30 replies to this topic

[kup]

Maybe you know good site with easy tech explains ?

common rail technology is a blessing for diesel engines

i just wondering "diesel" as part of FIA policy in slowering cars =)
afaik - diesel has less Revs, Fuel is cheaper ... maybe other "plusses"
and maybe "minuses" too =)

F-1 Rules - does Diesel engines prohibited ?
why ? since what year ?
what are main achivements of diesels in F-1 if any ?

2006 - Engine + GearBox
maybe allow teams to use 3,0v10 eng with 4-gears-box
not mandatory 2,4v8 ...
or maybe 2,7v8 or v10 with 5-gears-box ?
Effect of less gears:
more litres, but lower accel, lower Revs, more Engine+GearBox life !

[Wuzak]

I think that the F1 rules prohibit Diesels indirectly by the fuel specs.

As far as I know, no Diesel hasever been raced in F1.

It is now far too late to be changing rules for 2006 (even though the 2005 rules came through later in 2004).

I dunno about you guys, but for me one of the attractions of F1 is the noise - and the revs! I'm quite sure that a Diesel would just not cut it.

And let's not forget that by changing to Diesel you would be cutting out F1's most famous name - Ferrari. Ferrari have never built a Diesel car, they are not likely to in the near future, and running a Diesel F1 car would just aboutthe least attractive prospect for Ferrari in F1!

[uri]

As far as I know, no Diesel hasever been raced in F1

I think it is more for the TNF guys, but AFAIK, when Indy 500 was part of the Formula 1 World Championship at the 50s, Fred Agabashian grabbed the pole with a Diesel engine on the 52.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Wuzak
.....I dunno about you guys, but for me one of the attractions of F1 is the noise - and the revs! I'm quite sure that a Diesel would just not cut it.....

Peugeot build some fairly high-revving diesels in production cars... wouldn't the pressure of development in F1 be a good thing to help this progress?

They're running 23,000 psi in their injectors!

VW and Mercedes are also big on diesels. As an alternative engine it might be interesting, though the competitiveness of F1 would surely auger against anyone using it under those circumstances.

[Frank R. Champs]

As a background, there are a number of engine manufacturers out there building lightweight and powerful Diesel engines for aircraft. The most impressive one out there at the moment is the Zoche Aero-Diesel which is a radial 8 cylinder side ported 2 stroke turbo and supercharged Diesel of a 5.2 liter displacement producing 300 horsepower at 2,500 rpm and weighing around 270 lbs.
There is significant potential for huge power outputs with diesel engines through turbocharging. I know of a few tractor pulling engines running a manifold pressure of 250 psi (!!!) and producing 5,000 horsepower from a stock block that normally produces around 300 horsepower.

Check out Zoche at www.zoche.de

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Peugeot build some fairly high-revving diesels in production cars... wouldn't the pressure of development in F1 be a good thing to help this progress?

How high? Not very is the answer.

Diesels can and do race at Le Mans.

[NTSOS]

Banks Sidewinder vs Ferrari Enzo

http://www.bankspowe...der-vs-Enzo.cfm

125 hp/liter (2.0 hp/cu. inch)

John

[alpa]

Originally posted by Wuzak


How high? Not very is the answer.

Diesels can and do race at Le Mans.

Production diesels of passanger cars from Fiat/Peugeot/BMW/Mercedes/GM/Honda/Toyota go up to 5500-6000 RPM. The power band is 1500-4500 RPM. The max power output is around 70-75 hp/L

[Frank R. Champs]

Diesel's are rpm limited not so much by the mass of the moving parts, but more so due to the slow combustion characteristics of Diesel fuel. Flame propagation moves at a snails pace compared to other types of fuel, and at high rpm you wouldn't be able to burn all the fuel in time.

Significant strides have been made in the research of HCCI combustion, where the fuel is highly atomized and distributed evenly throughout the mixture, and the fuel is ignited, or more accurately, detonated all at once, although there is great difficulty in timing the detonation to occur exactly when it is supposed to occur, not to mention the increased stresses caused by burning all of the fuel in an instant. However, if HCCI is developed, it may be the answer to higher revving diesels.

[alpa]

Originally posted by Frank R. Champs
Diesel's are rpm limited not so much by the mass of the moving parts, but more so due to the slow combustion characteristics of Diesel fuel. Flame propagation moves at a snails pace compared to other types of fuel, and at high rpm you wouldn't be able to burn all the fuel in time.

