How Much Fuel Does a Formula 1 Car Use?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Hint, it's surprisingly good!
The Formula 1 hybrid engines produce over 1000 horsepower from a 1.6-litre V6 engine - which is just incredible - and the Mercedes power unit is one of the most efficient internal combustion engines on the planet - including road car engines.
But, if you took your road car and did a full F1 race distance at a race track, you would use less than a third of the fuel that a Formula 1 car would.
Now, this might seem backwards? Surely improved efficiency leads to better fuel economy?
Well, not always. Let me explain.
Thanks to the following channels! Go check them out!
Mercedes AMG / mercedes-amg
Volkswagen / volkswagen
FORD / ford
Mercedes Benz / mercedesbenztv
Mercedes AMG Petronas / mercedesamgf1
ParamountAutozone / paramountautozone
New Mind / newmind
NGK SPARK PLUG / ngksparkplugeuropegmbh
The Racebox / theracebox
MAHLE / mahlegroup
➤ Subscribe for more incredible motorsport: goo.gl/AbD2f9
➤Follow us on:
➤ Instagram- @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61Insta
➤TikTok - @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61TikTok
➤ iPad Drawing sponsored by Concepts, you can get an exclusive free trial here! - concepts.app/driver61
Well first we need to figure out the MPG (or fuel consumption) a Formula 1 car produces during a race - so let’s run the numbers.
Formula 1 races are approximately 300 kilometres in length, sometimes marginally more depending on how the lap distances work out - but let’s run with 300.
And the cars are limited to just 110 kilos of fuel, which at typical temperatures is around 140 litres.
Now, depending on the track the cars don’t always use all 110kg, but the majority of the time they do.
Now, what would you guess to be the MPG number? Based on these numbers, this works out to just over 6 miles per gallon. Whilst at circuits like Monaco, this can be as high as 7 mpg.
📺 F1 Driver’s Technique Explained
➤ Senna’s bizarre technique: bit.ly/3lORK59
➤ How Schumacher’s style won 7 championships: bit.ly/3527cVz
➤ Alonso’s strange steering: bit.ly/2Z7a93v
➤ How Verstappen will be F1 champion: bit.ly/3jK6L6n
➤ How Verstappen is so fast in the wet: bit.ly/32WMVhr
📺 F1 Engineering
➤ How F1 brakes work: bit.ly/3h0Whh0
➤ How an F1 clutch works: bit.ly/3i0oDJM
➤ What’s inside an F1 gearbox: bit.ly/2DzMqRW
➤ How F1 teams change four tyres in two seconds: bit.ly/2QVpkIl
🏎️ Track & Racing Driver!
➤ Get a free report on your track driving: bit.ly/2LmYNBA
➤ Get faster on track with our FREE 25-part tutorial series:bit.ly/2PypIMK
➤ Our real-world training programmes: bit.ly/2ktjtgV
🏁 Sim Racers!
➤ My sim wheel: bit.ly/354BBlY
➤ My sim pedals: bit.ly/3eJckQo
➤ Our sim racing course: bit.ly/34WuV7p
➤ Get a free report on your track driving: bit.ly/2LmYNBA
➤ Driver61 Sim Racing Channel: bit.ly/2BMdk4B
#Formula1 #Engineering #Engines - Auta a dopravní prostředky
❓Was the MPG higher or lower than you expected? Have any of you got a car that could rival that MPG figure? I bet someone does!
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe! We are nearly the largest independent motorsport channel on CZcams!!
My 416HP V8 maxes out it's fuel at 30l/100km on the dash when flooring it, but supposedly gets around 4mpg around a track. Considering you get 2.5x as much power, with more drag, and still nearly get 2x the fuel mileage, I'd say that's pretty insane.
Lower than I thought
I’ve seen as low as 6mpg even on diesels during hard WOT 1sr/2nd gear pulls! Not really relevant for day to day reference I know but it’s doable in a lot of cars during those conditions!
What I expected. It takes a lot of fuel to make that much power
What would the mpg on the Golf or any other regular sedan full throttle on the track. On the streets I normally average 6.5l/100km but I have seen as high as 21L/100km on the streets also.
Now I’m wondering what an F1 car’s MPG would be if it just were cruising around, not going flat out
Mercedes are putting their engine in the AMG Project One, so will be cool to see those figures!
