F1technical.net

Perhaps we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Unless I have missed something we still have SECU rules.

Do we?
But even still, this is a much much greater volume of work than with the V8s. There is bound to be some additions to the teams.
There is only so much hours of work a man can do a day. These innovations that we are discussing are easier said than done.

What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

That way, as you shift you still have access to the same power level.

My car does a similar thing making ~220kw from 3500rpm all the way to 6000rpm.

Just an idea

ringo wrote:Do we? But even still, this is a much much greater volume of work than with the V8s. There is bound to be some additions to the teams. There is only so much hours of work a man can do a day. These innovations that we are discussing are easier said than done.

I think exactly this consideration has pushed the regulators to exclude turbo compounding from 2013. They want the engine guys to come up with a core turbo engine first and focus on compounding for the next year. That way some work load is distributed over time, which makes sense.

Pieoter wrote:What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

That way, as you shift you still have access to the same power level.

My car does a similar thing making ~220kw from 3500rpm all the way to 6000rpm.

Just an idea

In theory you are xactly correct, given that you have no limit on turbo-boost, you should get the same power all the way.

I'm still at a bit of a loss on the 2013 rules, 12 kRpm is obvious, but will there also be a boost- and fuelflow-limitation?

xpensive wrote:... will there also be a boost- and fuelflow-limitation?

I think that we have very little reason to doubt what Craig Scarborough tells us, which was a maximum fuel mass flow of 100 kg/h (27.8g/s). He is extremely well informed and a very reliable source for technical info.

Regarding the boost pressure the latest word was in fall that the EWG was considering a standardized solution. This would negate the need for a boost pressure regulation in 2013. Craig also tells us that turbo compounding will come with one year delay in 2014. It makes total sense to have a standardized solution in 2013 and total freedom on turbo systems in 2014. So that is the solution I reckon they will decide.

There is a fuel flow restriction from what I've read but I don't know about turbo boost. It's all come out in a bit of a muddle, which is just the kind of thing I thought Volkswagen would like given experience in other formulas. It seems as though there will be some loopholes and opportunities here. Lo and behold they seem to be a little more interested:

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6710944 ... index.html

100 kg/h is just a tad too even a number to be much more than a ball-park figure me thinks, morever, controlling massflow is far more complicated than doing the same on volumetric flow, why I still belive in my originally predicted 45 cc/s.

With 30 to 35% mechanical efficiency, it would yield 620 to 730 Hp, which should be incentive enough for fuel-efficiency.

xpensive wrote:100 kg/h is just a tad too even a number to be much more than a ball-park figure me thinks, morever, controlling massflow is far more complicated than doing the same on volumetric flow, why I still belive in my originally predicted 45 cc/s.

With 30 to 35% mechanical efficiency, it would yield 620 to 730 Hp, which should be incentive enough for fuel-efficiency.

We have been through this discussion before. Your figure does not match with the officially advertised 35% reduction in fuel use.

Gosh...35% officially advertised? How stupid of me not to notice that, then I guess 100 kg/h must be true then?

xpensive wrote:Gosh...35% officially advertised? How stupid of me not to notice that, then I guess 100 kg/h must be true then?

You are kidding me again, are you? So which of the official figures you think are true and which in your opinion are fake?

Pieoter wrote:What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

That way, as you shift you still have access to the same power level.

My car does a similar thing making ~220kw from 3500rpm all the way to 6000rpm.

Just an idea

Yep, I'm thinking the same thing. However I expect rule tweaks to disallow constant power because it would reduce or eliminate shifting and the traditional shifting noise.

What kind of car do you have? That's a constant ~300 hp over half the rev range! Must be a kick to drive. I'm assuming diesel?

WhiteBlue wrote:

xpensive wrote:... will there also be a boost- and fuelflow-limitation?

I think that we have very little reason to doubt what Craig Scarborough tells us, which was a maximum fuel mass flow of 100 kg/h (27.8g/s). He is extremely well informed and a very reliable source for technical info.

Regarding the boost pressure the latest word was in fall that the EWG was considering a standardized solution. This would negate the need for a boost pressure regulation in 2013. Craig also tells us that turbo compounding will come with one year delay in 2014. It makes total sense to have a standardized solution in 2013 and total freedom on turbo systems in 2014. So that is the solution I reckon they will decide.

Where does he get his numbers?
Not saying they are unreliable, but can't necessarily put faith in speculation.
Any of his insiders could be second hand sources themselves, going off hear say as well.
If it aint official it's still in negotiation, or wishful thinking. I want to see the FIA say the fuel rate is X, then we can accept it as fact.

27.8 is realitic ofcouse, but it could be 28, or 28.5 without much overall difference. As it is 27.8 is short of 600hp.

About constant power output, this can be done when saving fuel is not an issue, maybe in the last 10 laps of a race.
If the compressor is variable vane, the boost pressure can be continuously varied to hold thepower constant through the rev range.

The electrical assisted compressor idea from autogyro could work to do it. Though i emphasize assist because i don't think it's worth having the generator fully power an isolated compressor because it's a hug power requirement. 100 electrical hp is best directed to the wheels.

A flat power curve is very possible. The max fuel flow just has to be used throughout the rev range. With no fuel tank mass limits Fuel efficiency just went out the window.

Pieoter wrote:What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

Why should they ban such designs?