34 replies to this topic

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.racecar-e...e-mans-in-2014/

This article sounds very surprising pitching 5L engines against 1.6L power plants and with uniform max boost level of 4 bar. The main point is that all engines would be restricted to the same fuel flow. Capacity would not be important and boost neither.

How would that impact on the Le Mans engines? I reckon that small engines with few cylinders will be king due to superior efficiency. Wait for four and three pots to beat V8s.

[Greg Locock]

How would that impact on the Le Mans engines? I reckon that small engines with few cylinders will be king due to superior efficiency. Wait for four and three pots to beat V8s.

That rather depends on the tradeoff boost vs capacity vs rpm vs fuel efficiency. For example, if the max fuel rate was very high then you'd go for a larger engine.

[Lee Nicolle]

A small powerful engine with little torque per se will use more fuel than a bigger one.It works far harder for the same performance. And a Lemans car will always be heavier and push more air than an F1, hence use more fuel.
I though Lemans was the forte of truck engines now anyway, they seem to have won repeatedly in recent years. And I did here a rumour that Cummins or Cat [forget which now] were interested, and they have that technology pretty well sown up. maybe that is why the french would change the rules!!

[WhiteBlue]

That rather depends on the tradeoff boost vs capacity vs rpm vs fuel efficiency. For example, if the max fuel rate was very high then you'd go for a larger engine.

The article seems to imply that Le Mans would use the same or similar fuel flow rate as F1 or it would not make much sense to run F1 engines there. On the other hand one could have different fuel classes in which case the smaller engines would still be the most efficient in their class. I would make sense to allow slightly more fuel for less efficient engines but not so much more that they can beat the more efficient engines over the 24h distance. In other words there could be balancing of performance by fuel limit with the implicit objective that the engine with the biggest fuel handicap must win. It would make Le Mans a true efficiency and endurance sport.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 03 June 2012 - 12:30.

[Canuck]

In other words there could be balancing of performance by fuel limit with the implicit objective that the engine with the biggest fuel handicap must win. It would make Le Mans a true efficiency and endurance farce.

Fixed.

[Tony Matthews]

^

[saudoso]

F1T swallowed 24Gerrard back and then regurgitated. Took long to land here, but finally did.

[MatsNorway]

I would not mind having a formula with less restrictions around engine volume and sylinders. With fuel flow as the basis to fix the power output.

I just hope for a less complex fuel flow system than FIA proposed for umm. 2014.

The current suggestion doen`t favor fuel efficient engines as much as a static fuel flow would do. The current suggestion only negates potensial turbo lag challenges.

[TDIMeister]

LOL How funny to come back and see that most everyone's on board with a fuel limit for racing, when only about a year ago the same topic met with a pretty frosty - or flamey, depending on how one sees it - reception.;)
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=143767

Edited by TDIMeister, 04 June 2012 - 20:42.

[Tony Matthews]

Most of those who have expressed an opinion, perhaps, plus the resignation that it will be forced on us regardless.

[WhiteBlue]

In the end the eternal goal of efficiency will always reign. It does in the economy as it does in engineering. Those who follow only gut feeling will see their fancies swept away. Even in entertainment waste serves no purpose. Anything that moves is ruled by the law of efficiency from the biggest A380 wide body transport over the high speed failure of the Concorde down to the relentless competition between compact hatch backs. If you don't believe it and think the the elite world of Grand Prix racing is exempt have a look at space travel. In a very short time more efficient private space ships will carry most of the goods and the passengers that go out into space because they have been designed for efficiency.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 05 June 2012 - 01:54.

[Canuck]

The economy does not seek efficiency, it seeks profit. Always. Everything the bean-counters do is designed to maximise their stock price and profits.

[bigleagueslider]

Most of those who have expressed an opinion, perhaps, plus the resignation that it will be forced on us regardless.

Tony Matthews,

You might be old enough to recall when the LeMans race was known as the "Grand Prix of Endurance and Efficiency". Of course, watching a field of 100hp Toyota Prius hybrids go round the circuit at 60mph for 24 hours would be no fun.

TDIMeister,

A few years back, LeMans had a fuel consumption limit regulation for the race distance. So that would be nothing new.

slider

[Tony Matthews]

You might be old enough to recall when the LeMans race was known as the "Grand Prix of Endurance and Efficiency". Of course, watching a field of 100hp Toyota Prius hybrids go round the circuit at 60mph for 24 hours would be no fun.

Yes, I know, and the Index of Thermal Efficiency was a separate catagory, in that I cannot think of a car that won the ITE and also won the race outright. The Prius' would obviously entertain some posters...

[h4887]

F1T swallowed 24Gerrard back and then regurgitated. Took long to land here, but finally did.