I can tell you just want to daily-drive the W12, probably not much boot space 😂
Well an F1 engine is designed to rev very high, even these V6's, idle at something like 7- 9k RPM, you hurt the engine if you don't drive quick and at best just stall it at low speeds. You would definitely need to reengineer the engine, not that its impossible to have an F1 engined road car. It's just gonna be quite a lot different in terms of performance, sound and power as a lot of what makes an F1 engine unique doesn't work in a road car. You can probably use the same block design and even head, but a lot has to be redesigned to make it reliable as a road car, even an exotic one.
@@XBullitt16X the V6s only idle around 3k and only rev to around 13500 RPM. They don't rev to 18-20k rpm anymore because of efficiency and regulations. The max rpm allowed is 15k RPM.
@@blooiefps9304 it's still like 4-6 times higher than a road car's idle rev. And like he said, the engine revs quite high in order to keep it running, again, comparing to the road car.
The Honda CVCC in the 1970’s used a pre-combustion chamber to ignite a lean combustion chamber. They had the genius idea that Merc used 40+ years later.
I scrolled down to see if anyone mentioned this.
Someone asked an old Honda engineer about how high the mpg was on the Hybrids like the Prius (First gen possibly Second gen) and he quipped (paraphrased) "Big deal. We had over 50MPG using a carburetor."
He felt they should get far higher numbers than they were
It’s also not to different albeit much simpler than a preburner in a rocket engine , although there use the precombustion to directly power turbo pumps.
Remember seeing one on an episode of Wheeler Dealers, very innovative.
Is it somewhat similar to the Mazda SPCCI tech? The engine they've designed has a very lean ratio during compression, then injects more fuel at top dead centre, then as the piston compresses to the top it compression ignites like a diesel. This is only used at high RPM, but down low it's a standard spark ignition engine.
@@Pythnn the Mazda is a Direct Injection and a higher compression and is, as you point out, dieseling, but adding fuel to cool things (dieseling a lean gas motor melts metals). The CVCC was a lean burn, and was lean enough that a spark might not start the burn. To ensure the burn a flame is needed. (Ol' Smokey Yunick did some "research" after a 2 or 3 year old fuel drum blew up on him. He went and got another empty fuel drum of similar age, used a spark plug activated with a magneto and it did nothing hung over the bung, set onto the bung, or even lowered into the drum. He then got a long pole, put a Zippo on the end and when it got close to the bung hole the drum blew up. He had some prototype engines with ultra-lean burn [they also were designed to run at very hot temps] that he worked on from the 60's until he passed away in 2001. He drove around an old Ford Fiesta with one of his engines, with him and his two Great Danes for years.) The CVCC used a 3 barrel carb that had one very small barrel that fed a richer mixture to the sparkplugs and the other two large barrels fed the cylinders a lean mix.
The feeling when the video talks about kilograms and liters, only to use an archaic MPG as a unit - rather than liter / 100km :P
100% correct. I thought I was the only one rolling my eyes in despair.
Artefact of being a Brit. We are mostly metric... but not quite since we still use miles and yards on our roads.
Pov: you use mpg so i didnt notice
@@TRPGpilot Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
Top gear once showed that a prius is less efficient than an M3 when driven flat out.
yes, more than 10 years ago. and when you really think about it, it was a really stupid comparison, since the m3 was going nowhere near flat out, and most of the time people don't drive a prius, or any car flat out, so it doesn't mean anything when it comes to real life applications
@@overvieweffect9034 I think you totally missed their and his point.
@@overvieweffect9034 No, it means everything in real life. You simply missed the message. Your fuel economy is largely determined by how you drive your car. That is why F1 cars have such bad fuel economy despite the high efficiency. If you drive your everyday car flatout at 300 kph around the track (albeit no car can do that), you will not get a 6.3 mpg from that.
The M3 wasnt driven flat out ffs.
I think both was driven at 120 kph/75 mph , at normal decent speed. Sence the m3 was kinda sleeping the Prius was kinda flat out
Whoa, a question I never knew I needed answers to.
Some people like to lern something new, others like tik tok and fast food review.
Now I wonder how much fuel a WEC car consumes for the entire race, must be interesting
you actually need. all those technologies eventually creep into the mainstream automotive world. and given the fact that transportation costs can amount to up to 40% of the costs of goods and services - it is a beneficial thing for you regardless of whether you care or not... therefore its good for you to care about it.
*opens a f1 themed channel*
*sees f1 related content*
*:O :O :O :O*
maybe compare to a plane?
