Sure. That's a lot of mass spinning around the crankshaft and I've got to think that balancing and controlling vibration might be serious undertakings.rjsa wrote:There might be also some problem on spinning all that at 18000rpm...
I don't know where you're getting than 19000 rpm figure from but what I'm more interested in is the 20% fuel savings Honda claims the engine is capable of delivering.n smikle wrote:I think it can be made to do 19,000 rpm.
Notice some of the parts just move up and down, not really rotating with the crank itself.
Sound crazy.. but I think they can do it.. Maybe with Titanium parts..lol
Atkinson Cycle, as opposed to Otto or Miller cycle, has nothing to do with variable valve timing. Aktkinson Cycle allows for physical variations in piston stroke by utilizing a multi-link connecting rod and crankshaft creating longer expansion and exhaust strokes in four stroke engines.WhiteBlue wrote:Variable valve timing is illegal in F1 and in 2010 probably all the way to 2014 engines will be frozen, unless they decide changes to this.
Remember your car has to be powerful enough so you can finish the race in first! I just picked 19,000rpm because you have to over design the engine.. can even choose 21,000 rpms!FGD wrote: I don't know where you're getting than 19000 rpm figure from but what I'm more interested in is the 20% fuel savings Honda claims the engine is capable of delivering.
My thinking is as follows: with re-fueling banned for 2010, cars must start with about 45-50 gallons of fuel. That's roughly 170kg of fuel. If the Atkinson can deliver 20% fuel savings, cars using it can run with just 140kg of fuel - a 30kg savings! That's some serious weight savings by F1 standards!
And then there's the prospect of getting to design a car with a fuel tank 20% smaller than conventionally engined cars - thus improving weight distribution and reducing the complexity of setting-up a car to run well as fuel is depleated over the course of a race.
Well... I'm still unsure if the Atkinson cycle is legal in F1 and hope someone can enlighten me me before I start building my own entry for 2010.
What true Atkinson Cycle (other than the one in your head) has revved to 19,000 or 21,000 rpm? The only engines presenty using a true Atkinson cycle (to my knowledge) are a Honda prototype:n smikle wrote:The Atkinson cycle is more powerful If it has the same compression ratio with the same amount of air inhaled as a similar sized conventional engine because it is more efficient. Riiigt?
So If they had this engine in F1, they could dial back the power to "normal" levels to save fuel.
Remember your car has to be powerful enough so you can finish the race in first! I just picked 19,000rpm because you have to over design the engine.. can even choose 21,000 rpms!FGD wrote: I don't know where you're getting than 19000 rpm figure from but what I'm more interested in is the 20% fuel savings Honda claims the engine is capable of delivering.
My thinking is as follows: with re-fueling banned for 2010, cars must start with about 45-50 gallons of fuel. That's roughly 170kg of fuel. If the Atkinson can deliver 20% fuel savings, cars using it can run with just 140kg of fuel - a 30kg savings! That's some serious weight savings by F1 standards!
And then there's the prospect of getting to design a car with a fuel tank 20% smaller than conventionally engined cars - thus improving weight distribution and reducing the complexity of setting-up a car to run well as fuel is depleated over the course of a race.
Well... I'm still unsure if the Atkinson cycle is legal in F1 and hope someone can enlighten me me before I start building my own entry for 2010.