I found this rather amusing...
http://www.yellowpag...ol/6432732.html

Edited by h4887, 05 June 2012 - 11:20.

[saudoso]

In the end the eternal goal of efficiency will always reign. It does in the economy as it does in engineering. Those who follow only gut feeling will see their fancies swept away. Even in entertainment waste serves no purpose. Anything that moves is ruled by the law of efficiency from the biggest A380 wide body transport over the high speed failure of the Concorde down to the relentless competition between compact hatch backs. If you don't believe it and think the the elite world of Grand Prix racing is exempt have a look at space travel. In a very short time more efficient private space ships will carry most of the goods and the passengers that go out into space because they have been designed for efficiency.

BS. You could cut the weight of the cars in half getting rid of the "entertainment waste" packed in them. That would have more inpact than every percentual efficiency point your dear 4 bangers would gain. You are not looking for overall efficiency, jusy your pet project of small supercharged engines - to have everyone elso taking it your way.

Efficiency in ground passenger trasportation is achived by public tranportation, not 5% more efficient engines.

It's like my wife. She is so proud of the savings she makes by purchasing her Channels in LA or Milano instead of here in Brasil.

[saudoso]

I found this rather amusing...
http://www.yellowpag...ol/6432732.html

[Tony Matthews]

He's got a proper job at last!

[Canuck]

He annoys them into leaving?

[munks]

F1T swallowed 24Gerrard back and then regurgitated. Took long to land here, but finally did.

Oh, he's still there. Just yesterday he was saying something about how brake bias on modern F1 cars is impossible to adjust due to KERS and 50-year-old layshaft technology (which must be news to all the drivers who adjust the brake bias several times per lap). Or maybe I just misunderstood what the hell Gerrard was saying.

Edited by munks, 05 June 2012 - 14:26.

[Magoo]

Yes, I know, and the Index of Thermal Efficiency was a separate catagory, in that I cannot think of a car that won the ITE and also won the race outright.

Was first accomplished in 1967 by the Ford GT Mk IV (7 lazy liters) of AJ Foyt and Dan Gurney. Was done again by Ickx and Oliver in a Wyer 5.0L GT40 in '69.

The Index of Thermal Efficiency and Index of Performance were originally devised by the organizers as a device to reserve a portion of the event purse for little blue cars.

[Tony Matthews]

Was first accomplished in 1967 by the Ford GT Mk IV (7 lazy liters) of AJ Foyt and Dan Gurney. Was done again by Ickx and Oliver in a Wyer 5.0L GT40 in '69.

Thanks! I didn't have time to google and don't trust my memory.

[Magoo]

Thanks! I didn't have time to google and don't trust my memory.

The engine people at Ford were particularly proud of the 1967 performance. Not that it was any sort of target, but they really enjoyed seeing a 7 liter V8 beat all the peashooters in the Index of Thermal Efficiency. As the story goes, after the race the engine was pulled from the car and put back on the dyno, where it made something like 7 more hp than when it left.

From there the tale gets really weird -- supposedly, a Ford executive then snagged the engine somehow and had it installed in his son's Mustang street car. Just the thing for driving to high school.

[Tony Matthews]

Nice to beat the French without even trying. It was a great achievment, but were these the only two to have done it? I was under the impression that the ITE winners were usually some way down the list of finishers.

Back to painting the kitchen...

[WhiteBlue]

The economy does not seek efficiency, it seeks profit. Always. Everything the bean-counters do is designed to maximise their stock price and profits.

I got news for you. The biggest driver for profits in manufacturing is efficiency. Same is true for selling. Dito for sourcing, logistics, IT and R&D. Which parts of the economy did I not mention? It's not enough to simply want to make profit, you have to know how. Those who know understand efficiency.

[Canuck]

I can't argue that efficiency can lead to profit but the economy isn't chasing efficiency for efficiency's sake, it's chasing profit. Besides, the biggest lever for profit is a monopoly (or enough control and marketshare to act like one) or perhaps a cartel on a product with demand.

It's a semantics argument at best anyway. I'm only saying that profit is the motivator, not efficiency. It's a subtle but key difference.

[gruntguru]

Efficiency in ground passenger trasportation is achived by public tranportation, not 5% more efficient engines.

Yep, and the solution to global warming is not cleaner power stations, its people going Amish.

[saudoso]

Yep, and the solution to global warming is not cleaner power stations, its people going Amish.

That, too.

In case you didn't notice, we are a disease. And either we kill the host or the host gets a very high fever and kills us all.

It's only a matter of time.

Meanwhile, my next car will be a 3.0 V6. I have an in line 4 now and regret it deeply ;)

[BRG]

Yep, and the solution to global warming is not cleaner power stations, its people going Amish.

