The 2014 front-running F1 cars would definitely be faster in terms of laptime than the McLaren MP4-4 due to any number of factors. The fastest race lap in the 2013 Japanese GP was a 1:34.587 by Webber, in 1988 it was a 1:46.326 by Senna. There have been various circuit surface and detail changes in the years between, but not enough to account for such a large gap. Speculation is that the 2014 cars are likely to be a few (2-4) secs per lap slower than 2013 cars in the race, but the Bahrain testing came as a bit of a surprise to many people, so the actual gap may be smaller.
Take a look here for a side-by-side comparison of the 1989 and 2009 Japanese GP pole laps.
Yes. Peak at 10500 then very flat until 15000. The different boost and rpm have very little impact on efficiency since they are both operating at peak power.
It is amazing how easily you have accepted the 700 bhp figure coming from the interviewer's qualification engine compared to how you keep throwing crap at me.
How about you look at the first question in the same interview where the answer is : We are trying to reach a thermal efficiency of 40%(coming from the 30% of V8 engines).
That matches what Renault said : 30 to 35 % more efficient from 2013 (including ERS)
30% + (30%of30) = 40% !! He is saying they are trying to reach 40% total efficiency over a lap (including ERS)
The problem is even a fuel only efficiency of 40% wouldn't give 700bhp. It would be 675 without ERS.
A 35-36% fuel only efficiency bumped to 40% by the ERS makes sense. That is 607 bhp without ERS
We should really go in PM if we keep discussing. This is boring stuff for almost everyone.
What peak power figure do you think the engine running up to 10,500rpm only (i.e. ignore the 15,000rpm limit) @ 3.5 bar of boost would deliver while hitting the instantaneous fuel flow limit? The engineer specifically states that 10,500rpm is basically the ceiling to deliver the 700bhp without breaking the instantaneous fuel flow limit.
I read the 40% comment as meaning 40% thermal efficiency from the engine alone (i.e. without ERS). I say this because of the term "motoren" (motor). Consider the decrease in parasitic losses in moving from a V8 revving to 18,000rpm to a V6 revving to 10,500rpm. I'm not in a position to speculate as to what decrease this would actually be in percentage terms, but I believe it would be fairly significant.
Also, it seems as though the Mercedes- and Ferrari-powered cars are ahead of the Renault-powered cars at the moment (in terms of engine performance and reliability/cooling requirement etc). If that really is the case then it wouldn't be surprising if Mercedes had hit or exceeded their stated goals.
If people get bored at a semi-technical discussion in an F1 thread they're in the wrong place. This isn't the Top Gear thread, after all
I find it quite interesting, that you guys in a way state conspiracies, or make them up yourselves.
I'm pretty sure what you're trying to understand is something that F1 teams haven't really gotten to grips with entirely.
Until something official comes out, engine power remains a mystery, and on the race day the engine output will be much different from the numbers that you're getting.
You're simply forgetting the sensitivity of a turbo engine; how it works with condensed/cold/hot/dry weather.
Sure it may in the bench have something like 700bhp, but that's a static temperature, in Bahrain on a hot day (+30C) it may have 650bhp.
I think the numbers you're trying to 'mathematically reach based on false/fake data' are quite impossible for the time being, especially for someone who has NO DIRECT LINKS to Formula 1.
But keep chasing, eventually someone will have done all the hard work for you.
If you look at my posts you'll see that the only power number which I've represented as being solid in any way is the 700hp figure which is from a Mercedes engineer. Everything else that I've said is questioning the legitimacy of making unqualified assertions and providing reasons why I think it's naive to try and draw direct comparisons between engines with approximately 25 years between them.
I think the statement from the Mercedes engineer (in conjunction with the 22 km/h higher top speeds than last year at such an early stage in the season) is reasonable evidence to believe that the power units this year are making as much as (if not more than) they did last year.
I think it's fair to assume that the power figure quoted by the Mercedes engineer is in an environment where most of the running will occur. The fact that most F1 races take place in locations and at times of year where ambient temperatures are around 25-30C means it's likely this will be the sort of environment where much of the engine testing will have taken place in dyno rooms. Sure, the engines will be able to make more power on a cold British day at near sea level than on a 35C day at high altitude in Brazil, but for most of the season the cars will be running in around 25-30C ambient temperatures.
