The fuel burning speed issue is very complex. There are also valvtrain control issues. Presently there is a point of diminishing returns by trying to cycle the engine faster. Yes, it is true that more work per area unit time should deliver more power, but the greater engine speeds may not let the air/fuel mixture expand at the correct moment to deliver the greatest push on the piston when at the optimum position(s).
If I were building and F1 engine, I would take a look at the best fuel I could legally get by with, and what I could possibly do to get this fuel to light, burn, and deliver it's heat within it's confines of the cylinder in the shortest time possible. Making this qualified judgement at what cycle speed this fuel can effectively deliver a quality burn with the compression allowed (if any rule)...taking into account bore diameter, stroke, rod length, and a couple other factors. Based on thisfuel finding, I would go to work with the "Spintron", and run tests to see how aggressive the valve motion could become at speeds within the fuels capabilities, and limit my valve motion vs. engine speed in accordance to my fuels capabilities. I would be more concerned on working with the overall average power level within a rpm range than some perhaps peaky high strung engine. Not to say that moving the whole torque curve up 1000rpm from 19,000 to 20,000 rpm for instance wouldn't be beneficial...it might be... but producing a driveable/manageable engine with a flat torque curve is probably what drivers want most.
tkr60411@aol.com