You can't look at "a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection" like the BMW M3 because, and I can't believe this has to be repeated again, those engines are always restricted by the mount of air that can be taken in then the ECU pumps in as much fuel as it has been programmed to that it thinks will give maximum power.ringo wrote:All other reference documents of other different types of engines aren't of much use.
Until there is real data, there can be no assumptions made. We cannot look on characteristics of specific fuel consumption on other power plants and then apply the same trends to this engine.
Big mistake. Best to use what will happen in theory with the same engine parameters, direct injection, high compression etc.
Best to look on a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection. The new BMW M3 for example.
Plus - don't forget the killer - road car engines must meet emissions regulations.trinidefender wrote:Whereby in a road car, the requirements of getting these methods to work with varying qualities of fuel, mass production manufacturing processes and tolerances and simple cost/gain factor would not permit them YET.
Are you deliberately trying to be a nuisance? We were discussing the paper linked by Brian Coates http://www.fisita2012.com/programme/pro ... 01-041.pdf and you come out with that comment? You clearly didn't even read the paper - research (by Petronas and Ricardo) into direct injection, multiple injection pulses - MAP up to 3 bar. The test engines were "modern" and "turbo charged" by any definition of those words.ringo wrote:All other reference documents of other different types of engines aren't of much use.
Until there is real data, there can be no assumptions made. We cannot look on characteristics of specific fuel consumption on other power plants and then apply the same trends to this engine.
Big mistake. Best to use what will happen in theory with the same engine parameters, direct injection, high compression etc.
Best to look on a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection. The new BMW M3 for example.
[/quote]trinidefender wrote:
You can't look at "a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection" like the BMW M3 because, and I can't believe this has to be repeated again, those engines are always restricted by the mount of air that can be taken in then the ECU pumps in as much fuel as it has been programmed to that it thinks will give maximum power.
The 2014 F1 engines on the other hand are FUEL RESTRICTED. This automatically means that different rules will apply concerning air to fuel ratios when it comes to max power.
I am not denying this or accepting it, but where have you "established" this? lol.We have established that maximum power occures at max brake thermal efficiency in the 2014 engines.
Not responding to the above, it's just filler.Considering the competitive nature of F1 and the amount of money that is invested into engine building it, I wouldn't be surprised if some technologies that all of us are thinking of as "experimental" are being implemented. Whereby in a road car, the requirements of getting these methods to work with varying qualities of fuel, mass production manufacturing processes and tolerances and simple cost/gain factor would not permit them YET.
They did more than likely.It would not surprise me in the slightest if the Mercedes engineers at Brixworth brought in engineers from the Mercedes Benz/AMG engine R&D department to see if there were any experimental technologies that they can use.
Although I agree completely that the fuel restriction means that the engine will be designed to run lean.trinidefender wrote:... Therefore the point at which those air restricted engines make maximum power is NOT the point at which they give maximum efficiency.
While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.
rscsr I agree with that. I was more referring to the fact that if you were to increase the efficiency at any point in this formula it will make you more power. While in an air restricted formula that may not be the case. We were more looking at the engines from a purely thermal efficiency perspective and how air:fuel ratio affects it.rscsr wrote:Although I agree completely that the fuel restriction means that the engine will be designed to run lean.trinidefender wrote:... Therefore the point at which those air restricted engines make maximum power is NOT the point at which they give maximum efficiency.
While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.
But the point of maximum efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the maximum power is produced at that point. Let's look at the current F1 engines. It would be pretty possible that the engines have max efficiency (assume 40%) at about 9000rpm with a slightly falling efficiency (to 39%) at 11000rpm. The available fuel flow at 9000rpm is 0.009x9000+5=86kg/h and over 10500rpm it is 100kg/h.
If we use a fuel with 44MJ/kg we get the following power numbers.
9000rpm (max efficienxy) --> 420.4kW
11000rpm --> 476.6kW
That is the wrong article. I posted it to illustrate the anti knock benefits of Lean Boost Direct Injection.ringo wrote:By the way that article has nothing to do with what we are discussing. To many counter points to even post to show why it is unrelated to the v6 turbo race engine. but for those who are interested, that article is one page long, has no figures, has nothing to do with high performance, and in fact caters to emissions and part load of a turbocharged engine versus a naturally aspirated engine; contrary to what trini or grunt has lashed out on.
Brian Coat wrote:http://www.fisita2012.com/programme/pro ... 01-041.pdf
I thought this looked somewhat relevant, especially pages 12, 13.
It is an research paper by Ricardo and Petronas.
I will repeat what I said to you on Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:01 pm.ringo wrote:trinidefender wrote:I am not denying this or accepting it, but where have you "established" this? lol.We have established that maximum power occures at max brake thermal efficiency in the 2014 engines.
A Christopher Columbus moment perhaps? but i missed the establishment.
whatever the notional 'best BTE' AFR is .....trinidefender wrote: While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.
The teams aren't putting the full 100kg in at every race.Tommy Cookers wrote: so anyway there will surely be different 'best BTE' AFRs for different power envelopes ?
(and surely in each race we want to use all the fuel allowed)
and the 'best BTE' AFR will surely change with future reductions in fuel allowance with the current fixed engine size etc and rpm ?