Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Btw, what's the thermal xpansion coefficient of gasoline anyway?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070708064444AA6Flh2

[xpensive]

Btw, what's the thermal xpansion coefficient of gasoline anyway?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070708064444AA6Flh2

If I interpret correctly, 0.1% per K is not xactly earth-moving, is it? 20 K means 2%, then again 100 liter becomes 102.

[ringo]

Anything around 9,000-10,000 rpm will be just fine. A turbo engine doesn't need mad rpm to perform.

Fine for you

There are many production cars out there that rev much higher and make more power.

There is nothing here that separates these cars from normal cars.

1 of these engines should be able to run for the whole year with some periodic service.

10000rpm is an overstatement as well. The 27.8g/s simply wont allow anything over 9000rpm.

I think you should forget about 4 wheel drive KERS. That is simply too heavy and dangerous.
Remember those units need to be cooled as well. You will need radiators and plumbing up front and will have to house the big motor up front as well.

this is for the porsche GT3 KERS a pair of 60kW motors:

The weight penalty imposed by the addition of the hybrid system is 285 pounds (130 kg), with the flywheel representing just over 100 pounds (47 kg) and what Porsche calls the "portal axle" assembly up front another 150 (68 kg).

[ringo]

Scientifically speaking, you are obviously entirely correct WB, it's just that I imagine that F1T's members in general
finds it a bit easier to relate to liters and cc, rather than kg and grams when it comes to gasoline.

Some of our beloved menbers think in BTU's and gallons, but I would never go there.

It's a mish mash, you can't please anyone here; too many cultures and back grounds.

Some prefer lbs, some N, some prefer feet, inches others cm and m. I prefer kg/s over cfm or cc.
kg/s speak to the air to fuel ratio more directly for me.

[machin]

88mm bore? Should be able to fit say 2 42mm intake valves in there... With a suitably long duration cam you'll get 14000 rpm out of that...

Big end forces on a 65mm stroke at 14000 rpm is similar to the current engines so no issues there...

I guess they'll be limited to normal pump fuel so looking at 170 ish lbft per litre at peak power... There's 725 bhp peak potential from that engine... Sounds ok to me.

[WhiteBlue]

This, especially if combined with AWKERS and it´s technical possibilities, is probably not the best for the "show aspect" of F1, as it will "devalue" the influence of a good driver, in mastering the car. Walter Röhrls comment about the Audi Quattro (while he was still driving a RWD car) in rallying comes to mind: "You could put a monkey in this car" (or something to this effect)

If they would be driving a mixture of RWD and AWD cars your point would be valid. I would expect all cars to have basically the same design with different levels of execution and performance. The cornering speeds in slow corners would increase but there would still be a contest for finding the limit. In the end the better driver with the best sense for the limit will still win.

[WhiteBlue]

I think you should forget about 4 wheel drive KERS. That is simply too heavy and dangerous.
Remember those units need to be cooled as well. You will need radiators and plumbing up front and will have to house the big motor up front as well.

this is for the porsche GT3 KERS a pair of 60kW motors:

The weight penalty imposed by the addition of the hybrid system is 285 pounds (130 kg), with the flywheel representing just over 100 pounds (47 kg) and what Porsche calls the "portal axle" assembly up front another 150 (68 kg).

There is a dedicated AWKERS thread for this issue. I would rather go back to the figures we already established there and continue that discussion.

[ringo]

88mm bore? Should be able to fit say 2 42mm intake valves in there... With a suitably long duration cam you'll get 14000 rpm out of that...

Big end forces on a 65mm stroke at 14000 rpm is similar to the current engines so no issues there...

I guess they'll be limited to normal pump fuel so looking at 170 ish lbft per litre at peak power... There's 725 bhp peak potential from that engine... Sounds ok to me.

yes but the fuel flow limit is cramping it's style. Anything over 9000rpm at 2 bar of boost is lean running. To see 14000rpm with the 27.78g/s of fuel would mean 0.9 bar boost with a 10.5 compression ratio.
You have to limit to air flow rate to match the fuel unfortunately.

[machin]

.... Just stick in really wide diameter fuel pipes after the flow meter -they'll get re-filled whilst the car is in the next corner!

Next problem?

[WhiteBlue]

88mm bore? Should be able to fit say 2 42mm intake valves in there... With a suitably long duration cam you'll get 14000 rpm out of that...

Big end forces on a 65mm stroke at 14000 rpm is similar to the current engines so no issues there...

I guess they'll be limited to normal pump fuel so looking at 170 ish lbft per litre at peak power... There's 725 bhp peak potential from that engine... Sounds ok to me.

With the new formula engine power is fuel limited. It means the only way to get more power is increasing efficiency. Plus/minus 1% of efficiency will give you a 35hp advantage/disadvantage. In my view it is the perfect incentive for an engineering contest.

[machin]

Good point.. my joke on fuel pipes aside.. I guess they'll limit injector flow rates?

[WhiteBlue]

I guess they'll limit injector flow rates?

I'll reckon they will close the loop. Sensor to be a temperature compensated turbine or differential pressure, actor to be an algorithm that limits injection timing.

Injector flow rates are basically fixed by injector nozzle geometry and rail pressure.

[djos]

I guess they'll limit injector flow rates?

I'll reckon they will close the loop. Sensor to be a temperature compensated turbine or differential pressure, actor to be an algorithm that limits injection timing.

Injector flow rates are basically fixed by injector nozzle geometry and rail pressure.

Welcome back WB.

Wouldn't they just measure the fuel pressure at the fuel pump exit?

[Formula None]

This, especially if combined with AWKERS and it´s technical possibilities, is probably not the best for the "show aspect" of F1, as it will "devalue" the influence of a good driver, in mastering the car.

Walter Röhrls comment about the Audi Quattro (while he was still driving a RWD car) in rallying comes to mind:
"You could put a monkey in this car"
(or something to this effect)

If everyone had traction control, ABS and active suspension, wouldn't everyone's lap times increase accordingly? The racing would stay the same, no? Just with faster lap times.

[747heavy]

Is a car with better traction and less power easier to drive, then a car with more power and less traction?
Sure, everybody would go faster, that was not the point, the point was that the skills needed from the driver are less in a car which has better traction for the same amount of power. IMHO