Despite many protests around these parts, I am quite sure fuel heating is desirable in a "fuel-efficiency" formula. (Same goes for charge air temperature). It is inconceivable that ambient temperature would by some coincidence turn out to be the optimal value for efficient combustion. If you accept that premise, it is also unlikely that the optimum fuel temperature at a particular engine operating point will also be optimal for all other operating points.
The obvious consequence is that fuel temperature will need to be constantly (and rapidly) adjusted to match the continuously changing engine operating point.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 01 Apr 2016, 11:05
by rosters
Can the ES be pre-charged exiting the pits? Than there is no need to think about how to charge for the quali lap, just put a ice only mode for the outlap. Then for the quali lap the turbo can be spined too optimal rmps by the ers-h leting the exhaust gases exit free whitout making back pressure and turbolag, so the limited fuel can generate more power to the crank ,and not wasted spinning the turbo
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 01 Apr 2016, 16:28
by godlameroso
No, the ES can only be charged on track.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 01 Apr 2016, 16:40
by Tommy Cookers
bumped from p553 to correct it .....
Tommy Cookers wrote:tuned lehgth inlet systems appeared on motorcycles decades before their 'invention' by Mercedes-Benz as attributed in the Autozine reference
and Miller made twin-choke carbs (presumably for the 1920 183 straight eight), this used 4 of them, as did the 1923 122 straight 8s
upstream of each carb were 2 long rampipes with slashcut bellmouths, (though Miller valve timing was very conservative)
these rampipes are conspicuously long, to use the first (ie strongest) reflected pulse, and based on tests on local board tracks
the 122 then became supercharged, and tuned length in cars was stifled by the dominance of supercharging from the early 20s to 1951
Freddie Dixon used 6 carbs on his Riley, his tuned lengths seemed shorter ie used the second (ie slightly weaker) reflected pulse ?
a 1938 Norton race motorcycle was bought by UK National Physical Laboratory to investigate such 'free supercharging' (first pulse ?)
tuned length won everything in car WDC when that went to F2 rules in 1952 & 53 (Ascari in the Lampredi-designed 4 cyl Ferrari)
very few N/A engines had 1 inlet tract per cylinder (2 cylinders/carb typically gives a useful reflection pulse from the junction ?)
Offenhauser went 1 inlet tract/cylinder with fuel injection but often retained the original tract length (second pulse ?)
they also used long ram tubes, eg 16" to benefit high rpm at the expense of 4500 rpm, often longer in 'laydown' installations
tuned length was also being about enabling and implementing further extended valve timing
Mercedes-Benz did invent the continuously variable length system for the 1955 sportscar (WEC equivalent) - it was never raced ?
afaik, regarding 'free supercharging' ......
a tuned length induction system has the same proportionate benefit in current F1 as in N/A F1
because the pressure difference charging the cylinders rises as the induction pressure is boosted above atmospheric
but a tuned length exhaust system only adds a favourable pressure exhaust pulse proportionate to atmospheric presure
so the pressure difference scavenging the cylinders doesn't rise in proportion to the boosted induction pressure
btw
on my tv Clive Chapman (Lotus 88 owner) has just said he saw ground effect invented .....
in the wind tunnel the df generating bits sagged, so they were propped up along the edges with a cardboard strip
so forming a venturi, increasing the DF and reducing the drag
then 'they' (Peter Wright) made the strips flexible and called them skirts .......
One benefit is better atomization. If there are ions formed prior to ignition, one could also use magnetic field to control mixture shape and spacial density to counter knock effect.
edit: fuel doensn't need to be ionized. Molecules just need to have magnetic moment (unpaired electrons in high orbitals, excited electrons,...). One can achieve this by using uv light or something similar. Maybe uv light could be used for other purposes as well - like fuel heating right before combustion.
The paper concerns burning lean methane-air mixture. It seems that with the application of electric field inside the combustion chamber one can gain a lot of control over flame duration, and further control over combustion pressure and efficiency.
