Are intercoolers banned?

[autogyro]

water methanol injection is used on NA cars to cool down the intake charge. I cant rember what car it was I belive a for prototype mustang used the AC compressor to chill the water before injection. They might have also used this on a Euro spec focus. Its all a little hazy right now.

Water and methanol provides cooling mainly by their high heat of vaporisation. That means chilling the liquid has little effect on the cooling provided by the liquid. It also means that the cooling provided below the boiling point of methanol will be small.

A 'boost fluid' is mostly effective at cooling the charge and the engine itself inside the cylinder. This reduce knock and higher boost pressures, higher compression ratios, leaner fuel mixtures and/or more ignition advance can be used.

Ethanol evaporates only about two degrees lower than Methanol and way below the boiling point of water. You should check out Lotus Engineering and their two stroke variable compression, variable valve, variable fuel engine.
Almost everything possible for tuning both two stroke and four stroke engines has been done years ago. In fact the American V8 engines are closer to the steam age than to modern day.
Even Lotus were experimenting with cut away running engines, for all these issues decades ago. Little has changed, in fact the Bristol sleeve valve engine of WW2 although limited on rpm would still adapt better than most modern ideas.
The reciprocating ic engine is after all, very very mechanicaly inefficient.
I much prefer the Stirling. We have a small one that runs on anything hot and can generate 1KW, brilliant. I believe that for ic future, we should concentrate on making the Wankel rotary more fuel efficient. It is already as good as it gets mechanicaly.
As to intercoolers, they are only used because the charge temperature from turbocharging would be to high otherwise. Basicaly to cure a problem, not improve anything. Better to use the exhaust energy to drive a generator in an energy recovery system. That way no hot intake.

[autogyro]

Sorry I meant Ethanol evaporates about two degrees 'higher' than Methanol.
Must be careful with the next batch of Vodka, hick.

[Edis]

water methanol injection is used on NA cars to cool down the intake charge. I cant rember what car it was I belive a for prototype mustang used the AC compressor to chill the water before injection. They might have also used this on a Euro spec focus. Its all a little hazy right now.

Water and methanol provides cooling mainly by their high heat of vaporisation. That means chilling the liquid has little effect on the cooling provided by the liquid. It also means that the cooling provided below the boiling point of methanol will be small.

A 'boost fluid' is mostly effective at cooling the charge and the engine itself inside the cylinder. This reduce knock and higher boost pressures, higher compression ratios, leaner fuel mixtures and/or more ignition advance can be used.

Ethanol evaporates only about two degrees lower than Methanol and way below the boiling point of water. You should check out Lotus Engineering and their two stroke variable compression, variable valve, variable fuel engine.
Almost everything possible for tuning both two stroke and four stroke engines has been done years ago. In fact the American V8 engines are closer to the steam age than to modern day.
Even Lotus were experimenting with cut away running engines, for all these issues decades ago. Little has changed, in fact the Bristol sleeve valve engine of WW2 although limited on rpm would still adapt better than most modern ideas.
The reciprocating ic engine is after all, very very mechanicaly inefficient.
I much prefer the Stirling. We have a small one that runs on anything hot and can generate 1KW, brilliant. I believe that for ic future, we should concentrate on making the Wankel rotary more fuel efficient. It is already as good as it gets mechanicaly.
As to intercoolers, they are only used because the charge temperature from turbocharging would be to high otherwise. Basicaly to cure a problem, not improve anything. Better to use the exhaust energy to drive a generator in an energy recovery system. That way no hot intake.

Water boil at 100 degC at a standard atmosphere, metanol at 65 degC and ethanol at 78 degC. So for a methanol-water boost fluid the amount of cooling availible due to evaporation will be quite limited below 65 degC.

The reciprocating ic engine is very efficient from a mechanical standpoint, that is as long as it operates at a high load. At 2000 rpm a piston engine can have a fmep of 1.3 bar with a bmep of 11 bar. That translates into a mechanical efficiency of 88%. The problem is what is happening when the engine load is decreased. To propel a car at say 70 km/h we need something like 2-3 bar bmep from a 2 litre engine (half that with a 4 litre engine), and if we then have a fmep of 1 bar the mechanical efficiency is only 50-70%. If you think the wankel could do it better, think again. Sliding seals, bearings, engine driven accessories and similar will still cause this loss, and with the poor combustion chamber shape of the wankel heat losses are much higher and the burn is slower. Not exactly what we want for a good efficiency. To realisticly get a high compression ratio from a wankel a two stage solution would also be required, with associated losses between the stages.

