More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The cars didn't have wings. Then somebody did wings, the rules didn't prohibit it, and now they use wings.
The cars had treaded tires. Then somebody did slicks, the rules didn't prohibit it, and now they use slicks.
The cars didn't exploit under-body downforce. Then somebody did under-body downforce, somebody else got that banned because they didn't think of it first and then did their own solution which didn't get banned, until it did and somebody else came up with some other solution, and now they use under-body downforce.
The cars didn't have paddle shift gearboxes. Then somebody did paddle shift gearboxes, the rules didn't prohibit it, and now they use paddle shift gearboxes.
The cars didn't have pneumatic valves. Then somebody did pneumatic valves, the rules didn't prohibit it, and now they use pneumatic valves.
The cars didn't have...(you get the picture).

Then the cars got too fast for the circuits and we wonder how fast they would be now if the teams had been left to their own devices? The thing that you fail to realise is that there were always regulations in place, even in 1950.

Plus, most of the things you mention appeared on other cars before appearing on F1 cars. Porsche introduced paddle-shifting, etc, although the first 'paddle-shift' was around over 100 years ago, as were things like pneumatic valves, flat12 and V12 engines, four and even 5 valve cylinder heads, overhead twin cams, etc. Slick tyres were invented before treaded tyres, etc. Nothing new under the sun. You get the picture?

Originally Posted by Oldtony

By the way, as a cost control measure which is better to prevent?
a) Spend $100,000 on some unobtainium for valves.
b) Spend $1,000,000 on CAD and Wind tunnel time to develop a new wingy thingy.

Or, c), do neither, because neither one is worth the cost in real terms, just like petrol engines revving to 21,000 rpm is not of any use to road car engine design either in the past, now, or in the future. Blind alley economics.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Then the cars got too fast for the circuits and we wonder how fast they would be now if the teams had been left to their own devices? The thing that you fail to realise is that there were always regulations in place, even in 1950.

Plus, most of the things you mention appeared on other cars before appearing on F1 cars. Porsche introduced paddle-shifting, etc, although the first 'paddle-shift' was around over 100 years ago, as were things like pneumatic valves, flat12 and V12 engines, four and even 5 valve cylinder heads, overhead twin cams, etc. Slick tyres were invented before treaded tyres, etc. Nothing new under the sun. You get the picture?

You want to keep the cars from getting too fast? All you have to do is limit the amount of fuel they can burn. Done. You can't push barn doors through the air door for downforce if you have a fuel limit.

In 1950 you were limited on engine size. You could do an I, V, W, Boxer, Radial, whatever floated your boat, any number of cylinders. That's quite different from legislating V-angle, boring centers, length, minimum weight, & C of G height of the engine.

Who cares what kind of cars things first appeared on? Just because poppet valve IC engines appeared on a 2CV before they appeared on an F1 car doesn't mean they are anything alike. The Ferrari paddle shift was nothing like your 100 year old pre-select gearbox.

Yes, treaded tires were an innovation, so you wouldn't go sliding off if a bit of rain fell. F1 used normal treaded tires and somebody decided that with the new quick release wheels they could go faster in the dry on slicks and if some rain fell, they wouldn't give it all back changing to treaded tires. The rules allowed you to do that sort if thing. Now, under some circumstances, you even get told whether you can use slicks or not.

Quite different from rules aimed at preventing people from embarrassing themselves.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

All you have to do is limit the amount of fuel they can burn. Done.

Aren't they doing that next season?

Limit the amount of what fuel? Petrol? Diesel? Pump diesel and petrol? Other fuels? I'm assuming that ERS would be the norm? Other forms of ERS? Unlimited ERS?

At what point would it be considered that an unlimited ERS, of any kind, is dangerous? When something catches fire and it's not known immediately what fuel caused the fire, or when a marshall gets a lethal electric shock?

One thing should be clear and that is that the FIA would not tolerate something that they considered to be of "dangerous construction" with regard to the drivers, people in the pit lane, marshals, fans, and the TV viewing public. They would require any track marshal to know exactly how any incident should be dealt with without first having to check if it was actually safe to do so. That's bound to limit quite a number of 'new technologies', IMO.

Originally Posted by miatanut

You can't push barn doors through the air door for downforce if you have a fuel limit.

