55 replies to this topic

[Angus Baltimore]

Hello everyone, is it me or there's a problem with F1 car's tank capacity ?

Brabham BT24

Fuel Capacity: 35 gallons in 2 aluminum gas tanks mounted on each side of cockpit.

Now : 35 gallons x 3.78 liters = 132 liters
How can anyone fit that amount of gas in 2 aluminum gas tanks of 66 liters each mounted on each side of cockpit, there is no room do the math something just doesn't add on.



And what about the new cars ?
It is a large leak proof flexible bladder made of military grade ballistics material to contain all the fuel necessary for the car during a race (approximately 160 kg or 230 L)
 ft1.jpg   74.15K   15 downloads

There is not enough room in that bladder, no need to say not enough room behind the driver's seat.

Looking for some real answers.
And happy new year to everybody.

[fajanko]

Hi Angus,

66 liters are appr. 16 by 4 cubes with 1 liter (1 dm3) volume each. Considering the length of BT24 bodywork and looking at this image, I think it's okay to accept the given data.

Repco Brabham facebook group
https://www.facebook...91835624220458/

+
Sauber F1.08 fuel tank cutaway photo attached.

Todays fuel tanks are more complex than just an empty container.

Attached Files

•  bt-24.jpg   188.23K   41 downloads
•  Brabham-BT24-1967.gif   200.07K   46 downloads
•  Sauber-F108-cutaway-12.jpg   171.47K   39 downloads

Edited by fajanko, Dec 30 2019 - 10:23 AM.

[Michkov]

Jani already took care of the modern cars with their tanks behind the driver. That's really a thing since the early 80s when the usual space the tanks occupied was needed to make the ground effect work. Also the reason why the early to mid 80s cars have the driver sitting between the front wheels. Anyway prior to that tanks are in between the wheels to keep the balance as fuel burns off. In the torpedo like 60s cars that means you got a tank to you left and right, maybe a saddle tank above your legs if we are talking early 70s.

In a framed car it's dedicated containers, in monocoque the chassis is the actual tank with a rubber bladder to hold the liquid if you are not Matra.

As for the lack of space, volumes are pesky little things, always look smaller than they really are. here is a Cooper T51, the only car I could find showing obvious tanks, but it's the same for the cars through the decade. A quick measurement of the big tank left of the driver gives me a size of ~40l, let's say half of that for the one behind the firewall and you got 60l on a single side. That makes 120 if we assume symmetric tanks, bit more since I low balled the measurements.

[Angus Baltimore]

Hi Jani and Michkov and thanks for your replies.
They say a picture is worth 1000 words.

Last week i had to replace my car's fuel tank (63 liters), and when i saw the size of it, i thought how are they putting all that fuel in a small F1 car not matter the year, the model.
This thing is huge and think 2 of it, one in each side of the driver, not enough room there. tank size : 52 x 17 x 10 inches for 63 liters

 bmw 316i fuel tank 52 x 17 x 10 inches 63 liters.jpg   41.31K   7 downloads

It's like having 13 Jerricans of 5 liters on each side of the driver, not matter how you want it, you have to get rid of the driver if you want your Jerricans to fit there.

And for the modern cars, behind the driver, you need 230L / 5L = 46 Jerricans of 5 liters.
Now picture all the Jerricans, flexible or not, you need room for all that volume, we're talking about F1 cars not family vans.

 10 Jerrican 5 liters.jpg   8.97K   6 downloads

Edited by Angus Baltimore, Dec 31 2019 - 01:23 AM.

[M Needforspeed]

Angus,

  for the sixties single seaters cars, imagine  an object measuring 1m L X 0,2m l x 0,3m h = 0.06 m3

  0.06 m3 = 60 dm3= 60 liters x 2 sides = 120 liters

   There is quite easily enough room to put the object on each side of those cars, if you compare with their wheelbase.They had largely  a minimum of 1.6m available, to put something in between  !( Lotus 49 wheelbase = 2.41 m. )
I can't see where is the problem ? And on some F1 cars they added a small extra fuel tank behind the driver legs.

Compared with the Cooper T 51 blueprint above, there was larger volume, for the same wheelbase length. The driver and engine where put further back to the rear wheels train

objects volume capacity look really smaller than they are, as said Michkov

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 31 2019 - 03:34 AM.

