Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#101 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 April 2010 - 00:27

""If F1 has to develop something helpful for real (road) driving conditions, then the best solution is for an engine that is turbocharged and GDI (gasoline direct injection)," Ferrari CEO Amedeo Felisa said. "That is what we would support. It is the best solution for driving efficiency and utilisation of the engine in a positive way."

The best solution is arbitrarily telling everyone else what the best solution must be? These people are I'm sure very good at taking and giving direction and doing their jobs, but thinking cogently is obviously not their forte.


Completely agree. If the engine designers are given a free rein and a fuel flow limit, they will settle on something better than that. Of the currently available technologies either DI 2 stroke (perhaps ah la Lotus Omnivore) or diesel and/or compounding IMHO. Further into the future - who knows?

Advertisement

#102 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 April 2010 - 02:44

i surely hope that they also limit wing sizes and mechanical grip. adding some extra power and you have a spectaular race car.

Look how he fights the car and you can also see the fantastic acceleration.

What a great little clip. The Lotus looks like it's unglued half the time. Those are the cars of my boyhood memories.

I don't recall if the collective "we" has already gone down the path but if we ignore driver aids, would Senna's JPS Lotus in that 1985 clip be far off the pace of today's cars?

#103 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 April 2010 - 09:41

What a great little clip. The Lotus looks like it's unglued half the time. Those are the cars of my boyhood memories.

I don't recall if the collective "we" has already gone down the path but if we ignore driver aids, would Senna's JPS Lotus in that 1985 clip be far off the pace of today's cars?


Jugding by that clip.

no. with todays rubber tech on those rims perhaps at tracks like Monza and spa, most likely only in a quali as the brakes probably still was steelies.


When it comes to the 2013 motor suggestion i am not very happy but not disappointed either.

It could have been worse but it could have been way better. i mean they could just as easy have said 2.4L NA V6.


What i don`t like is how spesific it is.

1.5L
4 Cyl
And twin turbo.

Its actually a bit silly, Twin turbo? on a 4 cyl engine at 1.5 Liter hope it evolves to maximum 2 turbos allowed.

The best part is direct injection. Thats going to crank up the HP dramatically. And give a really aggressive engine note. wish they did it on todays motors. after some time we will miss the V12s, v10s and the V8 even more as FIA probably will not allow any bigger hp figures than 900hp

Wonder what boost they would allow....

prob 2-3 bar tops.

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 April 2010 - 09:53.


#104 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,488 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 April 2010 - 09:51

Look how he fights the car and you can also see the fantastic acceleration.

That looks awesome. That Lotus was such a beauty.

#105 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 April 2010 - 17:49

I don`t bother to start a new tread. I just ask here.

Whats the pressure the pneumatic valvesprings work at?

prefferably in bar :)

#106 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 April 2010 - 07:46

When it comes to the 2013 motor suggestion i am not very happy but not disappointed either.


I am disappointed.

How very ordinary. Turbo 4 cylinders.

And they are aiming for about 700hp. Which isn't enough.


#107 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 28 April 2010 - 09:26

I am disappointed.

How very ordinary. Turbo 4 cylinders.

And they are aiming for about 700hp. Which isn't enough.


Were do you have that from?

If so i totally agree with you. The modern race tracks are so safe that they should more than consider to allow 800+ hp.

If 700hp is their target.. i will be disappointed too.

#108 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:19

Completely agree. If the engine designers are given a free rein and a fuel flow limit, they will settle on something better than that. Of the currently available technologies either DI 2 stroke (perhaps ah la Lotus Omnivore) or diesel and/or compounding IMHO. Further into the future - who knows?


The problem with a free rein is that what is the best solution within the regulation and application of F1, it doesn't have to be the best solution for road cars. For future roadcars I don't think we will see a shift away from the four stroke piston engine, but rather an evolution of it with direct injection, turbocharging and variable valve timing and lift. So to actually be relevant to roadcars, I think you have to put some sort of limit to what can be used. Not only that, to investigate all the different engine concepts possible in order to find the ideal one for F1 would probably be costly.

I don`t bother to start a new tread. I just ask here.

