With the new "no refuelling" rule, would it not make sense to have two fuel tanks (front and back) to shift weight as needed? Or do the regs rule that out?

If formula one cars do have to carry more fuel, they will probably carry it in a larger version of the current centrally mounted tank. That's how they did it in the no-refueling days up to the early 1980s. Another alternative might be to add "saddle" tanks along the sides of the monocoque, as part of the side pods. In any case, the fuel mass would be centralized around the car's centre of mass to reduce the effect of empty vs. full tanks on handling. The farther the fuel tank is from the centre of mass, the more effect it would have as it emptied. It makes you wonder how the pre-war drivers, whose fuel tanks were the tail of the car, handled burning off 400 pounds of fuel and lightening the load on the rear wheels.

I do not thing a front fuel tank would work. For one thing, the noses of current Formula One cars are just too small. I'd guess the footwell is not much more than 12 to 14 inches square -- just barely big enough for the driver's feet; no room for say, ten or fifteen gallons of fuel.

Another concern is safety. If you remember Robert Kubica's crash in Montreal in 2008, the nose broke off the car, exposing Robert's feet. If there had been gasoline in a tank in the nose, it is possible it could have ruptured in the front-on impact; I shudder to think of what might happen in a fire like that.

This is a question that is a bit of a tangent to the original but I am curious about the baffling in the tanks. I have heard that there are many one way "doors" and baffles inside the tank. Presumably this will become even more complex next season. Does anyone have any pictures or drawings or diagrams of the tank baffles? Also does anyone know the capacity of the current tanks?

I have no current information on baffling inside f1 fuel tanks; however, I can say that for years the preferred 'baffling' in most racing cars has been a kind of coarse open cell foam that acts as baffling; it is easy to cut to the shape of the tank and to remove areas for pumps, plumbing, etc.and can be made to fit inside in a series of blocks to fill the rubber bladder and to install through the allowed access ports, and does a great job keeping the fuel from 'sloshing' about.

As for 'trap doors', the plumbing inside the tank may well use one or more; the systems I am familiar with used multiple electric pumps feeding a 1 gallon cylinder which was used as the pick-up point for the main pump that fed the engine; another 1 1/2 gallon cylinder acted as the reserve tank and was filled when the tank was filled initially and also by an auxiliary pump that constantly kept it topped up. Mutiple pumps in all 4 corners of the tank fed the main pickup cylinder, and at its base (it sat on the floor of the tank) it had a single swinging trap door which allowed fuel to flow through to the inside, but not back out.

As for capacities, and other fuel system regs, here are the Rules:
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/7C4F8D883039AF6AC125757D00369C58/$FILE/1-2009_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS_Showing-Alterations_17-03-2009.pdf

A picture of a block of fuel tank foam:

Audiophile426 - 07 November 2009 08:56 PM

This is a question that is a bit of a tangent to the original but I am curious about the baffling in the tanks. I have heard that there are many one way "doors" and baffles inside the tank. Presumably this will become even more complex next season. Does anyone have any pictures or drawings or diagrams of the tank baffles? Also does anyone know the capacity of the current tanks?

There's a lot more to racing fuel cells than meets the eye; they're not just a box full of petrol with a tube in it. This picture, lifted from the ATL Fuel Cells web site gives you an idea.



First, the metal or carbon fiber "fuel tank" has a flexible, neoprene-coated, kevlar fuel bladder inside it. This thing is extremely tough -- the FIA requires that it hold together when filled with water (which is 1/3 denser and heavier per gallon than gasoline) and dropped off a 60 foot tower without leaking. ATL claims their fuel cells are "bulletproof;" they make a version for the army, so they may well be.

Second, the tank is full of "anti-surge foam," which is the blue stuff Wilmywood posted. It is a sponge-like open-cell foam that allows fuel to fill the tank and flow out of it, but not slosh around.

Next, there is the "Black Box" surge tank. This is a small box inside the big one. The trap doors allow fuel to flow into the surge tank as the car accellerates, goes around corners or brakes (depending on where it is mounted), but not flow out again. This small tank-within-a-tank holds only a gallon or two of fuel; this is enough for the fuel pump to draw from, but not enough to allow it to slosh completely away from the fuel intake, running it dry.

If you ever see a car swerving from side to side and the announcers say "he's trying to get more fuel into the engine," what he's doing is trying to slosh a little more fuel through the trap doors and into the surge tank.

