F1technical.net

Maybe I’m paranoid but I always have this fear in the back of my mind—

I worry that “Autogyro” and maybe a couple other user names are really just covers for some psychology professor who is conducting a research study. The nature of the study is to test people’s willingness to respond to bizarre and non-functional arguments in online forums. This professor now has a complete psychological profile of me based on my non-response rate, my response rate, and content of same. Sort of like a miniature online version of the movie “The Truman Show”. A year from now this research will be published in Nature and I will be listed as “Subject # 41: Engineer with control issues and difficult relationship with mother”. I don’t know how else to explain the diligent wrong statements on this forum that can extend over months and years.

Aaah, that’s better. It doesn’t sound so paranoid now that I’ve said it.

Hey, you all have a good Holiday season. I’m lucky enough to be going on vacation for two weeks with my family, and the two-year old gets to meet Santa for the first time . I won’t have computer access and I won’t miss it.

ringo wrote:White blue another thing is the boost temperature. This is why i think they will run then engine at the full 12,000 rpm in most cases. The constant power stuff only works if the temperatures can be controlled.
Sizing of inter-cooler has a direct effect on aerodynamics, as well so they might not want to cater for max power at say 6000rpm or even 7000. The air will be too hot.

So we probably all agree that it will be an exercise in multi dimensional optimization. For a variety of reasons the optimum will not be at the extreme ends of the rev spectrum.

xpensive wrote:Good save WB, while I have admit that my idea of a 12k was more or less guesswork, though it had some bearing from previous xperiences from similar applications. However, I have a feeling that we have not seen the entire rule-package yrt?

Definitely not. There are clearly rules on the 2013 turbo missing and rules how to do turbo compounding in 2014. The KERS rules only say that they will have 120 kW but we do not know the storage capacity. I'm also keen to learn more about the impact of front wheel KERS on chassis rules. I reckon there will be a particular body work zone as they defined in the 2007 study to house all the gear.

A constant power ICE is something as theoretical as an adiabatic or isothermal cycle.

Why bother discussing what gearbox would apply to such engine?

It's not overly theoretical, to some extent it is used in industry, with hydraulic drive train machines, but not at the full rev range. Maybe for a good 50% of it.

WhiteBlue wrote: Here you have it from the horses mouth. No bi turbos!

WhiteBlue@Autosport Technical Forum wrote: QUOTE (Jean Francois Caubet, general manager Renault Sport F1)
Source The 2013 engine opens up the game. The FIA dossier is clear; if we have technological innovations it’s up to us to introduce them. The competition is totally open. We will limit costs with precise rules; materials, number of engines per season, rev limit etc. But we are free in terms of technology. It’s a clean sheet of paper for everyone and may the best one win! 1600cc, twin turbo, direct injection, big KERS, 600 horsepower in the engine and another 150 in the KERS boost and controlled fuel consumption.


This is yet another source from the participants of the EWG who confirms the turbo, direct injection and fuel flow limit. The specific mentioning of twin turbos reinforces my believe that they will initially have a common 2013 turbo solution. There is no mentioning of a boost limit.

Do you have changed your horse WhiteBlue?
So what was wrong with your first horse?
Or does your horse has more then one mouth?

Nevertheless, you make for great entertainment at times - Thank you & Merry Christmas

ringo wrote:It's not overly theoretical, to some extent it is used in industry, with hydraulic drive train machines, but not at the full rev range. Maybe for a good 50% of it.

A stationary engine being curbed way below nominal power. That's an application really far off from a racing car.

And efficiency curve along the RPM band must be quite steep.

I'd say the chances of creating a constant power ICE are far greater than ever ending the constant power vs ratios argument.

I'd suggest patience and persistance, there is nothing wrong with admitting defeat, we learn most from our mistakes.

Although it is amazing how some "engineers" obviously hold senior positions in industry yet fail to grasp the physics.

Cogs wrote:I'd say the chances of creating a constant power ICE are far greater than ever ending the constant power vs ratios argument.

I'd have to agree...

747heavy wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: Here you have it from the horses mouth. No bi turbos!

WhiteBlue@Autosport Technical Forum wrote: QUOTE (Jean Francois Caubet, general manager Renault Sport F1)
Source The 2013 engine opens up the game. The FIA dossier is clear; if we have technological innovations it’s up to us to introduce them. The competition is totally open. We will limit costs with precise rules; materials, number of engines per season, rev limit etc. But we are free in terms of technology. It’s a clean sheet of paper for everyone and may the best one win! 1600cc, twin turbo, direct injection, big KERS, 600 horsepower in the engine and another 150 in the KERS boost and controlled fuel consumption.


