What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[strad]

twin turbo?

[WhiteBlue]

Turbo lag is also unavoidable for a 1.6lt making 700hp. No way an engine that small wont have any lag. The turbo needs to be extremely huge and thus the lower revs will suffer.

I believe that you are badly informed about modern turbo methods.

• As strad already posted twin turbos help with the problem.
• Even the use of variable vanes to control the aspect ratio can totally eliminate turbo lag. http://www.autozine.org/technical_schoo ... _3.htm#VTG
• Thirdly you can use e-boosting with an electric high speed servo motor/generator on the TC shaft to already run the compressor up to boost speed while the engine is being fired up. The engine will not experience any turbo lag at all through the complete operating range. http://www.ecomotors.com/mechatronik-division
• The same thing is obviously possible with a hybrid turbo charger where the turbine and the compressor are not on the same shaft but connected to individual electric motor/generator units. This option is particularly useful when you want to avoid additional space and weight for connecting the intake and exhaust manifolds in one unit and are prepared to incur the additional weight of one electric unit. It opens the additional option for extremely asymmetric power specs between turbine and compressor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger

[djos]

An inline-four to be the future of F1, I could live with it when Nelson was hurling a gone-mad-BMW around Österreichring in 1985, but not like this as a fuel-starved compulsary thing, why I refuse to believe it.

I wonder what Carlo Chiti was thinking when he went against the grain in the 80s with his gas-gobbling 1.5 Alfa V8?

I agree, this fuel-starved, spec turbo, spec boost stuff is BS and will damage the sport!

[ACRO]

i think we all agree that F1 wants to go green and so its pretty probable that a turbocharged engine will follow since we use exhaust gas energy which otherwise is lost. i guess the target is to drop F1 to about 500hp while the laptimes and the challenge will be kept "attractive" by efficient aerodynamics and mechanical grip.

when it seems unprobably that a diesel engine will come in, the best solution for doing this job seems to be a turbocharged/intecooled inline4 with about 1.5 litre and a hybrid solution. the hybrid may keep turbolag down and is the most efficient way in a "green" formula 1 .

if its really an inline 4 , or maybe a V6 for better sound and more technical fascination for the spectators, if its turbo, twinturbo or turbo-compressor charged,what exact displacement, what regulations ( bore, cylinder spacing, boost pressure) , that are now speculations.

i personally believe we will get a direct injection twin turbo inline4 hybrid with boost,rev and system output limitation- but its only a guess.

best regards

[ringo]

An inline-four to be the future of F1, I could live with it when Nelson was hurling a gone-mad-BMW around Österreichring in 1985, but not like this as a fuel-starved compulsary thing, why I refuse to believe it.

I wonder what Carlo Chiti was thinking when he went against the grain in the 80s with his gas-gobbling 1.5 Alfa V8?

I agree, this fuel-starved, spec turbo, spec boost stuff is BS and will damage the sport!

You're not alone on that one. I don't mind the spec turbo thing, but at least allow teams to run as much fuel as they want and also rev the engine as high as they want.

For F1 to be the pinacle of motorsport they have to be careful of the power levels they are settling at too. 700hp should be the minimum.
I'm hoping for 900.

[alelanza]

I'm more concerned that it takes too much out of my time to explain things multiple times to people who can't be bothered to read the thread and the sources properly and then turn round and make detrimental remarks. Please find out what port injections compared to direct injection means by yourself. You only have to read this thread or google it or look a contemporary F1 V8 under the air box.

Port injection is easy enough, but port ignition I don´t think i understand, that´s why i asked you

At port ignition the evaporation happens in the ports and the cooling energy gets lost for the compressed charge.

So again, either your googling gets you all mixed up or there´s some new technology out there i´m unaware of.

The same goes for your ATDC ignition claim, so my question remains unanswered:

Ignition happens appr. between 2-5° after TDC

Which engines use this very late ignition and are more efficient because of it?

I was hoping after these many weeks you would have found the answer. Unless there´s no answer (i´m betting on that)

[WhiteBlue]

Port injection is easy enough, but port ignition I don´t think i understand, that´s why i asked you

The same goes for your ATDC ignition claim, so my question remains unanswered:

Ignition happens appr. between 2-5° after TDC

Which engines use this very late ignition and are more efficient because of it?

- port ignition unfortunately was a typo, which I overlooked, sorry for that

- maximum combustion pressure is supposed to happen at some dual digit angle after the TDC when the angle of the crank shaft is best suited to transmit the force. If I remember right it is 15°, but do not nail me if my memory is wrong on the number. Spray guided injection uses injectors which provides higher mass flow (30 g/s) than wall/air guided injectors of the VW FSI type (10 g/s).