I think I've said that many times with regard to next seasons regulations.

It's a 'bleeping' economy run! the fans will cry, and they will no doubt do that next season.

Originally Posted by miatanut

Quite different from rules aimed at preventing people from embarrassing themselves.

If there is no limit to what you can do, I don't think that it will be individual teams that end up embarrassing themselves because even 'unlimited' needs limits, and not just to "fuel". You couldn't just have a single regulation of a 'fuel limit' governing the design and safety apsects of F1 cars. Many of the designs we saw in the past were only there because driver/marshal/pit lane/spectator safety wasn't there.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Marbot

One thing should be clear and that is that the FIA would not tolerate something that they considered to be of "dangerous construction" with regard to the drivers, people in the pit lane, marshals, fans, and the TV viewing public. They would require any track marshal to know exactly how any incident should be dealt with without first having to check if it was actually safe to do so.

It's already the case with KERS in F1.

One marshal in each group has a pair of large, thick rubber gloves (ooh, matron). Only they are allowed to touch the car until such time as it is certain, by way of checking an indicator light in front of the cockpit, that the KERS unit is in a safe condition. In the event of a fire meaning nobody can get near the indicator light to check it, only they must handle the foam extinguisher (everyone else can use the powder).

To my knowledge nobody has been hurt in a KERS related incident since the Sauber technician got a belt from their early unit, so either they're very reliable or we're all doing it properly.

Next year however there's even more energy being stored, so the potential (intentional pun) for an incident will increase. Let's hope none happen.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Greem

Let's hope none happen.

Indeed. We've already had one too many accidents involving track personnel for one season. That was perhaps a freak accident, but you need to completely cut out the more obvious ones. I doubt that any marshal would be inclined to tackle a compromised compressed hydrogen fuel tank, for example. We might learn from that sort of incident that it's perhaps not safe to use compressed hydrogen fuel tanks in F1 cars (not that compressed hydrogen is a particularly good way of reducing overall emissions, or a particularly efficient way to propel vehicles any smaller than a 17 tonne truck), but we shouldn't need to lose a life in order to find that out.

Common sense should have reduced the number of most types of F1 accidents in years gone by, but it seems that we always have to find out these things the hard way.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed. We've already had one too many accidents involving track personnel for one season. That was perhaps a freak accident, but you need to completely cut out the more obvious ones. I doubt that any marshal would be inclined to tackle a compromised compressed hydrogen fuel tank, for example. We might learn from that sort of incident that it's perhaps not safe to use compressed hydrogen fuel tanks in F1 cars (not that compressed hydrogen is a particularly good way of reducing overall emissions, or a particularly efficient way to propel vehicles any smaller than a 17 tonne truck), but we shouldn't need to lose a life in order to find that out.

Common sense should have reduced the number of most types of F1 accidents in years gone by, but it seems that we always have to find out these things the hard way.

Does that post make any sense? Are you saying that you shouldn't use compressed H2 storage, because of an as yet completely unknown danger possibility? You seem to be saying that there should be NO changes to an alternative that MIGHT (remember, no proof) been more dangerous than what we have now (explosive fuel in a tank). That just seems bit odd to me, when it's perfectly feasible to test the living daylights out of this sort of thing without going near a track.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Does that post make any sense?.

Yes it does. It would have to be under very, very high pressure if it was going to be of much practical use in an F1 car. It's all speculative, but better the devil you know.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes it does. It would have to be under very, very high pressure if it was going to be of much practical use in an F1 car. It's all speculative, but better the devil you know.

The problem with hydrogen as a fuel is this. Hydrogen has a very low volumetric energy density, (megajoules per liter) at ambient conditions. Even when the fuel is stored as liquid hydrogen, in a cryo tank or in a compressed hydrogen storage tank, the volumetric energy density is small in relation to that of gasoline. Nissan and Honda have developed hydrogen tanks for vehicles with a pressure of 350 bar (5,000 psi) and 700 bar (10,000 psi).

However, using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is far less efficient than petrol because of the difference in volumetric energy density, with gasoline (petrol) yielding 34.6 MJ/L and liquid hydrogen yielding 10.1 MJ/L.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes it does. It would have to be under very, very high pressure if it was going to be of much practical use in an F1 car. It's all speculative, but better the devil you know.