Whats the pressure the pneumatic valvesprings work at?

prefferably in bar :)


Well, the Asiatec (formerly Peugeot) V10 ran 15 bar.

#109 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 April 2010 - 10:16

Well, the Asiatec (formerly Peugeot) V10 ran 15 bar.


what? no more than 15bars. what rpm did that do?

#110 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 29 April 2010 - 12:54


The Ferrari 049 engine of 2000 used 200 bar with a 0.7 litre reservoir.

#111 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 April 2010 - 13:41

The Ferrari 049 engine of 2000 used 200 bar with a 0.7 litre reservoir.



Edlund got the conversion bad i guess.

how much HP does that pnumatic system use?


Edited by MatsNorway, 29 April 2010 - 14:12.


#112 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 April 2010 - 23:09

The Ferrari 049 engine of 2000 used 200 bar with a 0.7 litre reservoir.

Is that reservoir pressure or actuator pressure. Don't most of these systems vary the pressure with engine rpm?

#113 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 29 April 2010 - 23:38

Is that reservoir pressure or actuator pressure. Don't most of these systems vary the pressure with engine rpm?

Ah, now that I cannot tell you. I unashamedly lifted the figures from Peter Wright's Ferrari F2000 book, and they are in the tech. spec., not the body of the text, so no detail. Varying the pressure with engine revs would surely use a lot of gas over the length of a race, as to lower the pressure, gas would have to be vented. 15 bar sounds more realistic, and 200 a bit high.

My only personal experience is that I once said to Paul Morgan that I assumed that the volume of gas would stay about the same, as for every valve opening or fully open, another valve would be closing or fully closed. His reply was "Er, yes, more or less!" So there you have it..

#114 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 30 April 2010 - 14:49

ah i see so they need to fill em up before race. Ban it :D

Whats the spring rate on normal race engines?. lets say Nascar or a top fuel. perhaps top alkohol since i believe they run more revs.

Edited by MatsNorway, 30 April 2010 - 14:50.


#115 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:12

Racecar Engineering's May 2007 issue had a discussion about the future of Grand Prix racing engines.

The article described a naturally aspirated 3.0l V12 base engine restricted to a maximum rpm of 12,500 and around 600hp. The engine proposed would have a turbo-compounding unit, en exhaust energy recovery system (EERS), as well as the kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) in an integral unit. The total output with these technologies would be around the 900hp mark.

The idea behind the engine being a V12 is that with the lower rpm limit the exhaust frequency would be similar to the V8 at 19,000rpm. It was also proposed that the bore stroke ratio be brought more into line with current road car engines, rather than extreme ratios currently in use.

Such an engine would be an interesting unit. However, the exhaust energy recovery system would be an expensive excercise if each team and/or motor manufacturer was to develop its own, as was with KERS. If KERS is made a standard unit also costs could be further curtailed. Teams would be free to play with the turbocompounding. A few years after the systems have been in operation they could free up their design, so that teams could devlop better and more efficient designs.

As to road car relevence, wouldn't that mean they would have east-west mounted 4 cylinder engines driving the front wheels? They are the most common types of cars these days.

#116 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:15

At the end of 2008 Martin Whitmarsh, IIRC, stated that the teams and teh FIA had frozen an "expensive" engine.

Which features would be the most costly on the current generation of V8s?

And could the next eneration of engines be cheaper incarnations of those?

#117 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:20

Racecar Engineering's May 2007 issue had a discussion about the future of Grand Prix racing engines.

The article described a naturally aspirated 3.0l V12 base engine restricted to a maximum rpm of 12,500 and around 600hp. The engine proposed would have a turbo-compounding unit, en exhaust energy recovery system (EERS), as well as the kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) in an integral unit. The total output with these technologies would be around the 900hp mark.

The idea behind the engine being a V12 is that with the lower rpm limit the exhaust frequency would be similar to the V8 at 19,000rpm. It was also proposed that the bore stroke ratio be brought more into line with current road car engines, rather than extreme ratios currently in use.

