F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:

Holm86 wrote:There is no boost limit right now but wont they have come up with a boost limit that forces the manufacturers to go to the 15.000rpm limit?

Why should there be such a requirement? It is contrary to the objective of a massive efficiency step in power train design.

Every engine with a different lay out and aspiration will sound different. It is an illusion to think that a particular frequency composition of engine sound can or should be preserved in F1. People will still realize that F1 engines will be massively loud in 2014. The sound will be slightly lower in frequency composition but it will be very emotional. Of that we can be sure.

Well because they are forced to by many spectators ... And even the management of different tracks demands it. Otherwise the rev limit is pretty redundant (Which i allready think it is).

Does anyone has reasonably good engine simulation software? Roughly what boost are we looking at with full fuel-flow at 10,500 rpm? Same question for 15,000 rpm? Assume good intercooling, etc.

Holm86-- As WhiteBlue says there is nothing to force teams to go above 10,500 rpm in order to produce peak power. I disagree with his overall perspective a bit because I think there is great value in the nature of the power curve, and if you rev from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm then you get the ideal power curve (~ constant power) which is very nice to drive and requires fewer gear changes.

bill shoe wrote:Does anyone has reasonably good engine simulation software? Roughly what boost are we looking at with full fuel-flow at 10,500 rpm? Same question for 15,000 rpm? Assume good intercooling, etc.

Holm86-- As WhiteBlue says there is nothing to force teams to go above 10,500 rpm in order to produce peak power. I disagree with his overall perspective a bit because I think there is great value in the nature of the power curve, and if you rev from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm then you get the ideal power curve (~ constant power) which is very nice to drive and requires fewer gear changes.

I know theres nothing to force them to go above 10,500rpm. I just think FIA makes a fool of themselves setting a rev limit and then modulate the rest of the regulations so that you would never go near that limit.

Holm86 wrote:

bill shoe wrote:Does anyone has reasonably good engine simulation software? Roughly what boost are we looking at with full fuel-flow at 10,500 rpm? Same question for 15,000 rpm? Assume good intercooling, etc.

Holm86-- As WhiteBlue says there is nothing to force teams to go above 10,500 rpm in order to produce peak power. I disagree with his overall perspective a bit because I think there is great value in the nature of the power curve, and if you rev from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm then you get the ideal power curve (~ constant power) which is very nice to drive and requires fewer gear changes.

I know theres nothing to force them to go above 10,500rpm. I just think FIA makes a fool of themselves setting a rev limit and then modulate the rest of the regulations so that you would never go near that limit.

The foolish thing was to expect a replication of the current engine sound in 2014 1:1. It has never happened before in more than 100 years of GP history. So why should it happen now? Because some fans make stupid claims? Or because Bernie kicks off a dumb PR campaign? The reasons for doing the 2014 regs are a lot more valid than some aural customs of a fan minority.

Here is where the regulations allow a hole in the rear diffuser for the external starter shaft to enter:

3.12.7 ... An aperture for the purpose of allowing access for the device referred to in Article 5.16 is
permitted in this surface. However, no such aperture may have an area greater than 3500mm2
when projected onto the surface itself and no point on the aperture may be more than 100mm
from any other point on the aperture.

And here is the referenced Article 5.16:

5.16 Materials and construction – Pressure charging and exhaust systems :

Seems like a reference to an external starter rule that no longer exists. Then later:

5.18 Starting the engine :
It must be possible for the driver to start the engine at any time when seated normally at the
wheel and without any external assistance.

I hope the rules will be clarified to disallow external starters, or at least to eliminate the access hole in the diffuser. This would save the aero people from dicking around with how to best use this access hole for aero performance.

Self starting F1 cars are an obvious improvement that has been a looooong time coming. =D> =D>

bill shoe wrote:Here is where the regulations allow a hole in the rear diffuser for the external starter shaft to enter:

3.12.7 ... An aperture for the purpose of allowing access for the device referred to in Article 5.16 is
permitted in this surface. However, no such aperture may have an area greater than 3500mm2
when projected onto the surface itself and no point on the aperture may be more than 100mm
from any other point on the aperture.

And here is the referenced Article 5.16:

5.16 Materials and construction – Pressure charging and exhaust systems :

Seems like a reference to an external starter rule that no longer exists. Then later:

5.18 Starting the engine :
It must be possible for the driver to start the engine at any time when seated normally at the
wheel and without any external assistance.