What, with all their horse and cows farting out methane greenhouse gases?

[desmo]

Yep, and the solution to global warming is not cleaner power stations, its people going Amish.

Half true. There are countries however like the US and Australia where replacing combusted HC fuels with solar and carrying on in some semblance of modern energy dependent high tech prosperity isn't a completely technically unfeasible prospect. The barriers are in fact more political than intrinsic. That the political will doesn't exist is not a technical barrier as much as a psychological/cultural one.

[Wuzak]

Half true. There are countries however like the US and Australia where replacing combusted HC fuels with solar and carrying on in some semblance of modern energy dependent high tech prosperity isn't a completely technically unfeasible prospect. The barriers are in fact more political than intrinsic. That the political will doesn't exist is not a technical barrier as much as a psychological/cultural one.

Indeed. The political will and the money.

There already is a group in Australia who claim to have calculated that Australia could go to 100% renewable power generation by 2020.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/


Maybe with the new Carbon Tax/Carbon Trading Scheme there will be the money to do this.

There are also other practical ways that carbon emissions could be reduced. One would be to use high speed (electric) rail on our major airline routes. Sydney-Melbourne, Sydney-Brisbane and Melbourne-Brisbane are all among the busiest 10 air routes in the world. Sydney-Melbourne could be probably done in under 4 hours on high speed rail.

It would also seem to be a practical solution to the need for a second international airport in Sydney, which has been a political football in NSW for years, I believe. If the rail is built it would reduce the domestic traffic to the airport, and alleviate the congestion.

[saudoso]

Our power grid is more than 85% renewable.

You should have a look at the skyline during a dry spell in winter around here. I live some 20 miles out of São Paulo. You can see a deep brown cover over the city. Seems oil painted on the sky.

Have a look below at how the fleet is growing here (it's in portuguese but you can figure it out). How do you think the efficiency of the engines has to increase yearly to keep the burnt fuel at least even? Best of all, check the bus fleet.

Edited by saudoso, 08 June 2012 - 12:59.

[WhiteBlue]

This is what was decided:



So the basic E20 petrol engine with 4 MJ kinetic energy recovery gets 4,75L petrol per lap. The fastest qualifying time today was 3:23.787 which computes to 23.30865 ml/s. The average density of E20 is 0.7541 kg/L according to this link. This generates fuel flow of 30.91 g/s. For comparison the 2014 F1 fuel flow will be 27.8 g/s. Le Mans will have only 11% higher fuel flow than the F1 engines will have in 2014 assuming that we are talking the same LMP1 performance peak as 2012.

There are no rules yet published on limits to heat recovery via electric turbo compounding as in F1 rules. One can assume that there will be no limitations. There are also no limits of fuel injection pressure for Le Mans engines. I reckon that the times of big and multi cylinder naturally aspired engines will soon be over with such regulations. No NA engine can get anywhere near a down sized, turbo charged and turbo compounded engine in power output if they have the same fuel restrictions - as they will have in 2014.

The petrol/diesel fuel tank capacity will be slightly improved for the diesels. All fuel tanks will be reduced. Diesel by 11.17% and petrol by 14.13%. So the petrol tanks will shrink 3% more than the diesel tanks.

The petrol/diesel fuel flow limit - against the fictitious 2012 base figure - is slightly improved in favour of the petrols. Petrol fuel flow will be reduced by 19.25% and diesel fuel flow by 24.15%. So in terms of fuel allowance diesels will be restricted by 5 % more than the petrol fuel flow.

If this leads to a balance of performance has to be seen. Personally I think that diesels are not favoured today. They simply have a higher state of development due to much higher investment of diesel manufacturers into R&D than the petrol engine manufacturers do. I'm pretty confident that we will not see the end of diesels in Le Mans with this regulations in place.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 15 June 2012 - 00:19.

[murpia]

Based on the fuel-per-lap and the tank size, you can choose between a 13 or 14 lap stint.

If you go for 14 laps you get more KERS energy too, so you will accelerate faster.

How might peak engine power be affected by the fuel-per-lap limits? That will heavily influence the Vmax and at Le Mans at least that's significant for laptime.

Regards, Ian

[WhiteBlue]

How might peak engine power be affected by the fuel-per-lap limits? That will heavily influence the Vmax and at Le Mans at least that's significant for laptime.

Regards, Ian

I think the power will increase. If they really go for massive efficiency gains they can increase efficiency by almost 10% and get 30% more power out of the fuel. This exceeds in most cases the fuel flow cuts. They will also carry less fuel weight. I think the new regulations are brilliant. Very open and innovative. I wish F1 would have gone a similar way and had selected budget capping instead of narrowing the engine spec for cost reductions.