This is yet another source from the participants of the EWG who confirms the turbo, direct injection and fuel flow limit. The specific mentioning of twin turbos reinforces my believe that they will initially have a common 2013 turbo solution. There is no mentioning of a boost limit.

Do you have changed your horse WhiteBlue?
So what was wrong with your first horse?
Or does your horse has more then one mouth?

Nevertheless, you make for great entertainment at times - Thank you & Merry Christmas

LOL, circumstances change the technical solutions. A spec solution for 2013 is different to a 2014 solution including turbo charging or an optimized solution without political interferences.

bill shoe wrote:Maybe I’m paranoid but I always have this fear in the back of my mind—

I worry that “Autogyro” and maybe a couple other user names are really just covers for some psychology professor who is conducting a research study. The nature of the study is to test people’s willingness to respond to bizarre and non-functional arguments in online forums. This professor now has a complete psychological profile of me based on my non-response rate, my response rate, and content of same. Sort of like a miniature online version of the movie “The Truman Show”. A year from now this research will be published in Nature and I will be listed as “Subject # 41: Engineer with control issues and difficult relationship with mother”. I don’t know how else to explain the diligent wrong statements on this forum that can extend over months and years.

Aaah, that’s better. It doesn’t sound so paranoid now that I’ve said it.

Hey, you all have a good Holiday season. I’m lucky enough to be going on vacation for two weeks with my family, and the two-year old gets to meet Santa for the first time . I won’t have computer access and I won’t miss it.

Happy Christmas Bill, dont forget Santas sleigh is a constant power 'machin' on at least three dimensions.

Back on topic, I don't see how a 1.6l turbo engine would be able to make any usable power at 3000 rpm without some sort of electric assist. To make 600bhp, you need roughly 30 psi. To flow that much air you need a big turbo, even with ceramic ball bearings, variable geometry turbine and a high compression ratio you'll still have lag below roughly 4,000rpm. However it does let you have a flat power band in the upper 5,000rpm. I said before that the laggy engine combined with the instant torque of electric power will create interesting strategies during different parts of a race, especially if the electric power delivery can be modified to provide either more power for a shorter duration or a longer lasting albeit weaker boost.

rjsa wrote:

ringo wrote:It's not overly theoretical, to some extent it is used in industry, with hydraulic drive train machines, but not at the full rev range. Maybe for a good 50% of it.

A stationary engine being curbed way below nominal power. That's an application really far off from a racing car.


And efficiency curve along the RPM band must be quite steep.

A stationary engine? how about a back hoe or front end loader?
Some use constant power to drive hydraulic motors, which drive the wheels, and bucket etc.

I don't really get what nominal power is supposed to mean either. I've heard of nominal speed with generators.

With 120kw kers it is entirely possible to have a flat torque curve in the first third of the rev range, and full power for the last third. The benefit of this is that even if the engines ultimately make less power they become far more useful for things like rotating the car with the throttle.

A 1.6L turbo engine with a 12K rpm limit will be much more drivable than a 2.4L n/a engine with an 18K rpm limit. Modern centrifugal turbo compressor/turbine wheel designs give very good response, especially with variable geometry turbine housings.

Turbo engines are attractive to the sanctioning bodies like the FIA, since it is very easy to make power adjustments by tweaking boost levels. A small change in boost limits normally only requires some ECU mapping changes, which doesn't cost the engine suppliers much time or money.

godlameroso wrote:With 120kw kers it is entirely possible to have a flat torque curve in the first third of the rev range, and full power for the last third.

The 120 kW KERS is a white elephant at the moment. Even experts who have participated in the talks do not know the level of stored energy they are targeting. Patrick Head was talking of values between 2.3 and 4 MJ per lap. That is ten times what we will have next year. The only thing that is clear from those figures is that you cannot harvest them from the rear wheels. You need front wheel KERS as well. You need elaborate computerized braking torque control on all four wheels for eight torque sources to control the deceleration of the car in accordance with the break pedal signal and maximize the harvested energy. If you do that it makes sense to use that same computer control to manage acceleration from the ICE and the electric power according to one throttle pedal signal and do away with the boost button. This again means that you will not have a fixed power of 120 kW but a lower value that depends of the harvested power and the throttle pedal signal. The maximum value would be lower than 120 kW if the electric power is applied whenever the throttle pedal is pushed. It is obvious that many questions are unanswered regarding KERS.