F1technical.net

This older article ( http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 32974.html ) says

"Statt der maximal erlaubten Abweichung von 0,5 Prozent für die angegebene Durchflussmenge wurden Fehler von bis zu 1,5 Prozent festgestellt.",

which translates to
"Instead of the allowed deviation of 0,5 % for the fuel flow, errors of up to 1,5 % were measured."

So i assume that the new sensors did confirm to this +-0,5 % range.

Holm86 wrote:
I just don't get why at stoichiometric conditions a air restricted engine wont use all the air. But a fuel restricted engine will use all the air at stoichiometric conditions. This seems contradictory and doesn't make sense to me.

it's not important '"why" why is extremely complex but the important thing here is that the problem : "at stoichiometric conditions a air restricted engine wont use all the air" has a very simple solution: put more fuel!

differently from what you say the problem remains the same in a fuel restricted engine again you will not use all the air at stechiometric conditions but now your "simple" solution is no more simple: because your fuel is limited now!
so the solution now is to "force" research in order to exploit at maximum stechiometric conditions that is to say optimize fuel air mixture homogeneity and combustion...something like has been done in common rail diesel...

it could be useful now recall that "stechiometric" means exactly this: that IN THEORY you have just the right amount of oxygen atoms to burn all the fuel but in IN PRACTICE is very difficult to use EACH and EVERY oxygen atom...very difficult, but not impossible. and that's the direction engineers shall follow

BMW and Cosworth had very high pressure injection systems to 'condition' the fuel (to very small and consistent droplet size ?)
these very high injection pressures were banned by the engine freeze, now they are back
so complete and consistent combustion without rich mixture is no problem, especially at 10500 rpm not 21000
also from this spark advance will be much less than curremtly

for 2014 maximising the CR is the big factor, to improve power by improving thermal efficiency
this very high pressure DI being very fast, it will inject very late, and so discourage detonation etc and allow higher CR
to further benefit CR the established fuel quality limits (eg 101 Octane) seem to have been removed

Yes, I would expect very high CR's (perhaps the same as the NA engines?) and stratified charge injection to save fuel.

the auto motor and sport feature does not even acknowledge that Gill and Hyspeed are different companies and as it looks were fighting over rights to comercialise the fuel meter which is mandated by the FIA...
Hyspeed has recently announced they have stopped working with Gill at the beginning of this year....and Gill stated there has not been a track test with the ltest development and bench testing is not enough......
how true...
The very same fuel meter is also a key feature of next years LMP racing but as things stand it has failed to work and cannot be ordered till now....oops

http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f ... tid=160985

Tellingly Gill has not found time to update their website to confirm the availability and meting of specifications since almost a year...

still I think it´s a useless tool as well -hand out the fuel to the teams in a controlled environment and you know exactly how much they use.

I can already hear Montezuma arguing with MrT;

"I know Red Bull is cheating the flow-meter, because we are cheating and they are still faster than us!"

marcush. wrote:the auto motor and sport feature does not even acknowledge that Gill and Hyspeed are different companies and as it looks were fighting over rights to comercialise the fuel meter which is mandated by the FIA...

It says so in the bottom of the article?

marcush. wrote:still I think it´s a useless tool as well -hand out the fuel to the teams in a controlled environment and you know exactly how much they use.

How would you do that?? That would only ensure that the teams have the 100 kgs of fuel. It would not ensure the 100kg/h flow limit.

Holm86 wrote:

marcush. wrote:still I think it´s a useless tool as well -hand out the fuel to the teams in a controlled environment and you know exactly how much they use.

How would you do that?? That would only ensure that the teams have the 100 kgs of fuel. It would not ensure the 100kg/h flow limit.

I think that is what he is suggesting.

But we would end up with races where the engines are turned up to 1000hp for one or two laps in the race, and for teh rest of teh time they tootle around with 400hp to save fuel.

In short, the fuel flow limit is a power limiting device. The race fuel limit is an efficiency promoting device (in conjunction with the fuel flow limit).

wuzak wrote: ...
But we would end up with races where the engines are turned up to 1000hp for one or two laps in the race, and for teh rest of teh time they tootle around with 400hp to save fuel.
...

That would be mighty xciting to watch, plenty of overtaking and ran-outa-fuel when not xpected, my kinda racing!

There are reports that Merc vetoed weight increase for 2014, which was proposed by Renault.

I've read that Ferrari vetoed a proposal from Mercedes to limit ICE power to 700 Hp, but I don't know if I believe that.

there are insights that renault vetoed a proposal from ferrari to use dacia duster engine for renault, smart fortwo for mercedes and Laferrari for ferrari....

i've read ferrari vetoed weight increase for 2014. May be with mercedes.
Renault want weight increase
Marmorini said ferrari has very light engine for 2014

Surely the teams will all be close to the minimum weight requirements for the power unit?

In this same thread i've read that leaner runs hotter, and i've read that richer runs hotter. Is there a final word on this and a reason?
My suspicion is that if you have a slight surplus in less-completely burned fuel, this might mean the combustion will continue in the exhaust system, making the exhaust run slightly hotter while the combustion chamber would be slightly cooler due to there being less of the thermal mass completing its exothermic reaction. If you have complete combustion before exhaust i imagine you'd have to have a much slower engine cycle than would be found in a 10500rpm v6. Since cylinder bore is pretty much set IIRC, i imagine stratified charge/highly asymetric combustion chambers will be an area of development. But partially offset by the desire to maximise exhaust flow to power the turbo?

But all that's a tangent from this rich/lean hotter/cooler question. Rich means slightly greater fuel burden in the combustion chamber, means greater thermal mass and more difficulty of achieving homogeneous combustion, right? Leaner means less dense charge, more complete combustion, and less thermal mass to carry heat away with it out the exhaust, yes?