From Autosport:
rCLThe updated power unit pushes the concept of its steel-alloy cylinder head even further. Using a steel alloy rather than aluminium for the cylinder
head allows combustion chamber temperatures to be significantly higher than usual; with aluminium, structural failures would have been inevitable at
the same temperatures.
Combined with a new Shell fuel developed specifically for this
configuration, the increase in power is expected to help reduce the horsepower deficit.rCY
I thought the whole purpose of the fuel regs was to prevent this kind of engine-specific brewing.
Did I miss a memo?
FWIW--
DLM
From Autosport:
rCLThe updated power unit pushes the concept of its steel-alloy cylinder head even further. Using a steel alloy rather than aluminium for the cylinder
head allows combustion chamber temperatures to be significantly higher than usual; with aluminium, structural failures would have been inevitable at
the same temperatures.
Combined with a new Shell fuel developed specifically for this
configuration, the increase in power is expected to help reduce the horsepower deficit.rCY
I thought the whole purpose of the fuel regs was to prevent this kind of engine-specific brewing.
Did I miss a memo?
FWIW
DLM
I believe that the fuels have to be submitted to the FIA to have their energy density assessed.
From Formula1.com
Since 2014, F1 cars have been limited in the amount of fuel they can
use, both in the fuel flow at any given moment in the race but also
across the race as a whole.
That still exists, but for this year, the emphasis moves off the
quantity of fuel used (measured in kilograms per hour) and onto the
energy density of that fuel (measured in megajoules per hour), with a
hard limit of 3000MJ/h.
The maths behind this is complex, but the carrCOs electronic brain will do the necessary calculations, based on fuel samples examined and certified
in advance by an independent body. As has been the case for a while, the random fuel samples taken at the track by the scrutineers will be
examined to ensure the rCyfingerprintrCO of live samples matches the reference on file.
Keithr0 wrote:
I believe that the fuels have to be submitted to the FIA to have their
energy density assessed.
-aFrom Formula1.com
Since 2014, F1 cars have been limited in the amount of fuel they can
use, both in the fuel flow at any given moment in the race but also
across the race as a whole.
That still exists, but for this year, the emphasis moves off the
quantity of fuel used (measured in kilograms per hour) and onto the
energy density of that fuel (measured in megajoules per hour), with a
hard limit of 3000MJ/h.
The maths behind this is complex, but the carrCOs electronic brain will
do the necessary calculations, based on fuel samples examined and
certified in advance by an independent body. As has been the case for
a while, the random fuel samples taken at the track by the scrutineers
will be examined to ensure the rCyfingerprintrCO of live samples matches
the reference on file.
I remember way back when Michael Schumacher at post-race interviews
credited the win to Shell coming up with a new fuel, more Joules/litre I guess.
On 22/06/2026 3:50 pm, Woozy Song wrote:
I remember way back when Michael Schumacher at post-race interviews
credited the win to Shell coming up with a new fuel, more Joules/litre I
guess.
The turbo cars of the 1980s ran on something akin to rocket fuel. I
believe that it was based on German WWII research into running aero
engines with a very large amount of boost. I may stand corrected, but I don't think that there was any regulation on the fuel content.
Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote:
On 22/06/2026 3:50 pm, Woozy Song wrote:
I remember way back when Michael Schumacher at post-race interviews
credited the win to Shell coming up with a new fuel, more Joules/litre I >>> guess.
The turbo cars of the 1980s ran on something akin to rocket fuel. I
believe that it was based on German WWII research into running aero
engines with a very large amount of boost. I may stand corrected, but I
don't think that there was any regulation on the fuel content.
It was certainly an era with "exotic" fuel mixes, so much so there were regular reports of injuries to mechanics and other team members from
exposure to various concoctions. It was just another variable which they
have (partially) homologated. It hasn't gone so far as to be a
completely standardised product, but the rules are quite strict on both sustainability and the chemical content in terms of usable power...but there's still wiggle room to play with some of the properties to better
suit the engine.
I'm not sure why - others may know - it's worth leaving that last wiggle room. Given just how much standardisation there is, why _not_ run a
standard fuel supply? It removes a relatively(?) small variable in terms
of performance while providing a substantial reduction in costs, I would
have thought.
Answering my own question - it's always when you try to pose the
question you think of answers - I suspect it's one or both of:
1. I'm wrong that the performance advantage is small.
2. Sponsors and suppliers like Petronas, Shell, ExxonMobil, Aramco and b/Castrol want to see their products on show...and (more importantly)
*not* see their competitor get the contract for the standard.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:28:24 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,242 |