In small piston engine airplanes we adjust the mixture all the time. Lean it out when cruising to get more efficiency, make it rich on takeoff and landing, etc. Cool it with rich, warm it with lean. It's a lever next to the throttle and it's a lesson you learn as a student pilot fairly early in flight training.
same does engine ecu, if step on gas rich12-10afr, on cruise 14-15afr, engine braking no fuel
Not that I'm in the market for one, it would be nice to know anyway.
Drive a normal car on track and you'll soon see that mpg is nothing like you get driving normally.
On a track my integra - a 2.0l N/A with just 220bph manages about 9mpg.
I'd gladly take a hit of 2 mpg on track for an extra 900bhp.
My stock RX8 on a morning at Mallory Park managed 8 MPG
Not that I can do better than 25 on the road though, but still, on track fuel consumption is worlds apart from even spirited driving
Imagine an extra 900bhp going through the front of your Integra though.... Ouch!
It would be the best fun you could possibly have for about 5 minutes before it blew up.
Mpg isn't really a fair way to measure efficiency. F1 cars have to do a tremendous amount of work to accelerate against ever increasing aerodynamic drag only to brake, take the corner then start over. You try doing that with a regular car and see what happens! Or do a wltp test on an f1 car, not that they are in any way tuned for that regime.
@@Ricardo95Santos Id be over the moon with that.
A friend of mine with a ported rx8 has seen as low as 3mpg.
while this video is pretty interesting, 6-7mpg when RACING is something else than 35mpg when cruising in your golf down the highway.
I'd say that both cars racing or just going flat out for 300km would get about the same fuel milage, while one does 200hp and the other one 1000hp.
Basically, the AMG ONE probably will get a 35 mpg rating not 6.
Exactly, this should have been explained in more detail. The video doesn't actually explain the reason behind the big difference very well.
Thanks to the F1 car's extremely efficient engine, it might even use less fuel over a race length than a road car. Another big factor in consumption is resistances. If you were to put f1 aerodynamic devices and tyres on a golf, its consumption would increase too due to all the drag and rolling resistance. Removing wings and putting narrow tyres on a F1 car would reduce its consumption by a lot.
Doubt it'll get 35 purely due to the level of re-engineering it would take to get it to do that. High thermal efficiency means it'll use less fuel to produce the same power, but unless they've started adding cylinder deactivation, an atkinson cycle and that kind of stuff then I can't see it doing more than about 20 US MPG. Still, it should certainly be better than if someone tuned another "normal" engine to the same power.
@@ApothecaryTerry but to get that "bad" fuel mileage, you would have to run the engine more rich than under full power.
At the end of the day, its still a 1.6L engine with a hybrid system.
If not in boost, the car will use less fuel than the golf at a given rpm, and driving around normally the car probably won't be under boost.
@@pascalzarn8974 It's a 1.6L engine with a hybrid system, but one designed only to work at high temperatures and high loads. To be able to tune it down to the level where it can really get better mpg than a normal road car seems unlikely, although not impossible of course.
I just don't see why they'd bother going that far in a car where efficiency isn't a selling point. If you did the old Top Gear test and followed something round a track it would probably be more efficient, as long as that thing was fast enough.
@@ApothecaryTerry of course they aren't gonna try to make a car you can compete against a prius with it, but if the engine is designed to run at high Temps, they can't just run it super rich.
The engine is designed, from scratch, to run lean. If you flood it with fuel, probably something else will give up.
For the roadcar they probably have to run it a bit more rich because of NOX emissions, but other than that i see no problem with getting good fuel economy out of such an advanced engine.
They honestly would be stupid if they don't try it, since whats better advertising for combustion engines that a roadcar, with a race engine, that gets great fuel economy.
Before watching I'm gonna say its pretty dang good, considering their constant high speed and power output, its amazing how long that fuel lasts a whole race session and still has to have some left over in the tank for testing. So yeah those are some very efficient engines.
Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
@@alunesh12345 We're talking about engines bud, not the G-O-D. Let's stay on topic. Shall we?
The Mercedes combustion concept sounds like the Honda CVCC design from the 1970s
I was about to state the same.I used to own one. Could get 50 mpg.
@@majbach1968 tf
How??
This is exactly what I love about F1, its so much more than the racing
Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
Yeah, good thing considering that the racing just ain't so good!
