You actually did propose it in a form or fashion. We were all discussing the probable power output and boost pressure values that these engines run. You consistently denied it when other people had a a figure higher than yours and then referred them to calculations you made. The problem is you made the calculations based off a number, cannot recall right now, lower than lambda .98. How can you deny somebody else's claim and say it is wrong then show them calculations based off of a figure you just admitted would be at least slightly to low?
That sounds like claiming that they run a rich mixture to me.
Another question. Modern road car engines run under different conditions than F1 engines do they not? Those modern road car engines only produce power through the crankshaft and whether you want to admit it or not having a compounded engine does change up how things are worked out.
They are what I would consider medium stressed as they are designed for years of running, low duty cycle engines (not designed to be run at full power for long amounts of time). F1 engines are the exact opposite of that, highly stressed and high duty cycle.
Let's look at this scenario. A road car engine runs at full load. It will run slightly rich. Why would they do this? They know that they already have as much air as possible in the cylinders (hence airflow restricted) and know that by pumping in extra fuel that it ensures all the air will be consumed making the maximum power. In our F1 engine series we have a situation where we are limited by fuel. Therefore designers will want to at least ensure all the fuel is burnt releasing the maximum amount of energy. For this to happen there has to be at least a stoichiometric ratio. Many designers say that you add 2% to the airflow stoichiometric figure to ensure complete fuel combustion. Therefore wouldn't it be fair to say that these engines run at least lambda 1.02?
So you are saying that the writght turbo compound possesses these similarities to the F1 engine over a modern sports car?
I beg to differ.
A turbo compound does not produce power through the compound setup. Power production is still only from combustion.
It simply harnesses that power through two mechanical devices, the crank and the hot wheel, or whatever you want to call it. This still has nothing to do with efficient combustion. It changes nothing.
Look I am not saying the engines do not run lean, all i am saying is that you do not have evidence to support if it runs lean or rich, as both are not the most thermodynamically efficient.
Have a look at this:
I use this to find my in cylinder conditions. The higher the combustion temperature the higher the combustion efficiency.
I have mentioned this calculation earlier, but didn't want to over detail the chat. But this is what we really use to know exactly what happens with combustion mixtures. I use a program to do this of course, where other factors like moisture and fuel state is a consideration, but this is the foundation of your discussions.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/ ... de111.html
a graph of combustion temps for different lambda would look like this:
As you can see lambda =1 is ideal.
However if we look either side of 1, the temperatures are much higher when you go to the lean side, and there is less sensitivity to lambda above 1, and i think this is why what you suggest that more than 1 was found to be better in practice. The truth is that it's really just because you may not have to be dead precise and given the limitations in the precision of the current technology, lean running somewhat guarantees a close enough peak temperature. (and even then it depends on which fuel you use, as some of them are quite symetrical on either side of lambda =1)
So again, knowing this, i can tell you that i did not promote the use of a rich mixture. I only did it to compare the past turbo engines to the current, like for like. Stoichometry is ideal. Simple as that.
There is no existing evidence of what the F1 engines use currently, in fact i think it changes through the rev range and load conditions. What we need to do is look on a modern engine, which is still the most similar thing to an F1 engine despite limitations for emissions and longevity.