Such an engine would be an interesting unit. However, the exhaust energy recovery system would be an expensive excercise if each team and/or motor manufacturer was to develop its own, as was with KERS. If KERS is made a standard unit also costs could be further curtailed. Teams would be free to play with the turbocompounding. A few years after the systems have been in operation they could free up their design, so that teams could devlop better and more efficient designs.

As to road car relevence, wouldn't that mean they would have east-west mounted 4 cylinder engines driving the front wheels? They are the most common types of cars these days.

Sounds like an interesting formula but still a bit too prescriptive to my thinking. It rules out a lot of potential, exciting technologies like Diesel, HCCR, VCR, 2 stroke etc and worst of all, doesn't seem to reward efficiency gains in the way that a fuel-flow limit would.

#118 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 May 2010 - 11:10

Sounds like an interesting formula but still a bit too prescriptive to my thinking. It rules out a lot of potential, exciting technologies like Diesel, HCCR, VCR, 2 stroke etc and worst of all, doesn't seem to reward efficiency gains in the way that a fuel-flow limit would.


It may be too prescriptive, but that's the way things have been heading the last few years.

Don't want Diesel in F1...they can have sports prototypes.

Not sure what HCCR is, would variable compression ratio be at all useful in a racing car?

Maybe 2 stroke could be a good thing - but it hasn't exactly taken off in a world where emissions, fuel consumption and cost are the only rules.

btw, if fuel flow limits were introduced wouldn't the manufacturers just make engines that make the maximum permissable hp over as much of the engine range as possible?

#119 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 May 2010 - 11:54

Not sure what HCCR is, would variable compression ratio be at all useful in a racing car?

Sorry - HCCI. VCR is a useful feature for optimising efficiency over the full operating range of an engine. Also very useful for controlling and optimising HCCI.

Maybe 2 stroke could be a good thing - but it hasn't exactly taken off in a world where emissions, fuel consumption and cost are the only rules.

Yes you need to remove "cost". That's where F1 could help. Development cost is less a factor for low volume race engines. Some of the two stroke concepts getting around (OEC, Lotus) may only show a marginal benefit against the development costs to high volume production stage, whereas the benefit for an F1 team in a fuel-flow restricted formula might be compelling.

btw, if fuel flow limits were introduced wouldn't the manufacturers just make engines that make the maximum permissable hp over as much of the engine range as possible?

The "maximum permissible HP" would be directly linked to engine efficiency. (Power=Fuel-Flow x Efficiency). If an engine developer achieved 10% higher efficiency than his competitors, he would have 10% more power.

Advertisement

#120 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 03 May 2010 - 20:19

what? no more than 15bars. what rpm did that do?


16,500 rpm

There are by the way a number of U.S. Patents that describe this kind of valvespring system

5,058,541
7,249,580
6,083,140
5,233,950

to mention a few

The Ferrari 049 engine of 2000 used 200 bar with a 0.7 litre reservoir.


That's the pressure in the reservoir, the pressure inside the pneumatic cylinders are much lower.

#121 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 May 2010 - 21:58

That's the pressure in the reservoir, the pressure inside the pneumatic cylinders are much lower.

:) As I have already conceded! I'm surprised it is quite so difficult to find these figures - but I didn't look very hard.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 03 May 2010 - 21:59.


#122 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 May 2010 - 23:35

:) As I have already conceded! I'm surprised it is quite so difficult to find these figures - but I didn't look very hard.


Based on the pictures of the Cosworth engine I would say the pneumatic cylinders apprear to be around 30 mm in diameter, with a height of around 50 mm. If we assume that to be the case, combined with a stroke (valve lift) of 15 mm, and the start pressure is 15 bar we would have 15 bar and 1060 N (240 lbs) with a closed valve (706 mm^2). The compression ratio is 1.43, causing the pressure to rise to 25 bar and 1760 N (399 lbs) with the valve fully open. Those numbers don't seem totally unrealistic.

