F1technical.net

mzso wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 19:57

I didn't say the engine would run at near constant RPM. Nor did I speak about slowing at the same time. Where'd you come up with it? You responded to this:

I see little other chance for them to fill the increased storage, than running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts. (Though I guess it will/would be really confusing for the drivers.)

Hello mzso, my apologies if I have annoyed you, that's not my intention.

My basic understanding of any ICE is that power varies with rpm. So I (mis)understood your comment of "running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts" to mean that you envisaged running the engine at 'full power rpm' (let's say 10,500rpm) even if the driver was partially or completely off the throttle.

Can you have another go at explaining to me what you originally meant please. If I still don't get it I promise to just sit quietly in the corner
Thanks.

Pat Pending wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:15

My basic understanding of any ICE is that power varies with rpm. So I (mis)understood your comment of "running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts" to mean that you envisaged running the engine at 'full power rpm' (let's say 10,500rpm) even if the driver was partially or completely off the throttle.

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:45

Pat Pending wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:15

My basic understanding of any ICE is that power varies with rpm. So I (mis)understood your comment of "running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts" to mean that you envisaged running the engine at 'full power rpm' (let's say 10,500rpm) even if the driver was partially or completely off the throttle.

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:35

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:45

Pat Pending wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:15

My basic understanding of any ICE is that power varies with rpm. So I (mis)understood your comment of "running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts" to mean that you envisaged running the engine at 'full power rpm' (let's say 10,500rpm) even if the driver was partially or completely off the throttle.

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

If Ferrari worked within legality, they wouldn’t have needed a special deal with the FIA.

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:35

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:45

Pat Pending wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:15

My basic understanding of any ICE is that power varies with rpm. So I (mis)understood your comment of "running the engine at full power whenever they can on normally not full throttle parts" to mean that you envisaged running the engine at 'full power rpm' (let's say 10,500rpm) even if the driver was partially or completely off the throttle.

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

Can you quote it, or point to an article about it? I can't remember much of this, the fuel flow tinkering was much more talked about.
I think it's very likely they did both. Otherwise they wouldn't have quickly added extra monitoring and regulation of fuel flow.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2020, 16:39

hollus wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2020, 16:35

I have added "speculation" to the thread title. No real info available (yet).

Other than it'll probably be a 2 stroke. And possibly opposed piston.

And diesel...

https://www.drivingline.com/articles/ac ... -tomorrow/

Jolle wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:49

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:35

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:45

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

If Ferrari worked within legality, they wouldn’t have needed a special deal with the FIA.

Nobody actually knows what Ferrari were doing, the special deal was because nothing illegal could be found. If they were just doing the much talked about fuel-flow trick the second flow sensor would have dealt with it. There would be NO NEED of the throttle relation to fuel demand.

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 18:21

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:35

mzso wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 12:45

The power it can produce does vary. But it's not set by rpm. You add more fuel you get more power. And the RPM in this case would stay the same because the MGU would provide extra load and generate electricity.

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

Can you quote it, or point to an article about it? I can't remember much of this, the fuel flow tinkering was much more talked about.
I think it's very likely they did both. Otherwise they wouldn't have quickly added extra monitoring and regulation of fuel flow.

There have been no articles that I know of, the fuel flow suspicion was raised by either Red Bull or Mercedes because the Ferrari was so punchy. The deal with the FIA was very secretive, but my assertion (well, speculation!) is derived from the rule introduced nobody had seemed to ask for. It would also tie up nicely with the rumours that Ferrari appeared to be using more of their fuel allowance, they were using it for something and the obvious place would be for driving one of the ERS systems (and the KERS system is the more powerful of the two).

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 20:23

It would also tie up nicely with the rumours that Ferrari appeared to be using more of their fuel allowance, they were using it for something and the obvious place would be for driving one of the ERS systems (and the KERS system is the more powerful of the two).

They could only have used more fuel if they defeated the sensor as well.

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 20:16

Jolle wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:49

Stu wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2022, 16:35

This is what the regulations about throttle position and fuel requirements are about (that came in after the FIA couldn’t find any illegality with the 2019 Ferrari engine). I have been saying for some time that this is what I believed Ferrari to be doing - there was no fuel pump ‘trick’ (that was something put into the media by Red Bull - I think). This process would create EXACTLY the kind of performance boost that was being highlighted by LH, however, until the rules governing the operation of the throttle/fuel supply in relation to engine speed were changed, it WAS legal. It now isn’t.

If Ferrari worked within legality, they wouldn’t have needed a special deal with the FIA.

Nobody actually knows what Ferrari were doing, the special deal was because nothing illegal could be found. If they were just doing the much talked about fuel-flow trick the second flow sensor would have dealt with it. There would be NO NEED of the throttle relation to fuel demand.

The moment RedBull asked for a clarification of the rules regarding fuel flow, Ferrari lost all of their performance. Not much later it was announced that there would be a second fuel flow meter and a smaller secondary tank. When there was even more finger pointing towards Ferrari there was suddenly a sealed agreement between Ferrari and the FIA.

Not since Benettons TC was foul play so obvious.

Gentlemen, I submit this for your evaluation.


https://thekneeslider.com/omega-1-inter ... and-clean/

Zynerji wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 02:21

Gentlemen, I submit this for your evaluation.

https://thekneeslider.com/omega-1-inter ... and-clean/

Nice concept. Probably the first split cycle engine I have actually liked. Pity the head guy/inventor chooses to push a technically incorrect line - talking about combustion pressure acting on the full radius of the crank and for 275 degrees of rotation as being some huge advantage over a piston engine. Thermodynamics tells us that volume and pressure of the working fluid throughout the cycle determine Indicated Power and Indicated Thermal Efficiency which set the upper limits for Brake power and Efficiency

The real advantages I see are
- positive displacement ICE with pure rotary motion
- wall temperature quite close to cycle temperature throughout. (charge moves to different parts of the engine as cycle progresses)
- no valve gear
- potential for very high CR and very high (but different) ER

The most obvious problem is sealing but that does not seem insurmountable.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 09:19

Zynerji wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 02:21

Gentlemen, I submit this for your evaluation.

https://thekneeslider.com/omega-1-inter ... and-clean/

Nice concept. Probably the first split cycle engine I have actually liked. Pity the head guy/inventor chooses to push a technically incorrect line - talking about combustion pressure acting on the full radius of the crank and for 275 degrees of rotation as being some huge advantage over a piston engine. Thermodynamics tells us that volume and pressure of the working fluid throughout the cycle determine Indicated Power and Indicated Thermal Efficiency which set the upper limits for Brake power and Efficiency

The real advantages I see are
- positive displacement ICE with pure rotary motion
- wall temperature quite close to cycle temperature throughout. (charge moves to different parts of the engine as cycle progresses)
- no valve gear
- potential for very high CR and very high (but different) ER

The most obvious problem is sealing but that does not seem insurmountable.

That was my thinking, in particular 'behind' the 'explosion'. What stops the backpressure there? is it only the pressure of the oncoming gas?

I just know it is obvious and I am just not seeing it and will feel a fool when it is pointed out, but I cannot see it?

The intake/compression rotor is a positive displacement compressor. The "explosion" cannot travel backwards through that. . . . and it canot travel forwards through the positive displacement expander (the power/exhaust rotor).

I still cannot seen better that reciprocating ICE. Crank, tie rod and plain hydro bearing mechanism is not such inefficient machine (0.95 with ease).

Plus whole volume vs area ratio is inherently definitely much worse than conventional ice. Hence worse thermal efficiency.

Plus ease of manufacturing and very simple cylindrical ring tolerancing is a piece of cake.