on to the deck - you can't float it in like the wussie land-based pilots with a nice long runway ahead of them ....

Seriously, though, every trap is like a controlled crash. You literally fly the aircraft into the deck, and then you apply full throttle in case you have a bolter, ie the landing has to be aborted, so you you can fly off and re-enter the circuit.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

You are a hooligan. Me and Desmo are tight. I'll have you thrown off this forum.

Airforce F4s also had hooks and it was encouraged to use hook landings where ever possible. Cables were installed where ever F4s were based. Short approach could be as low as 100kts with a touch down at 70kts if you wanted to. Imagine an aircraft that can fly at Mach 2.2 and also 100kts level. That is not even the F4E which has leading edge slats. You really couldn't make a bum landing in an F4, the gear was designed for continuous 800ft/min impacts and the big delta wing and the gear would cushion the blow. Also you would carry a lot of thrust(80%) which is the only way to fly a brick. No floating in this baby. Unlike the queers that flew Navy F4s we had confidence in our abilities and shut down at touchdown.
How else would you get to the 'deck' without flying there? Max thrust without burners is held to touch down and you would ram it into burners if you didn't hook. 130mph is all you need for level flight especially since you are in really serious ground effect to the end of the deck.
Navy boys just like to complain.

Originally posted by Bladrian
Oh, is that what Brian meant?

Yeah, quite right. Trapping successfully on a carrier means you have to fly the aircraft on to the deck - you can't float it in like the wussie land-based pilots with a nice long runway ahead of them ....

Seriously, though, every trap is like a controlled crash. You literally fly the aircraft into the deck, and then you apply full throttle in case you have a bolter, ie the landing has to be aborted, so you you can fly off and re-enter the circuit.

[Bladrian]

NOW the picture becomes a lot clearer ....

"Unlike the queers that flew Navy F4s "


Kay, Brian - stemming from my respect for you and your achievements, I'll change my sig.



Aside regarding the Phantom: a friend of mine was a radio operator on the Ark Royal, and one memorable day a whole lot of brass came on board for some review or other. My mate, being a non-com, didn't pay much attention to the goings-on of the officers, figuring they were best left to their own devices. He happened to be on deck, glancing idly at the accumulated brass standing around admiring something, when he noticed an F4 approaching at a speed 'inconsistent' with a landing. As the pilot passed low over the deck he banged the throttle into afterburn .....


... and absolutely drenched the assembled brass in kerosene as he climbed out. They were not impressed.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
Airforce F4s also had hooks...

All F4s had hooks, because the plane was designed for the Navy.

[biercemountain]

Originally posted by CONOSUR
All F4s had hooks, because the plane was designed for the Navy.

Yeah, but could you use the fuel they ran on in an F1 car?

[Mr_Scooby]

Here is a little copy/ paste from an Americane spectator. The statement was previus posted in Readers Comments around the Indy GP

Second part is about me talking to one of the Petrobras engineers who works for Williams.

While waiting for something to happen in front of the Williams' pits I noticed one of the guys looked Brazilian so I paid attention to his accent and it sounded like it too. So I shouted something in portuguese. He came over and was really nice, we had a reasonably long conversation. It was coincindence too that we were both from Rio de Janeiro.

First I asked him about what performance improvements you can get with a new fuel mixture. He didn't really give me a figure but he said that the smallest gain they can measure with the dyno is 0.5% HP so 4.5 HP (he gave me that figure so I'm assuming the BMW engine is roughly 900 HP).

He also said that they changed the fuel only once this year (in June) and that they got better consumption after that without loosing performance. He also said that sometimes they will use a different fuel for friday qualifying but usually they dont bother because of the risk of contaminating the race fuel.

I then asked him if you can use their F1 fuel on normal road cars and he said "absolutely". He continued to tell me that the Williams mechanics will sometimes save some of the left over fuel and take it back so they can put it in their cars. He said the performance gain was amazing around 7 to 8 thousand RPMs (because this fuel burns faster) but that it was very bad for the engine's life.

Finally he told me about life in general in the F1 circus and in his opinion he has absolutely the best job. He has been in F1 since 98 and will stay for at least another year when the contract expires between Williams and Petrobras. He travels to every GP but goes back to Brazil in between. At the GP's he doesnt really have that much to do, he just supervises the fuel stuff and would be responsible for any contamination or other problem.

After he finished talking to me he went back to the Williams pit and told one of the mechanics where I was from. The guy turned around and asked if I didn't have bring any Brazilian girls with me... unfortunately only wawawa was with me and he's neither Brazilian or a girl

I also got an autograph and a handshake from Montoya who looked very confident