Tony D Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Honda F1 Turbos used to heat the "fuel" they used to 150F as it wouldn't atomise under 147F. It showed an octane of 98 when tested in the FIA motor, so they could use it...was like a thick syrup. Hot fuel is less dense and has less btu's Per unit volume. It's why the Z31's had a fuel temperature sensor, and most cars today use one.... Fuel injectors are a unit-volume device, without temperature correction for the fuel, the amount of btu's injected per pulse width can vary greatly...and that pooches your emissions. Discussions of fuel coolers are in the archives back to at least 2000/2001 when I did my instrumented cross country trek, and ran support for the Japanese guys running to Vegas across the desert to Z2K... Gasoline at 140F will run crazy lean compared to gasoline straight out of the ground at 58-65F! It's removing heat picked up in the engine bay on the return to the tank that Pays long term dividends... Another reason modern vehicles are return less (evaporative emissions...) Edited October 16, 2013 by Tony D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 ^ all good info that came out of Tony surprisingly easy. For more info and lots of amazing graphs to get you thinking (but not to live by without your own testing) check out the Honda SAE paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123732288/SAE-Honda-RA168E-Engine With their fuel mixture they saw as much as a 2% variance of BSFC accross the useable range of the fuel temperature. 2% of extra fuel per mile on part throttle parts of a course can be just enough fuel savings to make a race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) "Limit on boost, 1987, 4.0bar....." Oh, how I miss pre-limit turbo cars! Nice SAE Paper, I just have my memory, good to see the actual numbers were right on after all these years! 84% Toluene...muahahahaha! Edited October 16, 2013 by Tony D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi303 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 84% toluene? Forget spiking your opponents tank with sugar, spike it with Nitric Acid and a detonator then stay well back during the next race! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 "Limit on boost, 1987, 4.0bar....." Oh, how I miss pre-limit turbo cars! Nice SAE Paper, I just have my memory, good to see the actual numbers were right on after all these years! 84% Toluene...muahahahaha! There's SOOO much information in there for those willing to see the forrest through all the trees. Example 1. Notice the graph that shows HP to boost pressure. Notice each engine is PERFECTLY linear? Hmmm... More than that, notice how the engine designed with stricter boost regulations has a STEEPER but STILL perfectly linear line? Hmm... There's a lesson in there for anyone willing to pay attention, and that's just scratcing the surface of the wonderful information in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi303 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 What I notice is that BTUs per cubic volume of fuel is usually related to the solidity of the fuel chosen given equivalent quality, 1 cubic meter of quality anthracite coal has more BTUs than one cubic meter of methane at 1 atmosphere. By carrying a quantity of fuel in a form closer to solidity and hence denser but of equal fuel value as petrol, they could carry more BTUs which translated to more power for longer than rivals carrying the same volume of normal race fuel. Albeit at a weight penalty which would be overcome by the greater available engine power the extra fuel value allowed. A good use of physics, but one which makes me wonder if the rules at the time for F1 dictated volume limited fuel tanks? It comes down to tactics and rules in the end, carry more fuel and suffer a weight penalty but less fueling stops meaning more track time, or less fuel and less weight for better performance, but traded off against more frequent fueling stops... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 You would notice an interesting similarity to one Mr. P's Dyno Curve in terms of Linearity.... Remember the Diesel was originally designed to run on Coal Dust! And yes, there was a decreased fuel capacity in F1, the earlier turbo years with refueling (and more HP, muahahahaha) changed to what is stated in the paper as 150L or something like that... You filled once, and had to run the race on that one fillup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xnke Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Some cases it can make a big difference, but in stock ornear stock, I wouldn't expect miracles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.