Stratified charge engines were in road cars for a long time before Mercedes used it. It was used by Honda in the 1970's and jaguar used it in the 1980's
Surely the MPG figures aren't comparable as an F1 car is essentially a kite designed to create downforce whereas a road car is designed to be as slippery as possible
Also, an F1 car is running at Max RPM as much as possible, where your road car is running at a much lower RPM. If You were running your road cars hard as an F1 car around the same track, your road car would get terrible mileage.
an F1 car has a drag Co-efficient of 0.7-1.0 depending on the track whereas the VW golf has a drag Co-efficient of 0.28 that's 3-4 times the amount of drag
@@chubbysumo2230 Eeeexactly, so these engines are amazing for what they are and do, incredibly efficient at high speed.
If your running a engine around maximum performance the fuel consumption will massively increase. That's with every combination engine. Trash a road car around a track and the fuel consumption is terrible
@@MegaMarkymark19 F1 cars have high drag coefficient but their cross sectional area is fairly small because of the low profile so it some what balances that out. Drag force is quadric to the speed, which makes it much bigger factor. Going 240km/h instead of 80km/h increases the drag 9x.
Great content. I love the tech talk in these videos.
Wow! That's what engineering is all about! Simple ideas that make all the difference! Amazing video and explanation.
Having done several trackdays in different cars at a broadly "GP type" circuit the MPG normally would hover about 12-14mpg (UK). So actually for 3-5 times the power thats really good for the F1 cars.
I'm still confused though. You compared a commuter car doing regular driving vs an F1 car at the limit. What is the mpg of a formula car under regular commuting or at highway speed?
When was the last time someone drove a formula car at normal speed? Its not something 99% of people want to do
@@kieranbennett7453 I'll guess I'll take one for tuellhe team and do it for science. Anyone able to get me in contact with the relevant people at Mercedes?
@@kieranbennett7453 then the premise of the video was dishonest, he should have titled it something else
Top Gear tested years ago a Toyota Prius against a BMW M3 for fuel efficiency. They tested them driving the same speed, but not an average speed but quite a high speed, and the M3 was more efficient (17.2 against19.4 MPG).
@@thomasr730 As an isolated test, it tells you nothing about the bigger picture. People don't get in a car and instantly hit a speed and stay there until they come to an abrupt stop, with constant thermals. In normal use, the BMW M3 will have much lower fuel efficiency. Of course the M3 was better at speed.
Nice. You are very passionate when it comes to F1, it's easier watching people who are so passionate. Cheers
Very educational yet fun. Thank you for being an amazing CZcamsr
I'm an engineer: the impact of Velocity on drag is *squared*. So if a VW is driving at F1 speeds, or if F1's are driving under 100 km/h, you'll have absolutely drastic differences.
still the VW would get the better mpg, because the F1 engine (even if it was placed into the VW aerodynamic chassis) would have to work at such low loads, the engine efficiency would be much less than 50%. low rpm's are not ideal for charge flow for an F1 engine, aswell as nearly closed butterfly valves would make pumping losses huge. an average car going at 60 mph needs about 35 horsepower to maintain speed, the goal is to produce that 35 horsepower, not more, and not less, with the less fuel.
@@YszapHun agreed! But the VW at F1's velocities would suffer *immensely* from drag
@@theAV8R aerodynamic drag? are you sure? that VW has a cw value of 0.30, an F1 has around 1.00
@@YszapHun Drag is CW x frontal areal x speed^2. The F1 has a much lower drag than than the VW because of its low frontal area.
@@martijnb5887 that is BS. there is no way that an F1 car has less effective drag (force) than a road car.
Not gonna lie Scott looks like a more mature Daniel Riccardo
He needs a sidekick so he can sneak by while taping and give him a ball-smack, Danny Ric style.
I almost peed my pants when I saw Ric do that to Sainz mid-interview lol.
Also tell me Checo doesn’t look like a non-crazy version of Tom Cruise lol
I know you know what you're talking about, but that accent just adds that extra bit of credibility to the videos. :) Excellent content as always. I just picked up a 5.9L cummins project vehicle because I've been inspired to get back into the combustion hobby by yourself and 'vice grip'. I'd say 2 of the very best channels currently on youtube...
Question I have yet to even fathom, you have already answered. Cheers old boy
The main reason I follow F1 is for clever engineering. Thanks for this video, and please make more!
Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
That was interesting... thanks for making the video! The volume was a bit low on this one.
👎
Honda developed the pre-combustion chamber called CVCC in the 1970’s as a
means of reducing emissions. My mom’s 1975 civic had it.