The only direct power figure I've used is from a Mercedes engineer.
Of course, it's impossible to relate power numbers of any kind from 20+ years ago. even the last 10 years, engines have revolutionized quite a bit.
However, a rough number of 700bhp, I don't think it should be believable, of course, it is the only number you have now therefore it's quite simple; That's what you use.
But I think realistically, we're looking at some numbers inbetween 640-720bhp.
Absolutely, I think the power units create more power than last year. with the reduced downforce and even less drag now, Monza is going to become dangerously fast.
Interviewer makes 25 years comparison from an engine that would last 4 laps. Different boost, different rpm, different fuel flow : highly solid valuable data because the engineer responds : "Sure you can see it like that if you want".
He probably smiled while he answered that and thought : "whatever dude go sell your magazines with that."
I'll give what the proper engineering answer should have been : Well you are comparing two very diffrent situations, on one side our engines will have to last more than a handful of laps and you will find the race engines of that time had way less power. However, we had many advancements in technology which will surely help us while we try to get to those numbers.
As long you are stuck with the whatever dude answer I see why we can't agree
The type of figures that auto manufacturers of any kind like to give are those when the car/engine is running in perfect conditions.
Lets be honest here, in terms of a power figure you're never going to be accurate because at the times when the power of an engine is recorded it's generally under dyno conditions or on a test bed, which is just about as far from a real engine application as you can get.
So many variables alter the power of an engine, altitude, humidity, temperature.. and that's not JUST for turbocharged engines of course, it's the same for a tractor even.
It's not unreasonable to think these cars could produce around 800HP (in qualifying anyway)
Fuel flow limit is 100 kg/hr
Calorific value of gasoline is around 44 MJ/kg (F1 fuel might be higher)
Therefore;
Maximum fuel power is 100 x 44 MJ/hr
Which is 4400 MJ/hr
This is the same as 4400000000/3600 J/Sec (Watts) (3600 secs in 1 hr)
4400000000/3600 = 1222222.2 J/Sec or Watts (1W = 1 J/sec)
or 1200 kW
Mercedes are aiming for an efficiency of 40%. If the old V8s were running at 30%, it is not an unreasonable target because the engines are smaller and the revs are lower. Less cylinder bore surface area and lower RPM lead to much less friction.
So assuming they are getting 40%, flywheel power would be
0.4 x 1200 = 480 kW or 643 HP
ERS-K is allowed to output 120 kW for 33 secs/lap
So total power in qualifying at 40% efficiency would be 600 kW or 804 HP
The fact we don't know the calorific value of modern F1 fuels mean this calculation isn't really useful for precise conclusions. I realise fuel in F1 these days is a lot more strictly controlled (and a lot closer to 'pump fuel') than in the '80s turbo period, but we simply don't know what the calorific value is.
It won't be much different. It's still gasoline. You could add stuff to make it burn more efficiently (i.e. Reduce knock sensitivity) but you can significantly change the density or the calorific content.
Unfortunately in the land of PR from huge oil companies like Shell and Total it's difficult to know where the marketing stops and reality kicks in. However, if you read interviews and articles about fuels in modern F1 the trend appears to be that F1 fuel is similar to 'pump fuel' but does have real world differences. For example:
Obviously with a lighter fuel you get greater calorific value.
As I said above, none of these give us a real figure that can be used in a calculation. It's not like we can say "Oh, modern F1 fuel has a 5% higher calorific value than pump super unleaded.", but I hope we can agree that modern F1 fuel is likely to be at least different enough from 'pump fuel' for the assumption of 44MJ/kg to be questionable.
Max fuel flow is in kg, calorific content is in kg. Density doesn't matter.
There is a guys who knows chemistry on f1technical who pretty much covered that part. He sees 46 as the absolute highest possible limit with the current F1 rules on fuel but he considers it's more likely the number is close to 44. IIRC. And btw, I understand nothing of what he posts...I just have to trust him...chemistry...
Also, something to consider when you hear efficiency numbers.
IMHO, the 40% target includes the MGU-H. Here's why :
We know that the MGU-K cannot send more than 160 hp at any moment and that a maximum of 4 MJ can be fed from the battery to the MGU-K per lap.