I hope the rules will be clarified to disallow external starters, or at least to eliminate the access hole in the diffuser. This would save the aero people from dicking around with how to best use this access hole for aero performance.

Self starting F1 cars are an obvious improvement that has been a looooong time coming. =D> =D>

We know that the exhaust will have to exit on the upper body anyhow from next year. So the discussion about a starter hole is quite academic anyway.

WhiteBlue wrote:We know that the exhaust will have to exit on the upper body anyhow from next year. So the discussion about a starter hole is quite academic anyway.

I don't understand the connection between exhaust location and starter hole.

I couldn't find anything in the 2014 rules that requires an exhaust exit in any particular place. Am I missing it?

bill shoe wrote:Does anyone has reasonably good engine simulation software? Roughly what boost are we looking at with full fuel-flow at 10,500 rpm? Same question for 15,000 rpm? Assume good intercooling, etc.
...

Not much bill, with a fuel-flow limit of 38 cc/sec, which is basically 1600 kW input, 32% eficciency means 510 kW (700 Hp).

A 1.6 litre engine at 15 k should manage that at a 0.8 Bar boost (11 psi).

What can you do about that, regardless of rpm, boost or anything, why I doubt if the 2014 engines will run more that 12k, when I would rather blow the thing to one bar at that speed and save the engine-life by reducing the rpm.

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:So a fuel limit can actually dictate a lot when it comes to the power output as well as engine characteristics.

This sounds very nebulous. How can a fuel flow limit of 25g/s stop an exhaust turbine to build up compressor pressure. Most of the recent and even primitive waste gate controlled turbochargers reach the maximum compressor pressure at 1,500 rpm. That is way under the fuel flow limit. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.

I still think that the only effective way to force engineers over 12,000 or even 10,000 rpm is by limiting the boost to a very low value. I would even be tempted to make a numerical prediction on the boost level.

What's that you say WB?

just wait for the graphs.

Tim.Wright wrote:If the power is flat from 10500 (is this a rule?), then the torque must be dropping. The extra gear might be needed to give the cars enough tractive force to overcome the drag at high speeds when the torque is dropping off.

The relationship between Power and Torque is such that if, by virtue of the flat power curve, two gears can transmit the same power to the road at the same road speed, then the torque at the road wheels (where it counts for acceleration) at that speed will be the same, regardless of what the torque at the engine flywheel is.

Have a play with this on my website:-

http://www.competition-car-engineering. ... Torque.htm

I like to talk about exhaust heat recovery system. Is this a system that is made of a turbine in the exhaust pipe (like the turbine part of a turbo) which is connected to an electric generator (alternator)?

If so, I hope this will catalyse the electrification of road cars.

jamsbong wrote:I like to talk about exhaust heat recovery system. Is this a system that is made of a turbine in the exhaust pipe (like the turbine part of a turbo) which is connected to an electric generator (alternator)?

If so, I hope this will catalyse the electrification of road cars.

As expensive already explained the compressor will have just 0.8 bar load which leaves a lot of surplus energy from the turbine that can be harvested by the MGUH.

The MGUH does not have a dedicated turbine. It is either on the same shaft as the turbo charger or it is connected to that shaft by a fixed geared connection and a clutch. I think that those systems will be seen in road cars pretty soon. It just makes no sense to throttle away a lot of exhaust energy in a waste gate. It makes more sense to use it for electricity generation.

Just for the record, as WB xplained, at 15k rpm it wouldn't take more that 0.8 bar boost to make use of 38 cc/sec,

Which makes my doubt of Renault and MHPE will make use of it, 1.0 bar at 12k sounds far more reasonable.

What you do with the rest of the xhaust energy is beyond my understanding, but perhaps some people in munich know?

Max ERS release per lap gets bumped from 400kJ to 4MJ, and the kinetic MGU is only allowed to charge 2MJ per lap, so the rest will have to come from the exhaust. Is 2MJ (at least, assuming KERS can actually recharge 2MJ per lap) a lot/a little/avergae per lap, compared to what's left in the exhaust flow?

4MJ i business,equalling some 100 ml of gasoline, but where do we store it, WB?