Your mom's car didn't have a catalytic converter for that very reason. HONDA!
Great info love you Man
I just love the fact that 50% efficient is considered an incredible achievement. It shows just how poor the internal combustion engine really is. If you worked all week and then threw half your wages out of the window instead of two thirds I doubt many people would consider that an incredible achievement.
All heat engines are not that efficient actually, no matter how they works. The steam turbines used in power plants often achieve around 50% thermal efficiency
@@lanceward4665 Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
If that golf would go around a circuit at full speed and f1 car would drive at same pace, I think f1 car fuel economy would be better.
that would be a good comparison.
That's impressive! Based on some info I've read in magazines over the years, admittedly probably educated guesses, F1 cars in 1986 were getting about 4 mpg, no refuelling, turbos and strict fuel capacity limits and around 2 mpg in the late 90's with V10s, refuelling and few if any fuel capacity and fuel flow limits.
The graphics and presentation on the workings of the internal combustion engine was excellent.
You didn't explain at all why F1 engines have a very high thermal efficiency, yet the cars have very bad fuel consumption relative to the distance travelled. I know it comes down to the resistive forces the F1 car has to overcome (massive air resistance) and the high rate at which the engine produces work, but this really seemed like a missing piece to the video.
Ya bruh what can ya do when it seems like Murray walker was ya science teacher
I was thinking the same thing. My guess at the top 2 ways that kinetic energy is converted into heat:
1. Disc brakes (intentional disposal).
2. Downforce wings (undesirable, but worth the sacrifice).
@@wolfie54321 - High Scool Physics is a long way back for me: 50+ years. However, in the equation you quoted, I think "Energy" is potential energy increase and "Distance" is the amount of vertical lift - a different scenario. IIRC, an engineer once told me (40+ years ago) that wind resistance is proportional to the cube of the speed. "Sticky" tyres are not literally adhesive like glue - otherwise you'd see pit crews having trouble removing tyre warmers. It's a slang term for soft rubber which can conform most deeply to the grain of the road surface, thereby giving the best grip.
They actually have amazing fuel consumption, my golf 2.0tdi has 10mpg on track with 150hp, this has 7mpg with 850hp more
Exactly, he missed the air drag and disc brake while on high speed, that made me a bit confusing after watching this video.
6-7 mpg is actually amazing when you take into account the fact these things are going well over 110 mph on average with hundreds of lbs of aerodynamic downforce on them the whole time.
I'd bet good money you could push that number further if the exhaust/engine heat could be recaptured and used in combination with regen brakes.
Hellcats get even less mpg, and are wayyy slower😭
F1 car's already use regen brakes.
They already are using some of the heat from exhaust gases to power the MGU-H and energy recovery from brakes.
so what if they got less grippier tyres, less fuel, less weight and the lowest drag coefficient (no wings etc). Do they get probably 20+ mpg?
@@wellwellwelljew271 They'd prolly get more than 30-35mpg
Nice graphics!! very very good explanation my friend! DMAX
The pre-chamber combustion system is exactly what the Honda Civic CVCC had back in the 70s 😁
Miles per Gallon. What a barbarian unit of measurement
Literally had to looked it up
And there's not only one, it's bloody TWO of them! US and UK... DAMN!
For the brazilians, the fuel consumption is 2.6km/l.
Para os brasileiros, o consumo de combustível é de 2,6km/l.
now convert to L/km
@@PlittHD 0.38l/km
Does Brazil measure gallon or mile differently?
@@ickerolig Here we say as example "This car does 15 Kilometers per Litre". This unit (Km/L) is cultural here.
@@gigabytegb Ah I thought the 2.6km was a mile or something.
We mostly measure things on the road with "mil" in Sweden. I think it's called a Scandinavian mile which is 10km long, might only be Sweden and Norway that uses it.
great video, as always
One thing us Americans should bear in mind is that our gallons are smaller than they are in the UK (about 3.78L/gal US, about 4.54L/gal in the commonwealth), so their MPG numbers are higher than ours for the same efficiency.
There's the small matter of air resistance that goes up as the square of the velocity. Drive your VW golf at 180mph and then see what its MPG numbers are.
i doubt a golf can reach 180 mph
@@fukers2stop i think he meant 180kmh
6.2 mpg when racing at those speeds is incredible. (Old) Top Gear did a "One gallon fuel crisis race" once with a bunch of supercars on a race track, which I just re-watched, and the Ferrari 599 did 1.7 mpg. And the F1 car would have probably have almost lapped it by that point.
