Emissions in F1

[FrukostScones]

I made this thread out of curiosity about how much power would actually be lost, not a sincere desire to see this happen. Does anyone have an estimate, either in bhp or %?

yes. it would be really interesting to see how much power a catalyst (and a maybe soot filter) would cost power.
Imagine you could argue with road relevance and for more powerful and bigger engines if they attached catalysts or filters.
Yes I know the consumption would suffer but as we agree, the consumption of the f1 engine is irrelevant to the co2 footprint and the emissions of pollutants of the whole event anyway.
In 2014 we will have those 1.6litre engines with turbos and turbo compounding (it is coming or?), so add a catalyst ,it won't damgage the sound experience much more and it is a challenge for the teams/engine manufacaturers in terms of packiging and gives a finally a bit of road relevance. Give the engine more rpm/displacement/or turbo pressure, then we coul have 750bhp engines instead of 650bhp jokes, but with maybe the same power at the wheels due to the power loss through the exhaust treatment. Call this pointless but I 'd rather have the perception of clean powerful engines (these would not give me a sore throat presumably) with initially lots of power ,than detuned and fuel starved engines that emitt the same toxic fumes like the cars in third world smog city centres.

edit. spelling and unsterstanding

[Tommy Cookers]

I made this thread out of curiosity about how much power would actually be lost, not a sincere desire to see this happen. Does anyone have an estimate, either in bhp or %?

current F1 engines would lose about 10% with catalysts, largely because they could not be run on rich mixture
(traditional rich mixtures for max power would be pointless, needing a huge catalyst pack, including cooling)

2014 rules engines would lose about 1%
(packaging, cooling would be issues causing a greater loss of track perfomance than 1% power loss)

[Absolutelee]

That doesn't seem so bad actually, considering in that article posted in one of the Lotus threads Alison claims they lost ~35bhp with the coanda exhaust. If I'm correct that's 5% power loss. So cleaning the exhaust, however relevant to the footprint as a whole, would take less power than the coanda exhaust, except for 0% on track advantage.

[Tommy Cookers]

the 2014 rules are for engines to make power only through efficiency
the pressure loss due to the catalyst would be small (relative to induction pressure and recovery turbine pressure)
the forced induction would cancel most of the pressure losses, and efficiency little affected
catalysts makes the exhaust hotter, which is arguably advantageous here

the main problem would be the size, weight, and thermal impact of a catalyst pack sized for 700 hp

[Absolutelee]

So the RB would burst into flames within half a lap...I see no problems with this

[WhiteBlue]

A catalytic package would be detrimental to the sound. Noise lovers will not tolerate it.

[langwadt]

I made this thread out of curiosity about how much power would actually be lost, not a sincere desire to see this happen. Does anyone have an estimate, either in bhp or %?

yes. it would be really interesting to see how much power a catalyst (and a maybe soot filter) would cost power.
Imagine you could argue with road relevance and for more powerful and bigger engines if they attached catalysts or filters.
Yes I know the consumption would suffer but as we agree, the consumption of the f1 engine is irrelevant to the co2 footprint and the emissions of pollutants of the whole event anyway.
In 2014 we will have those 1.6litre engines with turbos and turbo compounding (it is coming or?), so add a catalyst ,it won't damgage the sound experience much more and it is a challenge for the teams/engine manufacaturers in terms of packiging and gives a finally a bit of road relevance. Give the engine more rpm/displacement/or turbo pressure, then we coul have 750bhp engines instead of 650bhp jokes, but with maybe the same power at the wheels due to the power loss through the exhaust treatment. Call this pointless but I 'd rather have the perception of clean powerful engines (these would not give me a sore throat presumably) with initially lots of power ,than detuned and fuel starved engines that emitt the same toxic fumes like the cars in third world smog city centres.

edit. spelling and unsterstanding

the thing is that for a modern 3-way cat like on modern road cars to work, you have to toggle between a lean and rich mixture.

for the cat to oxidize HC and CO it needs oxygen in the exhaust, for it to reduce NOx ther must be no or very little oxygen
in the exhaust

[PlatinumZealot]

The CAT would be HUUUGE and take up much space. And It still wouldn't clean up the gasses.