#123 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 May 2010 - 09:27

Based on the pictures of the Cosworth engine I would say the pneumatic cylinders apprear to be around 30 mm in diameter, with a height of around 50 mm. If we assume that to be the case, combined with a stroke (valve lift) of 15 mm, and the start pressure is 15 bar we would have 15 bar and 1060 N (240 lbs) with a closed valve (706 mm^2). The compression ratio is 1.43, causing the pressure to rise to 25 bar and 1760 N (399 lbs) with the valve fully open. Those numbers don't seem totally unrealistic.



If they only use 15bars. whats so hi tech? how come street car tuners don`t use pnumatic valvesprings.

#124 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,521 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 May 2010 - 09:40

If they only use 15bars. whats so hi tech? how come street car tuners don`t use pnumatic valvesprings.


Because steel springs work sufficiently well? That'd be the obvious answer.

#125 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:07

If they only use 15bars. whats so hi tech? how come street car tuners don`t use pnumatic valvesprings.

The pressure has nothing to do with it being hi tech, it's the design. Steel springs are perfect for production engines and are cheap - I bet pneumatics are not.

#126 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:16

If they only use 15bars. whats so hi tech? how come street car tuners don`t use pnumatic valvesprings.



Because steel springs work sufficiently well? That'd be the obvious answer.



The pressure has nothing to do with it being hi tech, it's the design. Steel springs are perfect for production engines and are cheap - I bet pneumatics are not.



What is the advantage of pneumatic valve springs? That they give superior closing at high rpm, or that the system is lighter than a steel spring alternative?

#127 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:34

What is the advantage of pneumatic valve springs? That they give superior closing at high rpm, or that the system is lighter than a steel spring alternative?

To quote from the SAE publication 'Formula One Technology' by Peter Wright, copyright SAE, still a good buy!

'The system provided a massless spring, avoiding spring-surge, with a high pre-load and a rate that was low enough to lower the natural frequency outside the operating range. More aggressive cam accelerations were possible with this system, increasing the possibilities for valve timimg.' © SAE.

#128 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:56

So what makes it costly then.

Because there is no limit for how much power some street car tuners wants.


#129 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:38

The pressure has nothing to do with it being hi tech, it's the design. Steel springs are perfect for production engines and are cheap - I bet pneumatics are not.


Yes I'll bet: first you need a pump, which of course has to be driven, so a drive arrangement. There is the necessary plumbing and of course the "springs" themselves and their associated fittings.

I should like to know the likely life of these components - in road car applications.

I recall that Renault designer Dudot when asked what happens if the system fails, replied: "Simple, the pistons will close the valves!"


#130 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,521 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:39

So what makes it costly then.

Because there is no limit for how much power some street car tuners wants.


Want maybe. Fact is until they run silly rpms then they don't need pneumatic valvesprings.




#131 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 May 2010 - 13:20

Yes I'll bet: first you need a pump, which of course has to be driven, so a drive arrangement. There is the necessary plumbing and of course the "springs" themselves and their associated fittings.

I should like to know the likely life of these components - in road car applications.

I recall that Renault designer Dudot when asked what happens if the system fails, replied: "Simple, the pistons will close the valves!"

The only system I have seen close-up is from the Ferrari 049 engine, so 2000 technology. For road car use you might need a pump, but as far as I know F1 systems use a bottle to maintain pressure as there is some loss, but I don't know how much. The 049 cylinder head is full of airways cast in situ, and drillings. There are three small, complex (expensive) valves for each combustion chamber - that just might be three inbetween pairs of chambers - and a sealed spring unit for each valve. The precision involved in making these parts is way beyond what you need for steel coil springs I would suggest, and the whole shooting match is just not necessary for a road engine. The last versions of the Honda CART engine was, I think, run up to 16,000 RPM on steel valve springs - why bother with anything else?

Illustrations to follow if I can find them!

Posted Image

Basic pneumatic valve spring system.

Posted Image

Cutaway showing one pneumatic valve spring and the positions of three valves, indicated by red lines. The two on the left are from one group of three, the one on the right is one of the next group of three - they are situated on each cylinder centre line, the two on the left being accessed/ inserted via the spark-plug bore.

Posted Image

The valves, floating in mid-air, but in their correct relative positions.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 05 May 2010 - 16:51.