We’re also talking about engines constantly pushing above 150mph in seconds compared to a consumer vehicle that is usually not meant to hit high speeds.
interesting video. Keep up the good work!
This guy gives answers of questions which I needed but never ask 😆
Edit : I don't get this much likes on my videos 😆😂
I was wondering the answer to this question a couple of days back
So true
Accurate 🤣
@@jayderwin1 yea
This guy gives wrong answers - nothing else.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVCC
And the split Turbo and the fuel consumption - its all about the design and lenght from the intake tract.
Honda cvcc tech from the 70's. Just produces more NOx so not emissions legal on road.
Another great video 61!
As always I’m amazed at how in-depth you get with the topics. Even as a Gearhead with plenty of knowledge, I always learn something interesting here! Love the channel!
A road car running on a track gets a much lower fuel efficiency than their MPG rating. Usually around 6-10 MPG, so more or less the same as an F1 car.
I was like: what a stupid question to ask
Now im like: damn, thats actually quite interesting
Great vid 👌🏽
Thanks 👍🏻😊
Don't forget all the energy that's lost due to braking. Unless you have a hybrid / KERS, you lose a great deal of energy by slowing the car down for turns.
Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
I am amazed that emissions were not discussed since we are comparing F1 cars to production cars. It would be interesting to see what kind of efficiencies could be be seen in a production car if emissions could be ignored. Don't get me wrong as F1 engines are amazing, but it's definitely not a fair comparison.
I usually drive a very windy road, with lots of hills to visit some parents. The difference in fuel consumption from driving carefully to never go over 2k rpm or driving in a bad mood is quite brutal. Can't remember where I heard it, but saving fuel really is a 'state of mind'. I've never went into the numbers but as far as the marker goes, driving smoothly saves almost half the gas.
Definitely, you can tell when someone know how to eco-drive.
Always interesting.
would love to see a road car driven flat out and be followed by an F1 car... like top gear did with the M3 vs prius. I suspect the F1 car would suprise.
I think F1 car would overheat in that situation.
@@orangepekoe7096 i mean F1 cars follow the safety car all the time, the safety car is just a road car with extra safety equipment and a lightbar
Seriously impressive economy considering the energy these cars exert!
Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. GOD loves you soo much unconditionally.🤩❤😇🥳😘
Campaigning a touring car in the US, we would use about 9-10 gallons of fuel on a 40 minute race heat covering about 64 miles. This works out to 6-7mpg...
In a 200hp 4-banger with minimal aero (and associated drag).
my 92 celica gt4 would use around 30-40 liters/100km and has 200 hp. F1 engines are simply amazing.
It's a very nice explanation of how the high efficiency is achieved but, as a main difference between a normal car and a F1 car I think you should have pointed out the air drag. Drag increases at least with the square of the speed, so the reason why a F1 car uses so much fuel compared to a normal car (despite the better engine efficiency) is the fact that it goes FAST, so a LOT of energy of the fuel has to be spent to displace air and gets lost in drag.
Indeed. Moreover the F1 car has a terrible drag coefficent, because it transfers drag to downforce, so it actaully needs to have a huge drag.
In exchange the corner speed can be much higher, as centrifugal acceleration can be as high as 4g.
5:10 You said leaner was typically quicker…why? I’ve always thought richer meant quicker because you were igniting more fuel, thanks in advance for the answer.
richer doesn't mean you ignite more fuel, because there's more fuel than there is oxygen to burn it against. leaner develops more power and is hence faster because the fuel can be burned completely, but it's also hotter.
Yea pretty much what Dean Su said, Lean will burn more completely and thus give more power(since its a lot easier to push more air into the engine than it is to push more fuel into it).
But because you tend to get higher temperatures and leftover oxygen(mostly as nitrogen oxides) in the engine it also tends to wear down engines faster.
Rich can be more powerful, but generally it only tends to do so in the lower revs though more importantly, you can stay in higher revs longer with rich fuel mixture because it will both burn cooler, and the unburnt fuel-leftovers make a fairly good heatsink to remove more heat from the engine.
Don't know how far this still works with newer engines, but old engines tended to run richer when cold but leaned when they got hotter and I never really learned why.
@@VekhGaming For your last part I thought it was a reverse relationship, i.e. it heats up when lean and cools down when rich, that makes sense to me
@@dsdy1205 It does, I meant that if your fuel-air mixture will change depending on temperature.(for Carburetors at least)
A cold carbureted engine will run richer when cold but leaner when hot, and you will generally have to tune it specifically to the heat the engine will run at.
