Power outputs if no engine regs

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

If you want a dyno toy, as the OP later specified above, then I would say look to gas turbines, tractor pull & drag racing for precedents. Ultimately you'd be constrained by the dynamometer's specifications.

For an F1 car moving around a track, needing to complete a race distance more quickly than competitors charged with the same task, then we have to consider some other factors such as vehicle weight, power & efficiency.

There are myriad factors affecting how the car will get around a track more quickly than its competitors, but this thread is about conjecture & thought exercise so let's continue. Assume that weight of wheels, chassis & bodywork will have some fixed minimum value, which leaves us with the weight of the powertrain and fuel system to play around with. The power to weight ratio of the powertrain & fuel system becomes the differentiating feature between the competitors.

Within that, you have weight of fuel vs the weight of the powertrain. There will be limits to how much fuel you can carry, both in terms of volume & weight. So does one design a huge fuel tank into the car to be used with a small, light, less efficient engine? Or do you sacrifice fuel capacity in exchange for a heavier, more efficient engine? The golden egg of course is a small, light *and* efficient engine that can survive such a huge amount of energy flowing through it. Power to weight improves as the fuel tank empties, so perhaps powertrain lightness would always be the priority.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

gdogg371 wrote: ....Why do you say it wouldn't hit the 20,000rpm though? Is adding a forced induction system going to reduce the rev range of the engine? Doesn't really matter as this is a dyno based 'what if' sort of question, but a V12 with compound turbo charging on both cylinder banks and ERS of some sort would be absolutely huge in both size and weight.
mainly, the 3 litre V10/2.4 litre V8 made 20000 rpm by having a shorter stroke than the 3.5 litre V10

a V10 is not ideal exhaust pulsewise for turbos, a V12 is ideal (with 4 turbos not 2)
ideal means less exhaust pressure is needed to get the desired boost and/or more recovery is possible

direct (mechanical) recovery to the crankshaft is possible
15000 Wright 'Turbo-Compounds' recovered 18% at takeoff without raising mean exhaust pressure (independent supercharger not turbo)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
Jolle
186
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

With a regulation free turbo engine there wouldn't be lots of cylinders or revs indeed. Just a very very big compounder, lots of waste fuel to cool and the size of the engine would be dependent of the cooling requirements.

With current state of engineering a 2000hp 1.5l 4l with 10.000rpm would be very plausible. But it would be more a miracle of cooling then of power.

Like I said many times before, regulations are not interchangeable with time. Even from the "good old 3.5l days", a ford V8 only did around 12.000rpm. The rate and precision of engineering is just so different then 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

did/didn't the 80s-on rules allow multi-stage compressors or turbines ?
this to/would prevent the obvious gas turbine compounded with 'piston-engine' core

importantly, rich mixture improves speed (consistency really) of combustion at high rpm (showed NA F1 tests in instrumentation journal)
so-called extra cooling is small or very small
the Aromatic content of Avgas or 80s F1 turbo fuel makes detonation resistance greatly raised by richening (this escapes the F1 Octane tests)
detonation may now be managed with the multi-episode injection from current 500 bar DI ? (denied to NA F1)

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:did/didn't the 80s-on rules allow multi-stage compressors or turbines ?
this to/would prevent the obvious gas turbine compounded with 'piston-engine' core

importantly, rich mixture improves speed (consistency really) of combustion at high rpm (showed NA F1 tests in instrumentation journal)
so-called extra cooling is small or very small
the Aromatic content of Avgas or 80s F1 turbo fuel makes detonation resistance greatly raised by richening (this escapes the F1 Octane tests)
detonation may now be managed with the multi-episode injection from current 500 bar DI ? (denied to NA F1)
My original question was more aimed at the ideal theoretical composite of permitted technologies at any stage since the original Concord agreement was being drafted circa 1980-81, thereby excluding gas turbine engines, rotary engines, diesel engines and enormous capacity sports car type engines.

The original twin turbo F1 engine was the one that appeared in the Renault in mid 1979, but I can't remember whether that was a parallel or compound setup. I would suspect it was parallel, with each cylinder bank having it's own, smaller turbo that generated less lag.

The main driver behind the BMW M12 engine having such a narrow power band delivery was it being a straight 4 engine, with one very large turbocharger used and lots of attendant lag as a result.