Significant strides have been made in the research of HCCI combustion, where the fuel is highly atomized and distributed evenly throughout the mixture, and the fuel is ignited, or more accurately, detonated all at once, although there is great difficulty in timing the detonation to occur exactly when it is supposed to occur, not to mention the increased stresses caused by burning all of the fuel in an instant. However, if HCCI is developed, it may be the answer to higher revving diesels.

Other issues are a limited power output of the HCCI mode and difficult turbocharging. HCCI engines would have to support a "normally" ignited mode for high power phases, so highly loaded trucks would consume more than todays' diesels. But it's probably the future. And diesel can not be used for HCCI, the petrol is required as it's ignition temperature is higher.
The variable CR engines from Saab are probably the best candidates for the HCCI applications.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by Frank R. Champs

Nice name!

/got nuthin

[J. Edlund]

With diesel engines the limited time was earlier what limited the engine speed. Today we have high pressure injection systems that are much faster.

A diesel engine lacks the typical flame as in a gasoline engine, instead we have a diffusion flame. Basicly the fuel is injected, vaposired and burn when the vapor comes in contact with the oxygen. Diesels usually work with "constant pressure" instead of "constant volume" as with the otto engine.

Ricardo build a V10 diesel based on a Judd engine (old F1 design), that engine did produce around 600 hp with restrictors and limited boost pressure, so if turbochargers where allowed it would be possible to make a F1 diesel which a similar power output as a normal F1 engine. It would most likely to be a little heavier though.

A problem with the diesel is the low engine speed, if I remeber correctly the Ricardo engine used speeds up to 5000-6000 rpm or something like that, and say that we are allowed to increase the boost until we reach 900 hp the torque output will be very high, about three times that of a F1 engine. With that much torque it will be more difficult to design a light gearbox as shafts, gears and bearings must be made stronger.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
A problem with the diesel is the low engine speed, if I remeber correctly the Ricardo engine used speeds up to 5000-6000 rpm or something like that, and say that we are allowed to increase the boost until we reach 900 hp the torque output will be very high, about three times that of a F1 engine. With that much torque it will be more difficult to design a light gearbox as shafts, gears and bearings must be made stronger.

It would be lighter overall to introduce a 1:4 step-up gearset between the crank and clutch, to divide the torque by four and up the Shaft RPM by a factor of four. Otherwise you would need a massive clutch to handle the torque in addition to massive ratio gearsets.

Never mind though... it will never happen... besides the introduction of the dreaded equivalency formulas (which never get it right if static... and very unfair and political if not static), F1 is popular because it's exotic and sexy. A bunch of diesels chugging around at 6K is not sexy.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy
F1 is popular because it's exotic and sexy. A bunch of diesels chugging around at 6K is not sexy.

not even with big chrome vertical stacks with rain caps?

[F1Champion]

I'd love to see a switch to the new bio ethanol fuel thats making headlines around the world.
You wouldn't have such a big technology change and it would be more environmentally friendly.

[McGuire]

The Indy cars are now phasing in ethanol over the next three years. Since they are already on methanol the changeover will be nearly painless...it's a great PR move & symbolic gesture but as a solution for road cars ethanol is a dead end.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by F1Champion
I'd love to see a switch to the new bio ethanol fuel thats making headlines around the world.
You wouldn't have such a big technology change and it would be more environmentally friendly.

There are pollution related to the production of the ethanol fuel. Also, even if ethanol reduce some emissions it increases others, especially there are emission problems when the engine is started. So in the end it really doesn't matter if a car is fueled by ethanol or gasoline. The energy currently required in making the ethanol required per distance traveled is currently almost equal the energy released by gasoline per distance traveled.

Using ethanol is more a PR-stunt.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
There are pollution related to the production of the ethanol fuel. Also, even if ethanol reduce some emissions it increases others, especially there are emission problems when the engine is started. So in the end it really doesn't matter if a car is fueled by ethanol or gasoline. The energy currently required in making the ethanol required per distance traveled is currently almost equal the energy released by gasoline per distance traveled.

Using ethanol is more a PR-stunt.

All common knowledge: You'd think the "journalists" at the TV networks would do at least a little research into stuff like this before they were all suckered into giving the IRL and Senator (aspiring to President) Evan Bayh their 60 seconds on the national stage to respectively gain some race fans and gain some farmers' votes.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
The energy currently required in making the ethanol required per distance traveled is currently almost equal the energy released by gasoline per distance traveled.

Exactly right...if anything you are bring too generous. I wonder if anyone has ever computed the acreage required to fuel the entire US vehicle fleet.