Better to stick to building race cars out of aluminum honeycomb than that scary carbon fiber stuff.

[Oldtony]

Marbot, are you the risk assessor who sets the price for my general and motor insurance policies?
Miatanut has it right. F1, if it is to retain any credibility as the foremost form of motor racing MUST be in a position where it has the opportunity to take calculated risks on new technology. Otherwise it is just another form of circus.
Interesting how, and who makes the judgement of what is an acceptable risk moves around. Like the ground effects/turbo/numbers of wheels/fans etc. furores the position of the players is far more influenced by their financial or political interests than a mature examination of the risk.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Better to stick to building race cars out of aluminum honeycomb than that scary carbon fiber stuff.

When was carbon fibre ever scary? It's a very useful thing for F1 cars, but it's not really taken off in the road car world. No surprise there. Is there anything else on the horizon that can replace carbon fibre in F1 cars, or any car, without it also being in the unobtainium bracket?

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Marbot, are you the risk assessor who sets the price for my general and motor insurance policies?
Miatanut has it right. F1, if it is to retain any credibility as the foremost form of motor racing MUST be in a position where it has the opportunity to take calculated risks on new technology. Otherwise it is just another form of circus.
Interesting how, and who makes the judgement of what is an acceptable risk moves around. Like the ground effects/turbo/numbers of wheels/fans etc. furores the position of the players is far more influenced by their financial or political interests than a mature examination of the risk.

F1 is no longer in a position where it can allow a certain technology to dominate the series. An F1 series dominated by one technology that others aren't able to use because of patent issues, is a series on its last legs.

Martin Whitmarsh has always said that the one thing that drives away car manufacturers are regulations that are too open. The other thing, of course, is lack of funds.

Honda are coming back into F1 in 2005 because they know that the regulations for engines are now stable. No point building an engine if the regulations are always going to be a moving target.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes it does. It would have to be under very, very high pressure if it was going to be of much practical use in an F1 car. It's all speculative, but better the devil you know.

The thought of a tank like that in a 200 mph accident rupturing, and exploding with a massive quantity of hydrogen release in a red hot environment are just plain beyond belief.

Hey man, turn a whole corner on a track into a bomb crater!

Its not like any of the teams would compromise safety for competitive advantage either is it?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

The thought of a tank like that in a 200 mph accident rupturing, and exploding with a massive quantity of hydrogen release in a red hot environment are just plain beyond belief.

Hey man, turn a whole corner on a track into a bomb crater!

Its not like any of the teams would compromise safety for competitive advantage either is it?

If it were a tank of gasoline/petrol rupturing in a 200 mph accident, the initial result would be the same. Hydrogen and gasoline/petrol, both need oxygen in order to combust.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If it were a tank of gasoline/petrol rupturing in a 200 mph accident, the initial result would be the same. Hydrogen and gasoline/petrol, both need oxygen in order to combust.

Do you know what pressure does to the equation?

The petrol tank is generally not pressurized to 700 bar BJ!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Do you know what pressure does to the equation?

The petrol tank is generally not pressurized to 700 bar BJ!

I'm well aware what pressure does and the rupturing of a pressurised tank will cause considerable damage in itself but the thing with hydrogen, compared to gasoline, is it has a very low volumetric energy density. So you need a lot more hydrogen than you need gasoline to produce the same amount of energy or in this case an explosion. See my post #533.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm well aware what pressure does and the rupturing of a pressurised tank will cause considerable damage in itself but the thing with hydrogen, compared to gasoline, is it has a very low volumetric energy density. So you need a lot more hydrogen than you need gasoline to produce the same amount of energy or in this case an explosion. See my post #533.

"At ambient pressure" BJ

Your energy density would have to be approximately the same to last the race, and it is under pressure. Hydrogen would also have a much faster flame front than gasoline - hence the bomb effect.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

"At ambient pressure" BJ

Your energy density would have to be approximately the same to last the race, and it is under pressure. Hydrogen would also have a much faster flame front than gasoline - hence the bomb effect.

And at risk of repeating myself, even when the fuel is stored as liquid hydrogen, in a cryo tank or in a compressed hydrogen storage tank, the volumetric energy density is small in relation to that of gasoline.