[Angus Baltimore]

M Needforspeed, on Dec 31 2019 - 02:42 AM, said:

Angus,

  for the sixties single seaters cars, imagine  an object measuring 1m L X 0,2m l x 0,3m h = 0.06 m3

  0.06 m3 = 60 dm3= 60 liters x 2 sides = 120 liters

   There is quite easily enough room to put the object on each side of those cars, if you compare with their wheelbase.They had largely  a minimum of 1.6m available, to put something in between  !( Lotus 49 wheelbase = 2.41 m. )
I can't see where is the problem ? And on some F1 cars they added a small extra fuel tank behind the driver legs.

Compared with the Cooper T 51 blueprint above, there was larger volume, for the same wheelbase length. The driver and engine where put further back to the rear wheels train

objects volume capacity look really smaller than they are, as said Michkov

I'm not talking about imagining or assuming, i'm talking about facts. No place for 13 Jarricans on each side of the driver, no matter the shape or size of the aluminium tank and how do you fit 230 liters (46 Jerricans) in that small "bladder"  behind the driver in modern cars ?

Something just doesn't add on.

[fajanko]

Seems we have to accept there's some kind of magic here

[KARTM]

your numbers are all wrong modern modern F1 cars carry 110 kg of fuel wich is around 150 L , in the 3 liters era most cars had a 200 L  more ore less  fuel capacity , especially cars with v12  , Cosworth ,and repco could do a race with a lot less then that around 170-180 L ,  ,and yes frame and tank were big enough , with sometime small tank over the leg and  behind  the seat , the rubber bladder  and aeoquip tubing  became mandatory in 1970 , protection of fuel tank on each side 10cm thick  became mandatory in 1973 . fuel tank in central position came by design cause of "wingcar" architecture ,but became mandatory in 1983   inside then in the ubiquitous  carbon fiber frame ,  so the 1973 " 10 cm structure deformable" rule became obsolete ,

Edited by KARTM, Dec 31 2019 - 05:14 AM.

[Paddy the Irishman]

Capacity of a jerrycan is 20 litres,= 5.3 US Gallons.  I haven't  done any further calculations - leaving that to other debaters

[M Needforspeed]

Angus Baltimore, on Dec 31 2019 - 04:36 AM, said:

I'm not talking about imagining or assuming, i'm talking about facts. No place for 13 Jarricans on each side of the driver, no matter the shape or size of the aluminium tank and how do you fit 230 liters (46 Jerricans) in that small "bladder"  behind the driver in modern cars ?

Something just doesn't add on.

I can't see why puttings numbers are imagining things ? I think I am talking about facts, either.... That's your jerrycan problem,not F1 side problem...I am talking about sixties cigar shaped cars, and their consumption wasn't so much, far fom 230 liters

1.4 x 0.20 X 0.30 = 84 dm3 = 84 Liters on each side= 168 L . With the consumption numbers put by Philippe for Repco and Cosworth, there is no problems at all. 1.4 being a really pessimistic figure for the inside body structure length available on those cars .0.20 width available,  is pessimistic too, put for purpose of the topic
.In the seventies, F1 cars have seen their cockpit sides enlarged, so, even with the new safety tank rules mandatory for 1973 and after, they cld embark more gas.

At the end , facts are facts...

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 31 2019 - 06:08 AM.

[Angus Baltimore]

KARTM, on Dec 31 2019 - 04:59 AM, said:

your numbers are all wrong modern modern F1 cars carry 110 kg of fuel wich is around 150 L , in the 3 liters era most cars had a 200 L  more ore less  fuel capacity , especially cars with v12  , Cosworth ,and repco could do a race with a lot less then that around 170-180 L ,  ,and yes frame and tank were big enough , with sometime small tank over the leg and  behind  the seat , the rubber bladder  and aeoquip tubing  became mandatory in 1970 , protection of fuel tank on each side 10cm thick  became mandatory in 1973 . fuel tank in central position came by design cause of "wingcar" architecture ,but became mandatory in 1983   inside then in the ubiquitous  carbon fiber frame ,  so the 1973 " 10 cm structure deformable" rule became obsolete ,

OK so 110 kg of fuel = 158 Liters
Do you think you can fit 158 liters in that bladder next to the engine behind the driver ?