I also found this patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US7963115. Here they describe a coil around the combustion chamber to keep the particles away from combustion chamber walls.
It seems that application of electromagnetic fields result in much improved control over combustion speed and efficiency, especially for lean mixtures. Of course one has to use appropriate fuel to achieve desirable effects - in f1 that's not a problem and I really look forward to unfrezed development .
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 04 Apr 2016, 18:04
by godlameroso
I mentioned this before, may have been somewhere else, it was a while ago.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 04 Apr 2016, 22:52
by jure
It seems one can further improve pasma generating spark plug with the use of microwave antena;
source: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/112440/1/112440.pdf Here's the interesting part:
It adopts a similar ignition structure as spark plug. The difference lies on a miniature microwave antenna which emits microwave to the initial plasma generated by spark plug. It can enlarge plasma as much as 300 times of the spark discharge alone, with high working pressure to 2.0 MPa.
And:
Through experiments in single-cylinder research engines, the combustion stability is improved and the lean limit of equivalence ratio is increased from 0.59 to 0.49.
And: The Micro Wave Ignition AG (MWI) in Germany have filed several patents and papers for a microwave ignition system since 2005 [35, 38, 39].
Mercedes may well be using some very very sophisticated ignition system.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 06 Apr 2016, 22:20
by trinidefender
People have been wondering how much energy a car really can recover through the ERS systems per lap. Well according to Magneti Marelli in Bahrain they posted this tweet:
https://twitter.com/MagnetiMarelliT/sta ... 5640665088
Obviously I'm not sure which team this comes from or if it were just a hypothetical number.
They can harvest energy via the MGU-h to make up the shortfall.
Ideally if they could harvest enough energy from the mgu-h then they could keep the mgu-k running at max output for the whole lap. Except for the braking zones.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 07 Apr 2016, 00:46
by trinidefender
mrluke wrote:They can harvest energy via the MGU-h to make up the shortfall.
Ideally if they could harvest enough energy from the mgu-h then they could keep the mgu-k running at max output for the whole lap. Except for the braking zones.
Sorry yes, when I read it for some reason my brain told me they were harvesting that from the MGU-K, I've edited my post to provide the correct information.
Also I knew something looked off as through calculations it appears that cars would have trouble recovering more than approximately 1 MJ per lap. At should have set alarm bells off in my head when reading and typing it. Apologies.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 07 Apr 2016, 02:26
by stevesingo
Omnicorse lay out the ERS recovery for each GP in their preview and did so also in 2015.
Energy recovered by the MGUH is typically sent direct to the MGUK because:
1. MGUH output correlates to ICE power and max power is needed at the wheels when demand is high.
2. Energy sent direct to the MGUK suffers lower losses (less than 5%). If sent to the ES and later to the MGUH, those same losses still apply plus additional battery charge/discharge losses.
3. Max ES charging is 2 MJ per lap. It is preferable to charge the ES from the MGUK (during braking). This is "free" energy in the sense that no additional fuel is required.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 07 Apr 2016, 09:05
by henry
gruntguru wrote:Energy recovered by the MGUH is typically sent direct to the MGUK because:
1. MGUH output correlates to ICE power and max power is needed at the wheels when demand is high.
2. Energy sent direct to the MGUK suffers lower losses (less than 5%). If sent to the ES and later to the MGUH, those same losses still apply plus additional battery charge/discharge losses.
3. Max ES charging is 2 MJ per lap. It is preferable to charge the ES from the MGUK (during braking). This is "free" energy in the sense that no additional fuel is required.
"Demand" is based on lap time performance. Energy captured at the end of a straight, where all it is doing is pushing air out of the way, is potentially less useful than 95% of that energy used to accelerate the car at the beginning of the next straight.
The ES has a capacity limit ( 4 MJ ) but there is no restriction on the charging other than the 2MJ per lap from the MGU-K. The capacity limit is defined as the difference in state of charge while it is on the track.
for better combustion ?