Most variable compression engines doesn't impress me much; they are usually too expensive for what they give back in return and always (so far at least) compromise with the combustion chamber shape. The Stirling impresses me (as a car engine) even less. It cost significantly more than an ordinary piston engine, it is heavier and larger, yet it can hardly beat an american push rod V8 engine in efficiency - against a modern diesel it doesn't have a chance. Modern diesels for passenger cars and commercial vehicles reach peak efficiencies between 40 and 50%, the Stirling manages just slightly above 30%. The small gas turbine engine is even worse, it can hardly reach 30% even when a recuperator is used.

With future car engines, which will be piston engines, we will see new methods introduced which will reduce the fmep and pumping losses. Less friction, less pumping losses and engine accessories which consume less power by deliver only on demand and by more effective means. But the single largest improvement in efficiency will come from downsizing. That is to have a smaller engine operate at higher average bmep's rather than a larger engine at lower bmeps. But to make that possible, the specific output of the engines must increase to compensate the powerloss caused by the decrease in displacement. This loss will be compensated by mainly two ways, turbocharging and electrical assist. Turbocharging will have a much greater effect in the near future since it is significantly more cost effective than electric assist.

[autogyro]

Sounds like a terrific marketing pitch for the oil companies.
Pity you are not correct.

[autogyro]

To achieve a realistic measure of mechanical efficiency, it is important to take into account the effect of 'second planar force', which is the negative force produced converting linear motion to rotational and conveniently ignored when supporting the status quo oil burning ic engine in efficiency debates.
I would also be interested in how you quantify 'significantly more cost effective'. Such a comparison is a variable based on many outside forces.
The truth is that full EVs are very close in technological development to allow them to displace ic as the prime mover on this planet and it is only vested interest that posses the main objections.
In an F1 sense, this objection is manifest in the status quo demanded by FOTA.
Of course in electric traction IMEP FMEP AND BMEP mean very little anyway.

[Edis]

To achieve a realistic measure of mechanical efficiency, it is important to take into account the effect of 'second planar force', which is the negative force produced converting linear motion to rotational and conveniently ignored when supporting the status quo oil burning ic engine in efficiency debates.

Excuse me, but this can only be descibed one way: complete bullshit!

I would also be interested in how you quantify 'significantly more cost effective'. Such a comparison is a variable based on many outside forces.
The truth is that full EVs are very close in technological development to allow them to displace ic as the prime mover on this planet and it is only vested interest that posses the main objections.
In an F1 sense, this objection is manifest in the status quo demanded by FOTA.
Of course in electric traction IMEP FMEP AND BMEP mean very little anyway.

Return on investment. A downsiced turbo engine add roughly $500 to the cost of a car which is paid back in about 2 years. The cost of hybrid technology, currently around $4000, takes more than twice as long to pay back and up to four times as long isn't impossible.

Full EV aren't even on the map.

[autogyro]

Only bullshit to the oil companies.
The cost of electric vehicles will only remain high as long as vested interest prevents the development of a proper infra structure and 'cost effective' production levels.
So long as governments support criminals with financial policy like grants for ancient technology, things will move slowly and the delusion of the public will continue.
A bit like aerodynamics in F1.

[xpensive]

I read about this Swedish engineer, who ha made a very promising invention based on the Carnot-process,
where he xtracted energy from the induction air while cooling it, whereafter he recycled the same energy
as power to propel the vehicle.

Would this be illegal in F1?

[autogyro]

Dunno, we dont do 'air' in electric vehicles.

[010010011010]

Dunno, we dont do 'air' in electric vehicles.

Sorry I think I missed somthing, wasnt he refering to F1? not electric vechicles

[autogyro]

Dunno, we dont do 'air' in electric vehicles.

Sorry I think I missed somthing, wasnt he refering to F1? not electric vechicles

I think you will find it was a baited comment inviting a response that would most likely break the first and second principles of thermodynamics but then what do I know.
I would like some ideas on converting heat into electricity however (hot air)

[F1_eng]

What are you trying to say about Aerodynamics in F1 autogyro?