For me 158 l = 31 Jarricans, and once you picture 31 Jerricans (a fact) you understand that no matter the flexibility of the bladder it just doesn't fit inside the car.

For the 67's era i was talking about 120 liters of fuel but now you say it was more like 150 liters, even more difficult if not possible to fit.

[KARTM]

indycar are a very different beast  running now and then on methanol family fuel  , but fuel capacity was ruled for the first time in 1974 to 40 gallons , before that ,they had near  twice that capacity something near 300 L , gaz/petrol  became mandatory in  F1 (instead of alcool/methanol family  ) in 1958  the same years GP lenght  went from 500 to 300 km , so before 1958 some cars had  300-400 L tank capacity ,

[Angus Baltimore]

Paddy the Irishman, on Dec 31 2019 - 05:30 AM, said:

Capacity of a jerrycan is 20 litres,= 5.3 US Gallons.  I haven't  done any further calculations - leaving that to other debaters

Well i just chose a 5 liters small Jerrican (you can find them anywhere here in Europe), so that everybody would see what i'm talking about.

KARTM, on Dec 31 2019 - 05:31 AM, said:

indycar are a very different beast  running now and then on methanol family fuel  , but fuel capacity was ruled for the first time in 1974 to 40 gallons , before that ,they had near  twice that capacity something near 300 L , gaz/petrol  became mandatory in  F1 (instead of alcool/methanol family  ) in 1958  the same years GP lenght  went from 500 to 300 km , so before 1958 some cars had  300-400 L tank capacity ,

Have you seen a F1 car up close ? Old time or modern one ?
Believe me no room for that amount of fuel.

[M Needforspeed]

Sorry but even 150 Liters where easy to fit on end of the sixties F1 cars . Look at the numbers, for a change !

I am not talking about modern F1 cars and fuel tanks capacity behind the driver, because there are two different subjects in your topic.

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 31 2019 - 06:03 AM.

[KARTM]

base on the doug nye book history of the gp cars , the brabham-repco was the less thirsty  ,(that we all know) they had a 35 gallon tanks capacity ,wich mean 160 L , youre right very easy to fit , especially with pannier tank ,but with the tubs and the rubber bladder ect , you were better to do your math twice before to commit and build the thing,edit  and the gallon are imperial not US

Edited by KARTM, Dec 31 2019 - 08:16 AM.

[M Needforspeed]

Angus,

it is not for nothing Nino Barlini in the movie Grand Prix said, going up to the Casino at Monaco :  " those cars are bombs " .Drivers where surrounded by large capacity gasoline tank

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 31 2019 - 07:18 AM.

[M Needforspeed]

fajanko, on Dec 31 2019 - 04:43 AM, said:

Seems we have to accept there's some kind of magic here

great !

[KARTM]

small addendum but important in that matter , to do the right math its better to use the right measures the English use imperial gallon not US, thats why 35 gallons imp =160 L , and just to do an image 160 L fit in a cube  of 54  CM

Edited by KARTM, Dec 31 2019 - 08:34 AM.

[M Needforspeed]

KARTM, on Dec 31 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:

small addendum but important in that matter , to do the right math its better to use the right measures the English use imperial gallon not US, thats why 35 gallons imp =160 L , and just to do an image 160 L fit in a cube  of 54 of CM

and taking a meter, and measuring 54 cm on 3 sides, doesn't  make a so big thing when looking at it. But 157,46 L sleep inside

We where perhaps much more domestic water consuming in the past, than now. Instead of having a shower, we used baths, with easily 150 liters of water consumed. With a  clean oriented family of 4, everyday  consumption cld be around 600 Liters only for the body bloody thing.There was no hot water tanks installed, limiting in some way the consumption,but constant hot water usable at will . At that time, no ecologists to point at that stupid thing ! Wanna be ecologists of today,should sometimes put their crazy minds in the way back machine, and see , acknowledge the progress on that  point.
Now, most people investing on a bathroom, usually doesn't  even plan to put a bath in

The 1967 McLaren M 4 A was called the bathtube monocoque, not for nothing

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 31 2019 - 09:25 AM.

[Michkov]

fajanko, on Dec 31 2019 - 04:43 AM, said:

Seems we have to accept there's some kind of magic here

TARDIS tanks, bigger on the inside