[Greem]

One of the other significant problems with storage of hydrogen is that the density of the containing medium has to be very high, because the hydrogen molecules (whether liquefied or as a gas) can adsorb into that material and leak through it. Yes, even though the containing medium is a solid. Add to that the high pressure needed to store significant quantities of hydrogen and you need very thick walls in any container to (a) resist the pressure and (b) reduce the leakage rate through adsorption.

That's one reason why hydrogen is carried around in banks of small cylinders, rather than one great big cylinder like LNG (liquefied natural gas). It's far easier to make a strong small cylinder than a strong large one, weight-to-volume.

I have doubts that H2 will ever make it as viable combustion-based fuel *unless* something very significant changes - either in political, resource or engineering terms. I doubt we'll ever see it as a race fuel in any case!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

One of the other significant problems with storage of hydrogen is that the density of the containing medium has to be very high, because the hydrogen molecules (whether liquefied or as a gas) can adsorb into that material and leak through it. Yes, even though the containing medium is a solid. Add to that the high pressure needed to store significant quantities of hydrogen and you need very thick walls in any container to (a) resist the pressure and (b) reduce the leakage rate through adsorption.

That's one reason why hydrogen is carried around in banks of small cylinders, rather than one great big cylinder like LNG (liquefied natural gas). It's far easier to make a strong small cylinder than a strong large one, weight-to-volume.

I have doubts that H2 will ever make it as viable combustion-based fuel *unless* something very significant changes - either in political, resource or engineering terms. I doubt we'll ever see it as a race fuel in any case!

This article about the BMW Hydrogen 7 makes very interesting reading, regarding the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Particularly the section, Use of hydrogen technology and the section, Specifications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_7

[Greem]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This article about the BMW Hydrogen 7 makes very interesting reading, regarding the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Particularly the section, Use of hydrogen technology and the section, Specifications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_7

That is interesting. It certainly makes it look like neither HP gaseous nor cryogenic liquid hydrogen have much of a future as a fuel source for an internal combustion engine, doesn't it?

But now we are a looooong way off topic

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

That is interesting. It certainly makes it look like neither HP gaseous nor cryogenic liquid hydrogen have much of a future as a fuel source for an internal combustion engine, doesn't it?

But now we are a looooong way off topic

Indeed, back to 2014 turbo engines.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

When was carbon fibre ever scary?

In the early days. It had a non-ductile failure mode. You had this very lightweight, very strong stuff doing it's job until it was completely gone. It was used for fighter jets and rockets. Think Top Gun & The Right Stuff. Guys who went to work knowing they might not come home. Race drivers also went to work knowing they might not come home, but, remember, this was before crash testing and a driver was getting in this in this box of stuff that shattered like glass, so maybe he was going to have nothing in a crash. Then they found, done right, the stuff actually performed better than the aluminum honeycomb tubs and the rest is history.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Martin Whitmarsh has always said that the one thing that drives away car manufacturers are regulations that are too open.

I would say the manufacturers have been a very mixed blessing and the Garagiste period was actually the most fun period of F1.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

The thought of a tank like that in a 200 mph accident rupturing, and exploding with a massive quantity of hydrogen release in a red hot environment are just plain beyond belief.

Hey man, turn a whole corner on a track into a bomb crater!

Its not like any of the teams would compromise safety for competitive advantage either is it?

Maybe they already have that kind of pressure on board to operate the pneumatic valves.

Does anybody know the pneumatic valve system pressure of an F1 engine?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Then they found, done right, the stuff actually performed better than the aluminum honeycomb tubs and the rest is history.

When done right (had to pass crash tests) it was much better than aluminium of comparable weight.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I would say the manufacturers have been a very mixed blessing and the Garagiste period was actually the most fun period of F1.

The manufacturers include Ferrari, who would often complain, and quite rightly, if some of the cars they were competing with were actually designed only to make it to the end of a race before they were put in a skip.

[Starfish Primer]

Originally Posted by wnut

"At ambient pressure" BJ

Your energy density would have to be approximately the same to last the race, and it is under pressure. Hydrogen would also have a much faster flame front than gasoline - hence the bomb effect.

Most probably you won´t have a big explosion because there isn´t enough oxygen to use all the hydrogen, the most likely scenario is a BLEVE.

I have some friends working in the car industry doing R+D and for them the H2 is a closed path.