Again, don't know why this happens or if this is still true for fuel-injected engines.
@@VekhGaming
Its a bit harder for fuel to ignite when the engine is cold, so running rich ensures combustion. Modern cars also run the engine a bit harder on start up to heat up the cat, which needs to hit a high temp to operate properly.
That's the perk having a partnership with an oil company. Engine technology + fuel technology. Super performance
Funny thing is that diesels had those pre-combustion chambers for decades now. I have a '94 Nissan TD27 which has them. MPG is great and it's almost impossible to overheat it :)
I've heard of implementing those onto gasoline engines in '80-'90s, but back then it caused more problems than solved.
Can you do a video about how racecar drivers learn the various tracks and their breaking points and gear changes.
It would be quite interesting to know.
"Up to 30% efficiency in road cars". Laughs in diesel.
Also, the way they inject fuel instantly turning into a flame jet is nothing new, most diesel injectors see the injected jet turning into flames just millimeters from the nozzle.
Lean mixture is also nothing new, road cars with early direct injection schemes used it (stratified injection to have it rich near the spark plugs to ignite but causing an overall lean mixture) but they dissed it because it results in high NOx emission and PM forming. Later designs focused on homogeneous direct injection and lambda=1 starting and acceleration. The higher thermal efficiency of the F1 engines basically come from not throwing away some of the waste heat, nothing special. Also they don't have so much auxiliary needs (no need to drive A/C or power steering, convenience functions etc.) as road cars do. All this F1 tech isn't in road cars because of reliability and cost, so there's not much to see here IMHO.
@Driver61 isn't the math wrong here? 38L/100km would add to 114 liters of fuel used on a 300km trip. And if it holds around 140 liters of fuel there is still much on the table? So the real value would be around 47L/100km which is around 5MPG US.
I've got exactly the same claim. 300 kms is about 187 miles, 140 liters is about 37 US gallons, which gives about 5 MPG. He obviously used US gallon (3.765 l), not imperial (4.54 l), when said that 38 l / 100 kms = 6.2 MPG
@@modziasx Ah, I totally forgot there are different MPG values. Imagine a world where everyone would use measurements which made sense :D
Brilliant Engineering !
gallons. the non-metric unit I hate the most simply because it lack consistency and the gallon you say is not the same as the gallon I keep thinking of.
Thank you for the metric text.
Also I believe Top Gear only got about 17mpg from Prius when really going flat out quite a long time ago so kinda not fair to compare to published MPG measured at commuting style.
Thank you for including REAL WORLD numbers like L/100Kms so the rest of the world can understand too :)
I forgot which decade it was, but somewhere between 40s and end of the 60s, a man invented a carburetor that allowed a push rod combustion engine to get 60+ mpg. But the oil industry purchased the patent from the person then buried it. Same shit happened in a different way with lightbulbs.
Hey Scott
Just a kind reminder
I am not sure if you have considered that there are people watching that are not from the UK or the US and including metric units would be very respectful towards these viewers and greatly appreciated.
Great content man. The short zoom effects not so much - very distracting ✌️
I used to run a kart, a Yamaha heavy. When you'd turn into a straightaway, every driver would twist the high speed jet control on the carburetor with their right hand and then turn it back at the end of the straight. But the engine temp would soar!
I bet that if all the industry were working on increasing the efficiency of IC engines, there wouldn't be that huge need of "green cars," imagine, an 60-70% efficiency would decrease pollutant emissions by more than half, and there's so many techs that increase efficiency, if all were combined, I bet you that the 60-70% threshold would be achieved.
The graphics on your channel for explaining the physics of car fundamentals is always AAA quality. What graphics program do you use and who does it for you?
The problem is all the hard braking. That converts a LOT of energy into useless heat.
Nice video but I see a big effect missing: AIR RESISTANCE! The air resistance goes as the velocity squared. That is one of the reasons why cruising at 110 km/h (60Mph) consume much less fuel than cruising at 145 km/h (90 Mph). Imagine how much air resistance does an F1 at about 300 km/h gets. They are more aerodynamic but the speed is much higher
The thing is are they more aerodynamic considering all the down force and drag?
I was literally thinking about this yesterday, whenever I think about something I swear a CZcams video is made about it lol.