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

...the V10 mandate of the circa 1997 would again exclude anything with more than 12 cyclinders. Again from memory, some clever so and so worked out that the ideal number of cylinders for a high revving, normally aspirated formula was 16, so the FIA banned anything with more than 10 cylinders as this is what most people were using anyway to remove the possibility of another costly development war if someone made a success of this theoretical approach.

aral
aral
Moderator
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

gdogg371 wrote:...the V10 mandate of the circa 1997 would again exclude anything with more than 12 cyclinders. .
Ha! the V10 mandate excluded anything with more than TEN cylinders, (or even less than 10))that is why the engines were called V10

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

aral wrote:
gdogg371 wrote:...the V10 mandate of the circa 1997 would again exclude anything with more than 12 cyclinders. .
Ha! the V10 mandate excluded anything with more than TEN cylinders, (or even less than 10))that is why the engines were called V10
For the purposes of a 'what if' discussion for a mish mash of all permitted regs since 1980 would allow anything from four to twelve cylinders then.

toraabe
toraabe
16
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

gdogg371 wrote:
aral wrote:
gdogg371 wrote:...the V10 mandate of the circa 1997 would again exclude anything with more than 12 cyclinders. .
Ha! the V10 mandate excluded anything with more than TEN cylinders, (or even less than 10))that is why the engines were called V10
For the purposes of a 'what if' discussion for a mish mash of all permitted regs since 1980 would allow anything from four to twelve cylinders then.
Well a 4 litre two stroke v10 with a couple of unlimited mgu-h / k etc with no fuel limit. you will easily see 2500 hp........
Then you need enough downforce,. With that amount of power you need as much groundeffect as possible PLUS al things of wings 600mm wide rear tyres.. at least... You will reach 450 km/h at monza.. impossible..

gruntguru
gruntguru
455
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

gdogg371 wrote:My personal suspicion is that applying five bars of boost and a twin turbo/ERS set up to a 3.5 litre V10 capable of hitting 20,000 rpm is that there would be beyond the physical limits of what current metallurgy could handle. I'm curious to know if others agree with that.
This engine would be making in the vicinity of 5,000 hp and no, it wouldn't be beyond metallurgical limits. (It wouldn't have much endurance at 5,000 bhp though.)
je suis charlie

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

wuzak wrote: Of course the 500cc 2T engines were good for around 220-230hp. while the 990cc 4T engines were detuned for driveability down to a mere 250hp.

And weren't the 4T engines reduced to 800cc after a while anyway?
Wuzak, the 4T MotoGP mills were reduced to 800cc for a short period, but max power output was kept up,
& then 'rideability' became an issue..
So they reverted to bigger, but lower specific output engines, yet more tightly constrained in design/fuel use.

Ironically, the much more highly strung, but light, low inertia 500cc 2Ts went without such complex ECU
control, & they rewarded riders who were much more adept at modulating the power themselves.

The ECU does enable attitude control so that previously supposed single-track vehicle limitations on
achievable G-levels (mooted in another post) have been comfortably exceeded..
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

Jolle
Jolle
186
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
wuzak wrote: Of course the 500cc 2T engines were good for around 220-230hp. while the 990cc 4T engines were detuned for driveability down to a mere 250hp.

And weren't the 4T engines reduced to 800cc after a while anyway?
Wuzak, the 4T MotoGP mills were reduced to 800cc for a short period, but max power output was kept up,
& then 'rideability' became an issue..
So they reverted to bigger, but lower specific output engines, yet more tightly constrained in design/fuel use.

Ironically, the much more highly strung, but light, low inertia 500cc 2Ts went without such complex ECU
control, & they rewarded riders who were much more adept at modulating the power themselves.

The ECU does enable attitude control so that previously supposed single-track vehicle limitations on
achievable G-levels (mooted in another post) have been comfortably exceeded..
well... thats one way at looking at the 500cc's... I remember races where the whole field of 13 drivers had one or more broken limbs at the start (austria 1990 I think....). It might be a heroic story from the past, but at the time it was troublesome. Anti highsider software had kind of the same impact in MotoGP as the carbon chassis had in F1.

User avatar
Craigy
80
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

With no regulations, you'd be allowed to use any fuel you like, and any material you like, in any arrangement you like.
Even dragster V8s have many, many limits (fuel composition, capacity, blower type, etc) and the top fuel guys are hitting circa 10000hp for ~1000ft (which is an extreme case: basically no cooling system other than adiabatic effects, engine only has to survive a few hundred revs between overhauls, etc).