From there, the fuel pump sends it out to the fuel pressure regulator to the fuel injection system and ultimately to the engine.

Another variant of this system, used in NASCAR and similar series, dispenses with the surge tank and instead has "duck bill" valves mounted in the corners, where fuel collects in left turns and under accelleration.

Hope that answers your questions...and explains the "trap doors."

Those are the 2009 regs^. Not much change, but best to check current 2010 ver. for 2010 rules.
http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

1.14 Survival Cell:
A continuous closed structure containing the fuel tank and the cockpit

So the entire chassis must change for next year to include protecting the larger fuel cell.

6.1.1 The fuel tank must be a single rubber bladder conforming to or exceeding the specifications of FIA/FT5-1999, the fitting of foam within the tank however is not mandatory….

6.1.2 All the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver’s back when viewed in lateral projection. … a maximum of 2 liters of fuel may be kept outside the survival cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.

6.1.3 Fuel must not be stored more than 400mm from the longitudinal axis of the car.

As far as baffles or foam, I’m surprised they are even needed. Race boats use fuel bladders (i.e. no air – which precludes starvation).



(Edit: Whoops – I didn’t refresh the page first, so didn’t see GreyWolf74’s last post ^ before posting this. So I guess they do use the bladder.)

Ipso - F1 and other racing cars, since they operate mostly in two dimensions and 'rubber side down', do not need the deforming no air bladders you describe for race boats. They use a bladder which maintains it shape full or empty, helped by the anti-slosh foam used.

The first clue they use a bladder would have been section 6.1.1 in the regs you posted .

wilmywood8455 - 08 November 2009 12:22 PM

Ipso - F1 and other racing cars, since they operate mostly in two dimensions and 'rubber side down', do not need the deforming no air bladders you describe for race boats. They use a bladder which maintains it shape full or empty, helped by the anti-slosh foam used.

The first clue they use a bladder would have been section 6.1.1 in the regs you posted .

An airless collapsible fuel bladder works just as well in 2 dimensions of movement as 3, so my point stands.

There may be other reasons why a more rigid rubber non-vacuum baffled/foamed bladder is used (if in fact it is used) like speed of refueling – which of course goes away in 2010 – so we may see different designs.

Your second point about a “first clue” is weak. You knew I was talking about a deforming no-air bladder (per pic) which the regs did not mention (nor you). So what clue are you referring?

ipso - 08 November 2009 01:18 PM

wilmywood8455 - 08 November 2009 12:22 PM

Ipso - F1 and other racing cars, since they operate mostly in two dimensions and 'rubber side down', do not need the deforming no air bladders you describe for race boats. They use a bladder which maintains it shape full or empty, helped by the anti-slosh foam used.

The first clue they use a bladder would have been section 6.1.1 in the regs you posted .

An airless collapsible fuel bladder works just as well in 2 dimensions of movement as 3, so my point stands.

There may be other reasons why a more rigid rubber non-vacuum baffled/foamed bladder is used (if in fact it is used) like speed of refueling – which of course goes away in 2010 – so we may see different designs.

Your second point about a “first clue” is weak. You knew I was talking about a deforming no-air bladder (per pic) which the regs did not mention (nor you). So what clue are you referring?

One reason may be that they have for years used electric pumps immersed in fuel, and have had no starvation issues; F1 is loathe to do anything new that is not demonstrably better or lighter and taking a chance on an external pump losing its prime might well fall under this heading. Some of these guys have been around since mechanical 'pull' pumps were de rigueur, and may well have seen fuel starvation issues in the past which the current pump-in-tank setups avoid. In addition, I doubt they would relish the thought of a half empty collapsible fuel bladder beating itself to death as their car jumps curbs and sliding side to side transferring its weight under high G cornering, since there would be nothing but air between the collapsed bladder and the surfaces that contain it.

As for the 'first clue': I was referring to your "(Edit: Whoops – I didn’t refresh the page first, so didn’t see GreyWolf74’s last post ^ before posting this. So I guess they do use the bladder.) "

I misunderstood.

Apologies.

Thanks for the info guys. I have another question tho. I read the section of the regulations about the fuel but im havin a hard time interpreting it. As i understand it the fuel is essentially gasoline with a small percentage being derived from biomass (probably ethanol). Is this correct and if so what octane is it? i know its quiet a bit more volatile than pump gas.