F1technical.net

PlatinumZealot wrote:Friction and heat loss are still the big enemies of power. So the limits would be material restrictions at that point. There is not much can do with the regs stay the same. One can only hope that over time when the prices come down FIA loosens up the material and architectural constraints on the engines if not the fuel limits.

The ban on exotic materials also likely restricts what Mercedes can do with the power unit. Metal ceramics and so on.
I think the fuel flow rate needs to be tweaked a bit, but I can't see that happening until the next
set of Engine regulations.

There's no limit to the kind of coating materials you can use however. So it's almost a given that all manufacturers use a type of NIKASIL coating on the cylinder bores.

godlameroso wrote:There's no limit to the kind of coating materials you can use however. So it's almost a given that all manufacturers use a type of NIKASIL coating on the cylinder bores.

Why?

Lower friction, resistance to deformation and cracking, lighter weight, more heat rejection.

Every manufacturer has their own take on it

Here's Mercedes
http://articles.sae.org/10507/

Porsches and a lot of bikes use a nikasil coating, Honda has quite a few nikasil lined bores in their engines.

Basically it's a silicon carbide or iron oxide layer that's honed to a almost mirror like finish.

godlameroso wrote:

ringo wrote:Where will the gap increase end?
It's getting ridiculous how the media keeps adding big chunks of horsepower to these engines. We are probably at 1100 by the looks of things. I think the redbull has all reason to exaggerate the power gap.
Its probably more logical to work backwards. Use what is physically possible as mercedes benchmark then deduct these power chunks and see where the other engines lie.

We've done this exercise already, a 1.6 running on 3.5 bar of boost or around 50psi, at 1.7 lambda is right around 1,000hp.

Mercedes expects to be well over 1,000hp next season, These power units in 2014 had ~820hp combined, and every year they've increased that by ~50hp each season. In 2015 there was speculation that Mercedes was at 900hp and that seemed crazy, now we know for sure they're over 900hp and closer to 1,000 than 900. Next year I have a feeling they'll all be at more or less 1,000hp and any increase from there comes from widening the power band.

I`m struggle to find the video on YouTube where Andy Cowell, before the season starting, said they achieved well over 1000hp by now ... maybe someone could help me with this one ...

Nevertheless, it seems to be many mechanical engineer around here but no or fewer chemists/chemical engineer instead who could share us more info about so called "nano-revolution" regarding nano-materials used for different coatings ...
And also last but not least they could tell us more regarding nanotechnology behind fuels and lubricants, which IMO is responsible for the biggest gains now that we are facing with the law of diminishing returns both for design, mechanical and electrical side of the PU ...

while the last time we saw these levels of power in Formula One was back in 2005, with a V10 that guzzled fuel at a whopping 194kg/hr

is all i could find.. combined power of course.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... races.html

godlameroso wrote: Basically it's silicon carbide ...

I know what it is.

I'm just questioning why a F1 engine team would be using (1960s) Nikasil coating, when we know some F1 teams dropped it years ago and better ones with lower friction are available?

I said it implying a generic process. Not that they specifically used it. As I further elaborated, each manufacturer has their own take on the process. And seeing as the coating can be up to .8mm and without restriction, who knows exactly what's going on in there.

That said you'd probably get a bigger benefit with nanotech than any specific coating by itself.

Andy Cowel was answering questions about their power unit and some other stuff about F1 in a seminar of some sort:

-Mercedes power units are not going to break 1000bhp for at least 18 months

-Their engine runs so lean they are concerned about NOx emissions.

-Despite the fuel limit increasing, they're going to try to stay under 100 kg per race as they believe it to be a step backwards and if they succeed, they're going to make sure everyone in F1 knows at Abu Dhabi.

-Honda are refusing to use the second combustion chamber technology for some reason. Ferrari adopted it in mid-2015 and Renault in mid-2016.

Originally posted on reddit.

Very good info. Sensible numbers.

Juzh wrote:Andy Cowel was answering questions about their power unit and some other stuff about F1 in a seminar of some sort:

-Their engine runs so lean they are concerned about NOx emissions.

Originally posted on reddit.

Doesn't make sense to me. NOx emissions increase as you lean from 1.0 (stoich) and peak at about 1.2 (20% excess air) then drop as you lean out from there. At 3.5 bar intake they are definitely leaner than 1.2 and there is talk of some teams approaching 5.0 bar. Papers published on the TJI concept suggest engine-out NOx levels of 10 ppm are possible (at AFR 2.0) - a very low level.

gruntguru wrote:

Juzh wrote:Andy Cowel was answering questions about their power unit and some other stuff about F1 in a seminar of some sort:

-Their engine runs so lean they are concerned about NOx emissions.

Originally posted on reddit.

Doesn't make sense to me. NOx emissions increase as you lean from 1.0 (stoich) and peak at about 1.2 (20% excess air) then drop as you lean out from there. At 3.5 bar intake they are definitely leaner than 1.2 and there is talk of some teams approaching 5.0 bar. Papers published on the TJI concept suggest engine-out NOx levels of 10 ppm are possible (at AFR 2.0) - a very low level.

Prechamber combustion concept means there is different AFR within the combustion chambers, so NOx could still be a problem.
BTY, in the thread where Andy's comments were posted, the author clarified that NOx is a concern for them to transfer the technology to road cars.

gruntguru wrote: .... NOx emissions increase as you lean from 1.0 (stoich) and peak at about 1.2 (20% excess air) then drop as you lean out from there. ......

not necessarily ?
NOx generation (once there is adequate spare oxygen) is fundamentally driven by temperature ie duration at/above a flame temperature of 2800 deg F
the typical engine has (by heat dilution) lower cycle temperatures when lean so spends little or no time at this critical temperature
but the Merc F1 is not typical, for efficiency its temperatures are kept unusually high by the high boost and intentionally minimal charge cooling
and certainly we can find references that say that NOx falls above 45% lean

And following on from Tommy, they have to tune the engine to support electricity generation by running hotter exh. temperatures, This may not be happening all the time the engine is running, but it does happen sufficiently to be a concern if the technology were translated to road cars.

rgava wrote: BTY, in the thread where Andy's comments were posted, the author clarified that NOx is a concern for them to transfer the technology to road cars.

That makes more sense since there is little reason to care about NOx emissions in a purely F1 context.