100 kg of fuel, who would win?

[PlatinumZealot]

Teams used to have choice to go boosted or natural. Supposed that choice is brought back again. The year is 2017...

The teams have these options:

V6 power units 2016 spec - car weight 710kg

V8 engines 2013 spec with port plus direct injection and 2016 kers capacity - car weight 620 kg

The race must be completed with no more than 100kg of fuel. Front wheel KERS is allowed. The aerodynamic regsa re the same for all cars. Tail pipes in the same position for both engine types .

Which package choice is really more efficient over a race length? What about over the season? Which engine would last?

And what would be the implications on braking and ERS charging? What about gear ratios and overtaking? What about tyre management?

[wesley123]

The 90kg weight difference would make a lot of difference

[Moose]

The 90kg weight difference would make a lot of difference

On the other hand - no HERS would also make a lot of difference.

I suspect that the V8 would still win though purely based on weight.

[ian_s]

why would the v8 be so much lighter, even though it has the same level of ERS?

[Manoah2u]

though it's always nice to speculate and dream, V8 will never return. it's just gone.

V6T is to stay. ERS systems are where the power gains will come from, paired with less restricted fuel flow regulations,
and higher RPM.

2017 probably introduces 4 engine restriction again, with 2015 & 2016 the years for transition to improve reliability and to adapt to more powerful electrical units and higher RPM & higher fuel flow.

perhaps they'll go crazy and introduce ethanol as a fuel.

the F1 field desires a more close field for closer competition, a 2-tier system would cruch this, not to mention V8 engines have been branded dinosaurs now and V6T has had so much $$ investment it's irrational to throw that in the bin.

The only 'choice' i could see happening is teams free to choose for 2 years between ethanol and fossil fuels, with ethanol having lesser fuel flow restrictions, or, for example, allowed 125 kg of fuel and fossil fuels 100kg of fuels, just to feed the 'green' image.

Assuming Ethanol is 'greener' than fossil fuels, i'm not sure at this moment in time whether Ethanol is a better fuel than what cars are using now, but proposing benefits for stepping over to 'greener' fuels will have teams embracing such a thing, with the result to end using fossil fuels in just the timespan of 2 years.

[mrluke]

Suggest OP watches WEC.

[AnthonyG]

I doubt the direct injection would make the V8's more economical, toyota runs regular injection at lemans where they have the choice.

Anyhow, I think the V8's would win on most tracks, weight difference and a mapping not focussed on blowing... (mind you, I did say "think")

[Moose]

why would the v8 be so much lighter, even though it has the same level of ERS?

It wouldn't have the same level of ERS - it would be missing the HERS, and hence would not be able to charge such a big battery. It would save the weight of the HERS, the turbo and a big chunk of battery.

[PlatinumZealot]

Suggest OP watches WEC.

Watched a few highlights. Thanks. I think The toyota is the most interesting. If Formula 1 used a similar PU to Toyota costs would be much lower... Now I am trying to figure out if such a V8 setup in 2.4 liter guise will do the race faster with the same fuel load - hence more efficiently - than the heavy turbos...now would that be a big pie in the face of the FIA.

[henra]

It would save the weight of the HERS, the turbo and a big chunk of battery.

But that would never amount to 90kg.
More like 30 - 40kg. If the battery were much smaller, so would be the effect of ERS. GIGO applies.
With those 30-40kg it would be closer.
Lap time wise V8 might be still quicker with let's say 40kg. In a race the straight line advantage of the V6T might give you the upper Hand of the V6T. In any case it would probably be quite close.
With 90kg it would be clear cut, though.

[NL_Fer]

Will the V8 run with or without T-ERS?

I think without T-ERS the V8 has no change at all. But if they could install T-ERS units in the V8 exhaust, use the 2016 K-ERS and feed the K-ERS with T-ERS energy. Maybe the V8 would stand a chance.

I'm talking about just a turbine and generator in the exhaust, still running a NA engine. No compressors.

[Just_a_fan]

why would the v8 be so much lighter, even though it has the same level of ERS?

It wouldn't have the same level of ERS - it would be missing the HERS, and hence would not be able to charge such a big battery. It would save the weight of the HERS, the turbo and a big chunk of battery.

It would have more engine block, pistons, cylinder heads and more crankshaft though. The battery weight would be the key weight difference.

[giantfan10]

question is would the V8 even complete a race distance with only 100 kgs of fuel?
v6= more torque+ approx same horespower+ more weight
V8= less torque +approx same horsepower+ less weight

[zeph]

Errr.....the V6 would win because the V8 would run dry around 2/3rds in, or drive at half power to preserve fuel.

[Cold Fussion]

If it were to be the same v8 engine from 2013, then it would have to run at approximately 2/3rd's the power of the 2013 spec to make it to the finishing line (Assuming a 150kg average fuel starting weight in 2013). That would put the engine at an average of roughly 530 hp.