#132 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 May 2010 - 14:29

The only system I have seen close-up is from the Ferrari 049 engine, so 2000 technology. For road car use you might need a pump, but as far as I know F1 systems use a bottle to maintain pressure as there is some loss, but I don't know how much. The 049 cylinder head is full of airways cast in situ, and drillings. There are three small, complex (expensive) valves for each combustion chamber - that just might be three inbetween pairs of chambers - and a sealed spring unit for each valve. The precision involved in making these parts is way beyond what you need for steel coil springs I would suggest, and the whole shooting match is just not necessary for a road engine. The last versions of the Honda CART engine was, I think, run up to 16,000 RPM on steel valve springs - why bother with anything else? [...]


Thanks for that Tony, most interesting and indeed, very expensive. If new engines for F1 are to have rev limits low enough to have a significant impact on costs, then it would seem unnecessary to have this kind of sophistication.

A shame though I think, as advanced engine technology is very attractive to me. The prospect of a "World" four-cylinder engine is most depressing despite any financial aspects that may apply.

#133 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 May 2010 - 21:24

Thanks for that Tony, most interesting and indeed, very expensive. If new engines for F1 are to have rev limits low enough to have a significant impact on costs, then it would seem unnecessary to have this kind of sophistication.

A shame though I think, as advanced engine technology is very attractive to me. The prospect of a "World" four-cylinder engine is most depressing despite any financial aspects that may apply.




Personally i hope pnumatic valves gets banned just so they develop some trick desmo valvetrain with V-tech and all that. its more fuel efficient too, that desmo stuff.

Nice drawings TM


Edited by MatsNorway, 05 May 2010 - 21:26.


#134 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 May 2010 - 22:10

A shame though I think, as advanced engine technology is very attractive to me. The prospect of a "World" four-cylinder engine is most depressing despite any financial aspects that may apply.


I agree.

I suppose having 4 cylinder engines would make F1 more attractive to manufacturers like VW, but at what cost?

#135 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 May 2010 - 22:25

I agree.

I suppose having 4 cylinder engines would make F1 more attractive to manufacturers like VW, but at what cost?


Its a shame if they don`t allow some diversity. if a lot of cylinders is the prefered option give them different engine volumes depending on what cyl numbers they run. 6 Cyl 1.5L , 5cyl 1.6L, 4 cyl 1.7L

I also hope they don`t force in twin turbo configuration as a must.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 May 2010 - 22:25.


#136 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 May 2010 - 23:50

The last versions of the Honda CART engine was, I think, run up to 16,000 RPM on steel valve springs - why bother with anything else?

Great pictures Tony - thanks. I was searching for some info yesterday without success. To answer your question above - why do Ducati bother with desmo when valve spring can permit the same rpms? I guess friction reduction is part of the answer but higher valve accelerations is the main incentive. Ditto for pneumatic.

#137 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:31

Great pictures Tony - thanks. I was searching for some info yesterday without success. To answer your question above - why do Ducati bother with desmo when valve spring can permit the same rpms? I guess friction reduction is part of the answer but higher valve accelerations is the main incentive. Ditto for pneumatic.


Don`t forget the killer marketing effect it has.






But is it allowed to use heat exchancers for cooling? i think gordon murray tried it.

im no expert but would not a heat exhancer make it possible to use smaller radiators and intakes to them?

#138 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:23

But is it allowed to use heat exchancers for cooling? i think gordon murray tried it.

im no expert but would not a heat exhancer make it possible to use smaller radiators and intakes to them?

Yes. Heat exchangers were used for years in CART, as far as I know there is no regulation against them in F1.

#139 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:25

Don`t forget the killer marketing effect it has.

Which? Pneumatic or desmodromic? The general public has absolutely no interest in F1 technology.

Advertisement

#140 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:33

Which? Pneumatic or desmodromic? The general public has absolutely no interest in F1 technology.


The general public don`t drive or buy ducati.



#141 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:35

Yes. Heat exchangers were used for years in CART, as far as I know there is no regulation against them in F1.


thanks.

so why not F1?

must be something about the power you use to drive the system.

Such as system must be lighter too?