Wow, prechamber ignition has been in diesels since the '90s i believe. It's pretty crazy how much tech is crossing over these days!
Is there a follow up video talking about reliability and how often they need to be rebuilt/serviced?
1. A passenger car wouldn’t get to 38mpg if it would race on a track. So we should compare a both cars running a similar speeds.
2. An F1 car is optimised to create a lot of down force which also increases a lot of drag while passenger cars are usually optimised to create as little drag as possible.
3. And finally passenger cars have to comply with al kinds of emissions regulations while F1 cars don’t afaik.
I wondered this for a while but never really looked into it
By mid-1985 BMW's straight-4 turbo, the M12/13 (1,5 ltr 4 cylinder), produced around 1,400-1,500 hp at over 5 bar of boost in qualifying trim, but was detuned to produce between 850-900 hp in race spec.
So the 1000 hp for a 1,6 ltr V6 (including the hp from the electric motor) isn't all that spectacular.
This is reflected by the endurance of the modern turbo engines, which have to last multiple races, including training, qualification and the odd sprint race.
If it wasn't for restrictions on wear, fuel consumption and manifold pressure they could make much, much more power.
Awesome video! Interesting to note that this isn't really new technology at all. Look at a diesel engine combustion chamber. And look at its glow plug location.
The pre chamber combustion is actually pretty similar to old diesel engines using also something called prechamber combustion, this happend in the inlet though. It looked like a swirl in the intake canal. New diesels produce up to 40% termal efficiency. Over 50 from the F1 engine is incredible. The margin between the cylinder and the piston in F1 engines is so small the engine actually is seized up when its cold. They have to run warm water trhough the engine to expand the cylinder so the piston is free to move, thats one big reason they are able to produce so much power from only 1,6L.
Honda released this technology in 1970, using carburettors, it was called CVCC, Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion, there is not much new under the Sun.... Especially with internal combustion engines most of it was done decades and decades ago.
Prechamber lean burn engine have been used in natural gas Waukesha and Jenbacher industrial engines for years.
After many years, I finally know how a turbo works. It's a pretty ingenious mechanism.
No wonder turbos work best at higher RPM, when the engine produces more exhaust gases
a lot of turbos nowadays have electronic assist, so they can spool up the turbo when there's not enough exhaust.
Pardon my ignorance - but do F1 engines sport variable valve timing? If yes, is that automatic or can it be adjusted by the driver during the race using engine settings via the steering wheel knobs?
Those guys at Mercedes AMG HPP Brixworth, UK are a clever bunch of blokes
As a physicist, I think some concepts may be getting a little confused. That they can get 50% thermal efficiency is amazing, but the main reasons for the low fuel efficiency of an F1 are a crap drag coefficient, very high speeds compared to a road car, high rolling resistance due to "sticky" tyres and that F1 cars are continuously accelerating and braking and have very little steady cruise. At a steady "cruise", you would expect an F1 to burn fuel at up to 27 times the rate of a family saloon, or more. This is partially compensated for by some energy recovery under braking and that they are rarely at top speed and have very little cruise.
F1 races can be no less than 305km in length. It's not 300km, it's at least 305km including the remaining kms of the lap that gets the race to 305km.
Formula video + listening to the music I like (Delta Parole, Metallica and other) make me feel the speed and excitement!
Just wondering if the turbo shaft is so much longer than wouldn’t it be significantly heavier and thus drastically increase turbo lag? Also wouldn’t it suffer more from torsional flex? Did they have to make it out of an exotic material like titanium or perhaps a funky carbon fibre deal?
I thought MPG was a type of Mclaren car, as the MP4. Seriously, weird way to measure fuel intake flow
Good explanation of the Mercedes pre- chamber. They did not invent this. Honda did. Used successfully in Civics in the mid-to late '70s it was called CVCC. I had a '76 1.4 CVCC wagon. Good ideas come full circle.
Regarding the engine losses due to exhaust, does this average include turbocharged cars and also how much of an impact does a turbocharger have on the energy lose to the exhaust compared to a NA engine?
Do they run ethenol like nascar or is it more conventional fuel? If methonal....then that would be a cause for worse mpg. Great video. I always wondered what they got for mpg. I also love to see this tech make it to street cars. get 3 mpg in my zl1 1le on track. Its big, heavy, and lots of drag. But tons of fun. In my type R swapped 1991 civic si, I would get 14 mpg on track. I think I get about 17mpg on my 959 panigale. Its very interesting to see the differences.