However, there is no limit on the amount of energy than can be fed from the MGU-H directly to the MGU-K and then to the wheels.
So at any moment, you can have an engine delivering 600 bhp at the crankshaft and at the same time using the MGU-H as a "wastegate" (amp88 already said that earlier I believe).
That could generate let's say 45 hp going from the MGU-H to the MGU-K to the wheels without ever touching the battery. To me it's a very important feature and I believe that's included in the 40% target "motor" efficiency the engineer is talking about.
But when you try to calculate peak HP from there you cannot do 600 + 45 + 160. It is still 160 bhp max from the MGU-K no matter if it comes from the battery or the MGU-H. You have to do 600 + 45 + (160 - 45)
So,
Pure engine efficiency target : ±35 %
Engine + MGU-H efficiency target : 40%
Considering that, re-run the calculation even with 46 MJ/kg fuel and you're still stuck at 760 bhp peak everything included
I don't follow. If Shell were able to make their 100 litres of fuel weigh 2 kg less than 'the other guy' then they have a greater calorific value, right? That is, if their fuel weighs 78kg and their competitor's fuel weighs 80kgs (numbers pulled from the air for illustration purposes) and they both contain the same amount of energy the Shell fuel has a higher calorific value (energy / mass).
So the Mercedes senior engineer who says the engine alone produces around 700hp isn't to be trusted, but some random on the internet is because he appears to understand chemistry. Forgive me, but there's quite the double standard there.
I reject the premise of this statement, so I won't respond to the following calculations, but I do understand what you're trying to say.
Greater calorific value in MJ/Liter yes(not energy/mass). The fuel tank of the "better" fuel would be smaller in volume but it still wouldn't allow you to pump more kgs of fuel per second than your competitor. The flow limit is in kg/hr, not liter/hr. The calorific values are expressed in MJ/kg, not MJ/liter.
Most of the things the random chemist dude say are backed by widely accepted scientific data. Much more value to me than a vague answer to a misleading question.
Unfortunately you are still stuck on the vague answer and reject everything else...that's all right...we've pretty much covered it now...until there's new info coming out there's not much to add.
So essentially they would find the highest octane shizzle they could find then then add as little anti-knock agent as possible so that it was no longer an issue to have such high octane fuel?
The 'special' Shell fuel is lighter (as in weighs less). Two fuels: same volume, same energy, one weighs less than the other. Do they have different calorific values (in energy / mass, as I said above)? Unless we can agree they do we're getting nowhere.
For reference, let me repeat the quote from earlier and add some emphasis:
Unless he works for an F1 fuel company making F1 fuels or he's able to provide sources from people who do then it's speculation.
If you look back from my first post in this conversation you'll see that you're actually the one who is stuck on a vague calculation based on assumptions which aren't really supported and you're making declarative statements as though they're fact. I'm not absolutely 100% sure that the Mercedes engine alone is generating 700hp peak horsepower, and I've never said this is definitely the case. I'd just rather believe a senior Mercedes engineer who's actually in a position to know the truth than these calculations which I don't believe are sound.
n-heptane is far from anti-knock. I'm pretty sure that shit would explode from me looking at it .
Toluene is very dense which means that it doesn't vapourise easily. n-heptane would help start the reaction whilst also reducing the octane rating. Honda used to preheat the fuel by running the lines through or past the muffler and various other hot parts.
You just need a knock sensor for that. No n-heptane needed.
What you might be thinking about it testing fuels to get the RON number. RON is determined by running the fuel that is being tested in a test engine with a variable compression ratio under controlled conditions, and then comparing the results with those for mixtures of iso-octane and n-heptane.
Basically if your fuel is RON90 it has the same anti-knock qualities as a mixture of 90% iso-octane and 10% n-heptane.
Yes this is correct I saw everything the opposite way. Heavier fuel, same energy in smaller volume at constant mass calorific content.
Lighter fuel, same energy in same volume at increased calorific content works too.
Trying to make a race fuel lighter doesn't make any sense at all if you are not increasing the calorific values at the same time so yes Obviously with a lighter fuel you get greater calorific value. Sorry for the confusion.