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 May 2010 - 10:35.


#142 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 May 2010 - 11:15

so why not F1?

must be something about the power you use to drive the system.

Such as system must be lighter too?

I didn't say they are not used in F1, I just don't know. What power? No power is used in a water/oil heat exchanger. You have smaller water radiators, but the weight of the exchanger, so I don't suppose there is a big weight advantage overall.

#143 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 May 2010 - 12:08

Its a shame if they don`t allow some diversity. if a lot of cylinders is the prefered option give them different engine volumes depending on what cyl numbers they run. 6 Cyl 1.5L , 5cyl 1.6L, 4 cyl 1.7L

I also hope they don`t force in twin turbo configuration as a must.


I think different capacities for different configurations is a solution they tried in MotoGP, but I'm not sure if it would work for F1. Better to have a single limit for turboed engines, and another for non-turboed engines.

Or a fuel flow regulation limit.



Question: Would it be possible to set a fuel flow limit depending on the percentage of maximum rpm? ie - say that at 50% rpm the fuel flow must be no more than 60% of the maximum fuel flow allowed.

I keep coming back to the idea that if a fuel flow limit is chosen and little other erstrictions are enforced that the engines will end up having the same hp over a very wide rpm band.

#144 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 May 2010 - 12:09

I didn't say they are not used in F1, I just don't know. What power? No power is used in a water/oil heat exchanger. You have smaller water radiators, but the weight of the exchanger, so I don't suppose there is a big weight advantage overall.


Heat exchangers for what?

#145 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 15:51

I didn't say they are not used in F1, I just don't know. What power? No power is used in a water/oil heat exchanger. You have smaller water radiators, but the weight of the exchanger, so I don't suppose there is a big weight advantage overall.


you or i is mixing it up, im not sure if its even called a heat exchancer. im thinking of that system were you cool the desired object then compress the gas who leads to a temperature raise and a convertion from gas to liquid, and then you cool it down.

after you have cooled it down you let it tru a pressure valve who leads to more temperature drop and cools the engine down. and it starts over.

#146 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 15:58

I keep coming back to the idea that if a fuel flow limit is chosen and little other erstrictions are enforced that the engines will end up having the same hp over a very wide rpm band.



I don`t think you would end up with that. Because i believe a surten amount of bore and stroke got its ideal rpm range making power output in that area more efficient.

But i still think youre into something.

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 May 2010 - 15:58.


#147 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 May 2010 - 17:38

you or i is mixing it up, im not sure if its even called a heat exchancer. im thinking of that system were you cool the desired object then compress the gas who leads to a temperature raise and a convertion from gas to liquid, and then you cool it down.

after you have cooled it down you let it tru a pressure valve who leads to more temperature drop and cools the engine down. and it starts over.

That is not an automotive heat exchanger. That sounds like a fridge. I give up.

#148 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 May 2010 - 19:28

That is not an automotive heat exchanger. That sounds like a fridge. I give up.


the principle is the same.




#149 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 May 2010 - 02:51

So you are asking about the possibility of refrigeration cooling in F1 cars?

I guess any size reduction in the condensor/radiator would be offset by the need to run the compressor.



Gordon Murray tried surface cooling. I think the issue there was that the system needed such large areas of bodywork to act as heat exchangers, Plus all the piping required.

The best examples of surface cooling I can think of were the big racing sea planes of the late '20s and '30 used for the Schneider Trophy, such as the Supermarine S6B and the Macchi MC72. Each used large portions of their fuselages and floats for cooling surfaces. Even then they only ran for 30 or 40 minutes at most.

#150 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 May 2010 - 03:29

I keep coming back to the idea that if a fuel flow limit is chosen and little other erstrictions are enforced that the engines will end up having the same hp over a very wide rpm band.


You are right there. The power curve would look like the engine efficiency curve - at least in the range where the breathing of the engine can utilise all the fuel available. There is nothing unusual or bad about that - look at the power curve for a WRC engine. A flat power curve means fewer gears required (only one if it's totally flat) but of course the efficiency will peak within some rev range and it would be best to maintain the engine within that range.