A true "formula libre" wouldn't involve a driver at all, and consequently wouldn't look like a car as we know them today: there would be no requirement for a cockpit, or for there to be visibility from the middle of the car forwards, so I think you'd end up with something that looks like a flattened LMP1 (but with no cockpit). It wouldn't have to pass any crash tests or have any survival cell/crush parts. It would probably not have wings at all, as you'd get the required downforce via skirts and pump out whatever airflow you want mechanically, in order to have control over it at all speeds, and to reduce drag-causing aero appendages. The constraints around engine layout, cooling and fuel-load versus weight would be dictated by race duration, track layout, tyre change rules, pitlane limits and so on. Running the car on something like nitromethane during quali would be interesting, but impossible for a race duration (the fuel itself is not energy-dense enough for that, it'd be a fuel tank so huge as to render the fuel benefit utterly redundant).
If there were no rules, you could run into the pits every single lap and without slowing down, have a machine to change the tyres and refuel as you pass through - at which point you start to wonder about the savvy of "no rules" systems.
You might end up binning internal combustion entirely, and moving to something involving directed energy systems (a tower, or towers around the track which beam energy into the vehicle, which has no energy storage of any sort, just a converter and eMotors). Now that would take some development effort, at least without causing the track and surrounding area to be a non-survivable environment for human spectators.

At some point your limiting factor would probably end up being either tyres (you may end up with a lot more than four wheels - and may end up having to use something else to spread the load) or of the physical track itself; you would probably end up on something without an air filling in the tyres because of the loads involved, and the track surface would certainly at some point fall apart due to the effect of having so much load and essentially a field full of super-powerful vacuums passing by on each lap.

I would like to make guesses as to g-forces, downforce values, and speeds, but there are so many variables that it's hard to say anything sensible on this front, and the usual simulation/modelling doesn't work properly for very extreme values such as these.

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Craigy wrote:With no regulations, you'd be allowed to use any fuel you like, and any material you like, in any arrangement you like.
Even dragster V8s have many, many limits (fuel composition, capacity, blower type, etc) and the top fuel guys are hitting circa 10000hp for ~1000ft (which is an extreme case: basically no cooling system other than adiabatic effects, engine only has to survive a few hundred revs between overhauls, etc).

A true "formula libre" wouldn't involve a driver at all, and consequently wouldn't look like a car as we know them today: there would be no requirement for a cockpit, or for there to be visibility from the middle of the car forwards, so I think you'd end up with something that looks like a flattened LMP1 (but with no cockpit). It wouldn't have to pass any crash tests or have any survival cell/crush parts. It would probably not have wings at all, as you'd get the required downforce via skirts and pump out whatever airflow you want mechanically, in order to have control over it at all speeds, and to reduce drag-causing aero appendages. The constraints around engine layout, cooling and fuel-load versus weight would be dictated by race duration, track layout, tyre change rules, pitlane limits and so on. Running the car on something like nitromethane during quali would be interesting, but impossible for a race duration (the fuel itself is not energy-dense enough for that, it'd be a fuel tank so huge as to render the fuel benefit utterly redundant).
If there were no rules, you could run into the pits every single lap and without slowing down, have a machine to change the tyres and refuel as you pass through - at which point you start to wonder about the savvy of "no rules" systems.
You might end up binning internal combustion entirely, and moving to something involving directed energy systems (a tower, or towers around the track which beam energy into the vehicle, which has no energy storage of any sort, just a converter and eMotors). Now that would take some development effort, at least without causing the track and surrounding area to be a non-survivable environment for human spectators.

At some point your limiting factor would probably end up being either tyres (you may end up with a lot more than four wheels - and may end up having to use something else to spread the load) or of the physical track itself; you would probably end up on something without an air filling in the tyres because of the loads involved, and the track surface would certainly at some point fall apart due to the effect of having so much load and essentially a field full of super-powerful vacuums passing by on each lap.

I would like to make guesses as to g-forces, downforce values, and speeds, but there are so many variables that it's hard to say anything sensible on this front, and the usual simulation/modelling doesn't work properly for very extreme values such as these.
the original thrust of this post was any materials and technologies combined at any time since the concord agreement in 1981. so no 8 litre engines, running rocket fuel, no radiators, no drivers etc.

Nickel
Nickel
18
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:10 pm
Location: London Mountain, BC

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

can I have a 2T turbo hybrid? Any cylinder configuration. Because I want that.