In regards to some of the other things you mentioned, are you just reding something on the internet and pasting some technical words together?
"secondary planar force"??
As I have said on some other posts recently, I suggest you pick up a book and read about whichever topic you would like to dicuss. You would not have mentioned this "secondary panar force" and how it's not accounted for in mechanical efficiency calculations. I think maybe something like Plint's Engine Testing book or Blair might be best for you in this instance, or as ever, the trusted faithful Heywood.

There is no easy way of directly measuring FMEP, motoring dynos don't fully simulate the conditions and are best used for working relative differences. It's normaly done as a process of elimination. We measured IMEP through cylinder pressure analysis. BMEP is measured through the dyno brake, PMEP is done again using the pressure analysis and a certain area of the PV graph is pumping work. Then you are left with FMEP.
So IMEP = BMEP + PMEP + FMEP.

Bringing your revolutionary gearbox topic back up, there was something very very similar on dragon's den the other day, could it possibly have been you?

[autogyro]

What are you trying to say about Aerodynamics in F1 autogyro?

In regards to some of the other things you mentioned, are you just reding something on the internet and pasting some technical words together?
"secondary planar force"??
As I have said on some other posts recently, I suggest you pick up a book and read about whichever topic you would like to dicuss. You would not have mentioned this "secondary panar force" and how it's not accounted for in mechanical efficiency calculations. I think maybe something like Plint's Engine Testing book or Blair might be best for you in this instance, or as ever, the trusted faithful Heywood.

There is no easy way of directly measuring FMEP, motoring dynos don't fully simulate the conditions and are best used for working relative differences. It's normaly done as a process of elimination. We measured IMEP through cylinder pressure analysis. BMEP is measured through the dyno brake, PMEP is done again using the pressure analysis and a certain area of the PV graph is pumping work. Then you are left with FMEP.
So IMEP = BMEP + PMEP + FMEP.

Bringing your revolutionary gearbox topic back up, there was something very very similar on dragon's den the other day, could it possibly have been you?

Thanks for the advice F1eng, I will try to remember it if I decide to build yet another winning ic race engine.
As to dynos, I will ask McLaren what they thought of the mobile hub dyno I demonstrated to them ten years ago.
That one had some of the first computer software for the purpose.
Of course things have progressed way past that havnt they F1eng?
Is this why we still do not have dynos in the paddock for testing?

Please do not insult me with dragons den. I doubt there is one on the panel who even knows how a layshaft gearbox works.

[F1_eng]

You claim to have built race winning engines, but have you designed or developed any? Because if you have, the approach must have been very hit and miss from what I can gather you knowledge is, fair enough this is based entirely on what you post on here.

Why on earth would you want a dyno in the paddock?
We measure engine power very very accurately every millisecond of every lap the cars are running, I assume you know how we do this?

So, was it you on Dragon's Den?

[autogyro]

You claim to have built race winning engines, but have you designed or developed any? Because if you have, the approach must have been very hit and miss from what I can gather you knowledge is, fair enough this is based entirely on what you post on here.

Why on earth would you want a dyno in the paddock?
We measure engine power very very accurately every millisecond of every lap the cars are running, I assume you know how we do this?

So, was it you on Dragon's Den?

Of course you do not need a dyno in the paddock for F1.
F1 only uses supplied engines as a bolt on part. Bit like shopping at Sainsbury.
Developing F1 engines in the real world (where it counts) ceased many moons ago.
Measuring what they do every millisecond only confirms what someone else has achieved in a clean sterile environment. You want congratulations for what expensive computers do?
Try training a chimp to run one, it will save you money.
Justifying ones job position is what it is all about today.
That is right isnt it FIeng.
Let me see now, what must I do to get into F1 aero. I know lets start, one and one is two, two and two is four. Am I doing good F1eng?
A masters degree and I am in right. How many ways can the air be directed around an F1 car I wonder and who cares anyway.
If I keep it up I will be made for life and have all the bullsh-- I need for the pub. I wonder if I will achieve though? Now that concept is long gone.
Dragons den!! X factor!!! are you joking, I do not do modern dumbing down.
If I was younger I would not even wish to drive the cars, far to safe.
Bikes maybe.