The arrangement for the injection valve and the spark plug is substantially different with the injector at the top and the spark plug from the side. Spray guided injection happens between 30° and 20° before TDC in the compression stroke. This type of direct injected fuel air mixture burns faster when it is ignited because the spray is atomized much finer, evaporation is faster and the molecular mix in the conical spray zone is very homogeneous. Due to this higher speed of the combustion propagation maximum pressure is already 6-8° degree after TDC. At least that is what I understand from the book on spray guided combustion. http://books.google.de/books?id=GXUS1qan2xYC Please check page 11! I have looked it up again and I find no reference to the actual ignition point. So I have to conclude that I mistranslated max pressure and ignition timing. Port injection happens in the intake stroke and is also slower to ignite, as I understand. Another link about the Merc development can be found at: ftp://alpins.homedns.org/Public/Praca/D ... -20024.pdf

- engines that use the HDEV4 (Hoch Druck Einspritz Ventil Type 4) Bosch outward opening direct injection valve (not listed on their web site) with 200 bar pump can run spray guided ignition up to 8000 rpm. http://www.bosch-presse.de/TBWebDB/bosc ... ,2&dispo=a Above that rpm limit the 10 degree target angle gets passed faster than the injector can operate. When they go faster the fuel hits the piston and destroys the evaporation conditions for spray guided ignition. I believe the Ferrari Italia is capable of that. The Mercedes-Benz CLS 350 CGI engine is known to utilize the process since 2006 when Merc was the first company to introduce the process with Bosch. Since then they must have introduced other CGI engines. Best check Merc engine list on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Me ... nz_engines I could imagine that MP4-12C makes use of this technology but I'm not sure due to lack of data. The Jaguar Land Rover AJ-V8 Gen III 5.0-litre engine (introduced in August 2009 for the 2010 model year) features spray-guided direct injection, according to Wikipedia.

[Pingguest]

An inline-four to be the future of F1, I could live with it when Nelson was hurling a gone-mad-BMW around Österreichring in 1985, but not like this as a fuel-starved compulsary thing, why I refuse to believe it.

I wonder what Carlo Chiti was thinking when he went against the grain in the 80s with his gas-gobbling 1.5 Alfa V8?

I agree, this fuel-starved, spec turbo, spec boost stuff is BS and will damage the sport!

You're not alone on that one. I don't mind the spec turbo thing, but at least allow teams to run as much fuel as they want and also rev the engine as high as they want.

For F1 to be the pinacle of motorsport they have to be careful of the power levels they are settling at too. 700hp should be the minimum.
I'm hoping for 900.

In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

[ACRO]

Ignition happens appr. between 2-5° after TDC

sorry... you hearded the bells ringing, but you do not know in which church...

its true that the maximum combustion pressure occours after TDC but that has nothing to do with an ignition timing after TDC. the ignition happens, especially in high rev engines, far before TDC . the flame front needs time to develop, in this time the piston moves further above TDC so the maximum combustion pressure is reached after TDC - of course, reaching a high combustion pressure before this point would "slow" and not power the crankshaft .

i also laughed a little about the "typo" port-ignition...

[djos]

I agree, this fuel-starved, spec turbo, spec boost stuff is BS and will damage the sport!

You're not alone on that one. I don't mind the spec turbo thing, but at least allow teams to run as much fuel as they want and also rev the engine as high as they want.

For F1 to be the pinacle of motorsport they have to be careful of the power levels they are settling at too. 700hp should be the minimum.
I'm hoping for 900.

In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

Because in the 80's with more power than the chassis' could handle the racing was better and the real talent rose to the top!

It's like a wet race, more power than the driver can use and so he has to really show what he is made of, none of this holding it flat thru Eau-Rouge rubbish that we have today!

[autogyro]

So why not just do away completely with downforce?

[flynfrog]

So why not just do away completely with downforce?

yeah we could give the cars lift the drivers would be rewarded for driving slow so the cars wont go airborne this way we can green up the sport.




In reality its not the aero its that tires have made huge jumps since the 70s and 80s


If you want over taking double the power of the cars.

[djos]

So why not just do away completely with downforce?

How about cross-ply tires while we are at it?

[flynfrog]

So why not just do away completely with downforce?

How about cross-ply tires while we are at it?

wood

[tok-tokkie]

Turbo lag is also unavoidable for a 1.6lt making 700hp. No way an engine that small wont have any lag. The turbo needs to be extremely huge and thus the lower revs will suffer.

I believe that you are badly informed about modern turbo methods.

• As strad already posted twin turbos help with the problem.
• Even the use of variable vanes to control the aspect ratio can totally eliminate turbo lag. http://www.autozine.org/technical_schoo ... _3.htm#VTG
• Thirdly you can use e-boosting with an electric high speed servo motor/generator on the TC shaft to already run the compressor up to boost speed while the engine is being fired up. The engine will not experience any turbo lag at all through the complete operating range. http://www.ecomotors.com/mechatronik-division
• The same thing is obviously possible with a hybrid turbo charger where the turbine and the compressor are not on the same shaft but connected to individual electric motor/generator units. This option is particularly useful when you want to avoid additional space and weight for connecting the intake and exhaust manifolds in one unit and are prepared to incur the additional weight of one electric unit. It opens the additional option for extremely asymmetric power specs between turbine and compressor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger

That would be supercharging. Surely not permitted.