Max power, at 10500RPM or higher than 10500RPM?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Jolle
155
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Max power, at 10500RPM or higher than 10500RPM?

Post by Jolle » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:50 pm

subcritical71 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:05 pm
SS, before 2014 there was no fuel flow limit at any RPM. Why then did the manufacturers run the engines at such high RPM if it only took them further from the so-called max power RPM (ie. max grams/CE) you are describing?
I don't think you understand the principle of how you get power. Burning fuel get you power, burn more fuel, get more power. To burn more fuel you need more air (the oxygen you need), so, in N/A engines, higher RPM means more air and that means more power. Max fuel flow is at max rpm, by definition.

For turbo engines it's the same, more fuel is more power and for that you need more air. Because you don't need to suck the air in with the pistons, but push it in with the turbo, rpm or even displacement is irrelevant. In turbo engines boost is the dominating factor. more boost is more air is more fuel is more power.

With N/A engines air intake was regulated with the displacement at first, making that all manufactures were searching for even higher rpm's, until they really caped this off with a rpm limit.

With turbo engines of any discplacement and/or rpm with unregulated boost, power is in theory unlimited (remember, boost=power)

so, in other series they choose to limit air intake by restrictors to prevent unlimited power and have weird engines but opted for a fuel limit. Also because rpm is in theory also unrelevent, they have set a value that still sounds like more or less a racing engine and that is that 10.500 rpm. A value that is easy to manage with current tech, without any trouble of blowing up engines or the need of next get technology.

PlatinumZealot
348
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Max power, at 10500RPM or higher than 10500RPM?

Post by PlatinumZealot » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:43 am

For turbo charger in V6 hybrid fuel saving its a bit tricky.

Reliability (strength of parts versus weight)
Fuel efficiency
Turbo lag
Cooler size

Will also come into play in limting the horsepower.

We saw mercedese run a tight power limiting chassis design on hot tracks this year.
"The true champions are also great men. They are capable of making difficult decisions, of admitting their mistakes and of pushing harder than before when they get up from a fall."

- Ferrari chairman Sergio Marchionne

MarcJ
6
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Max power, at 10500RPM or higher than 10500RPM?

Post by MarcJ » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am

Jolle wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:50 pm
subcritical71 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:05 pm
SS, before 2014 there was no fuel flow limit at any RPM. Why then did the manufacturers run the engines at such high RPM if it only took them further from the so-called max power RPM (ie. max grams/CE) you are describing?
I don't think you understand the principle of how you get power. Burning fuel get you power, burn more fuel, get more power. To burn more fuel you need more air (the oxygen you need), so, in N/A engines, higher RPM means more air and that means more power. Max fuel flow is at max rpm, by definition.

For turbo engines it's the same, more fuel is more power and for that you need more air. Because you don't need to suck the air in with the pistons, but push it in with the turbo, rpm or even displacement is irrelevant. In turbo engines boost is the dominating factor. more boost is more air is more fuel is more power.

With N/A engines air intake was regulated with the displacement at first, making that all manufactures were searching for even higher rpm's, until they really caped this off with a rpm limit.

With turbo engines of any discplacement and/or rpm with unregulated boost, power is in theory unlimited (remember, boost=power)

so, in other series they choose to limit air intake by restrictors to prevent unlimited power and have weird engines but opted for a fuel limit. Also because rpm is in theory also unrelevent, they have set a value that still sounds like more or less a racing engine and that is that 10.500 rpm. A value that is easy to manage with current tech, without any trouble of blowing up engines or the need of next get technology.
I don't think you understand chemical kinetics, the chemical reactions the fuel goes through in a lean environment, according to Prof Heinz Pitch the major reaction is the production of hydroxyl radical how fast you produce OH radicals that rip hydrogen off. It's the rate coefficients that define this that gives the fuel burning rate.

Let's say the fuel is optimised for lambda 1.45. Tommy Cookers was more right than my guess of 1.6.