F1technical.net

autogyro wrote:Most people watch F1 on TV, so the sound (wow) is no problem, simply turn up the background noise in editing.
All the motor heads would not even realise.

You make it sound like your the only one whos ever truly heard an F1 car.

So sorry if we dont all have the time/money to go to grand prix's


I know theyre trying to make it relevant but wouldnt it make alot more sense to introduce these fuel caps in Endurance racing, instead of a sprint race?

Because we all know that theres going to be very few similarities between F1 engines and Road engines anyway. By the way, I am in favour of KERS.

With the new regulations Formula 1 tries to make its engines to have a lower fuel economy, lower emissions and hence to be more road relevant. For those aims, wouldn't it be a good solution to introduce emission standards? The FIA could enforce those standards the very same way as the EU enforces its Euro 5-norm. If an engine meets the FIA's standards, it will be homologated and no changes are allowed without notice.

F1 should not be the pinnacle of ecomotive engineering. I like that future F1 engines should be more ecofriendly and as economical and environmental as it can be.
But this is still the top of racing and needs to be powerfull and loud.

I hope the new engine regulation will encourage development of the engine and only freeze such things as engine capacity, turbo pressure and fuel flow.
Then engineers should be able to freely develop their engines from this point as more horsepowers would mean a more efficient engine.

More power can only be achieved by more rpm or more torque. More torque means a higher compression. In both cases it also means that the engine uses more fuel. The only escape from that reality is improving the internal and external power losses by reducing the engine friction and the parasitic power of the ancillaries.

Besides regeneration the best option for improving the fuel efficiency is improved combustion under partial load conditions. If the engine produces more power by burning the fuel more efficient less fuel will be utilized in partial load conditions.

Well, there are obviously awhole variety of methods on how to increase engine power, provied we can realase theharness of cc and boost, I can tnink of many.

With vaious effcieny of curse.

I've been off for a fewweeks or so, so excuse me for not being up to date on these latest KERS-discussions withinn FOTA, but hey, 800 kJ in addition to a 700 Hp 1600 cc engine, that would be something else!Imagine the sheer braking power and the masss of the generator-battery and electrical motor?

That would give you some 75 (100+ Hp) kW for ten seconds!

"More torque means a higher compression."

WhiteBlue,

No, more torque means a higher BMEP rate, all other things being equal. BMEP rates are generally highest when you have the best combination of high VE and low FMEP.

"In both cases it also means that the engine uses more fuel."

Also not necessarily true. BMEP is IMEP-FMEP. But your subsequent statement about friction losses (FMEP) is correct. A large displacement, highly boosted, low revving engine is best for fuel efficiency. But a small displacement, high revving engine usually gives better power for a given weight.

With gasoline engines, best efficiency is always achieved at WOT conditions. Anytime the engine is run at part-throttle, the FMEP (pumping) losses will kill efficiency.

Regards,
riff_raff

I bet half your readers will not understand a word of your acronyms.

WhiteBlue wrote:I bet half your readers will not understand a word of your acronyms.

Sounds like an evasive way of asking what they mean!

I fink he means that the more bits you have going round and round and up and down the less efficient it is. The faster you can make it wiz round and the more load you put on it the better and there is no point dithering about with the throttle because it wastes fuel.
With decent Kers application of course, keeping the ice under load would be no problem and if there was enough energy available there may even be times when the fuel can be turned off.
Interesting future development direction isnt it.

WhiteBlue wrote:I bet half your readers will not understand a word of your acronyms.

So you didn't understand something engine related.

Tell me something new

Funny nobody seems to wanna comment on the new KERS proposal, perhaps coming from the wrong direction, but with 800 kJ I have had a change of heart anyway, what it will do to the brake system, batteries and everything, exciting stuff.
Besides, if Ferrari is serious about this hybrid thing it all makes perfect sense.

I just wonder where Williams would find themselves in all this, if they developed something for 400 kJ, 800 is a whole different matter?

Surely Williams and the other KERS manufacturers designed the systems to surpass the 2009 limits? Or does doubling it to 800kj require a totally different design?

Twice the size of the battery to begin with and either spinning the gyro at a much higher speed or sizing up the rotor.
Not to mention the bigger generator/motor to handle the doubled energy, I can't believe in the optimized world of F1 they made allowance for all that two years ago.

xpensive wrote:Twice the size of the battery to begin with and either spinning the gyro at a much higher speed or sizing up the rotor.
Not to mention the bigger generator/motor to handle the doubled energy, I can't believe in the optimized world of F1 they made allowance for all that two years ago.

Of course they could do what I have already suggested.
Use 50% flywheel and 50% batteries.
That would work best with my ESERU because there would be no seperate motor/generator and all the additional powertrain components needed to drive one.