[JwS]

Take a look at "Winning the Oil Endgame" by the Rocky Mountain Institute, (www.rmi.org). It is a remarkable report, and as skeptical as I was going in (as an engineer) I think the plans laid out in it are reasonable.
You can download the entire document in PDF format and read at your leisure.
There are places in S. America (brasil?) where the ethanol supply is (almost) on an equal footing with gas, and many people benefit by buying dual fuel cars.
Alot of other stuff in there, good stuff for techies like us to read.
JwS

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by uri


I think it is more for the TNF guys, but AFAIK, when Indy 500 was part of the Formula 1 World Championship at the 50s, Fred Agabashian grabbed the pole with a Diesel engine on the 52.

There never was a so-called "Formula 1 World Championship" in the 50s. And the fact that the Indy 500 was part of the "World Drivers Championship" (to use the English translation of the French title) is proof of that ;) -as is the fact that the other WDC races in 1952 & 1953 were all F2 races....
Just nitpicking.

[clSD139]

Originally posted by alpa


Production diesels of passanger cars from Fiat/Peugeot/BMW/Mercedes/GM/Honda/Toyota go up to 5500-6000 RPM. The power band is 1500-4500 RPM. The max power output is around 70-75 hp/L

just check the specifications: todays turbo(diesel)s have a lower peak hp rpm than n.a. engines

even direct injection slows down the entire proces, and the last non TDI was the SDI (golf IV).

[D-Type]

Originally posted by scheivlak

There never was a so-called "Formula 1 World Championship" in the 50s. And the fact that the Indy 500 was part of the "World Drivers Championship" (to use the English translation of the French title) is proof of that ;) -as is the fact that the other WDC races in 1952 & 1953 were all F2 races....
Just nitpicking.

True. But uri is correct that Agabashian started from pole at Indianapolis in 1952 in a Cummins diesel. The indianapolis cars were nominally 'Formula 1' in that the Offenhauser was 4.5 litres u/s, but they had made a concession and allowed the s/c cars to be 3 litre rather than 1.5 litre. However the Cummins, being a diesel, was allowed to be larger and was something like 6 litres s/c.

Without wishing to reopen the 'power vs torque' argument, remember that a diesel's main virtue is low speed torque or pulling power not high speed peak power or torque.

And it's superior economy is only true if expressed in km per litre (miles per gallon) but not nearly so apparent when expressed in km/kilogramme (miles per pound).

[Slumberer]

So, if I read this correctly: the diesel could produce more torque but less power.

I wonder if anyone can tell me which is better....









(...ducks and runs for cover ;) )

[alpa]

Originally posted by Slumberer
So, if I read this correctly: the diesel could produce more torque but less power.

I wonder if anyone can tell me which is better....

There is no better, that's different. Are helicopter better than airplanes ?

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by McGuire


Exactly right...if anything you are bring too generous. I wonder if anyone has ever computed the acreage required to fuel the entire US vehicle fleet.

I think that was done as early as 1920-1930, there was a little fewer cars back then though. However, I'm quite sure there are newer reports.

[Slumberer]

alpa: new member since june 2005.

Oh, the fun you've missed regarding torque vs horsepower....!

[gbaker]

I prefer cars converted to burn cooking oil. After filling up at the local McDonalds, you drive away smelling like a french fry.

[D-Type]

How about banana oil? Smells like heaven knows what.

Or methane? Each car to carry its own methane producing plant. I can just imagine the arguments about whether a cow counts as 'plant' or not
And could you put the cow on a treadmill.

Or burn old [Michelin] tyres?

OK, I'll get my coat

[gbaker]

Originally posted by D-Type
...Or methane? Each car to carry its own methane producing plant...

That would be called the driver. Self-propelled, in more ways than one.

[crono33]

zoche is promising that engine since almost 15 years now

by the time it is on the market, if it ever does, it will also cost like an arm and a leg.

gm

Originally posted by Frank R. Champs
As a background, there are a number of engine manufacturers out there building lightweight and powerful Diesel engines for aircraft. The most impressive one out there at the moment is the Zoche Aero-Diesel which is a radial 8 cylinder side ported 2 stroke turbo and supercharged Diesel of a 5.2 liter displacement producing 300 horsepower at 2,500 rpm and weighing around 270 lbs.
There is significant potential for huge power outputs with diesel engines through turbocharging. I know of a few tractor pulling engines running a manifold pressure of 250 psi (!!!) and producing 5,000 horsepower from a stock block that normally produces around 300 horsepower.

Check out Zoche at www.zoche.de