F1technical.net

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 21:25

this is presumably an exothermic reaction
so the air's nitrogen is acting as a fuel ? but (like 'oil') is somehow not subject to the 100 kg limit ?

before then there's the matter of dissociation and reassociation of CO2 to CO and back
and the dissociation and reassociation of water vapour to hydrogen and back

and in the rich mixture of the TJ there's some reduction of liquid fuel to methane

Very interesting point Tommy, this article may be of interest.
In it, somehow one needs to reconcile nitrogen combustion behaviour that is somewhat optimised and the high peak pressures mooted for F1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089635/

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:17

Mudflap wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 17:11

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 02:21

That's what I'm thinking, that they actually allow some detonation to happen. That engine life is determined by how many detonation events have occurred.

Yes, I remember someone else suggesting this too and it does sound plausible. There was much talk in the media about in cylinder pressure sensors (I think Ilien said something about this too) which would tie in with that.

There will be no knocking at these pressures would be the best assumption.
If you have seen minor knock in high pressure engines you will understand, it is phenomenal in its destruction.
If they used safeguard protection via pressure sensors you could imagine mapping that could retard/cut ignition enough. Ion detection is too late.(imho)

All petrol engines knock to some extent, otherwise it would be pointless to have knock sensors on road car engines.
Pressure sensors allow F1 engines to run closer (and sometimes exceed) knock limits.
All knock detection methods are post factum - anything else would require the engine to be run conservatively and therefore be uncompetitive.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:35

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 21:25

this is presumably an exothermic reaction
so the air's nitrogen is acting as a fuel ? but (like 'oil') is somehow not subject to the 100 kg limit ?

before then there's the matter of dissociation and reassociation of CO2 to CO and back
and the dissociation and reassociation of water vapour to hydrogen and back

and in the rich mixture of the TJ there's some reduction of liquid fuel to methane

Very interesting point Tommy, this article may be of interest.
In it, somehow one needs to reconcile nitrogen combustion behaviour that is somewhat optimised and the high peak pressures mooted for F1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089635/

The posts above made me think.
I went to visit someone today and they were using an 'oxygen concentrator' which is like a small compressor which separates out oxygen and sends it down a tube to breathe.

Is it worth doing on a car? with unlimited amounts being forced in, perhaps not unless the concentration is of use.

If this can be done with Oxygen by such a small machine, what else is in air worth 'injecting' and easily obtained?

The flow of this unit was around 3 ltr/min, so storage would probably be involved
I assume that the ruling of only air would not specify it being separated before being used? (Depending where it was taken from)

Edit the tec said it is about 95% pure.

Big Tea wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:45

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:35

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 21:25

this is presumably an exothermic reaction
so the air's nitrogen is acting as a fuel ? but (like 'oil') is somehow not subject to the 100 kg limit ?

before then there's the matter of dissociation and reassociation of CO2 to CO and back
and the dissociation and reassociation of water vapour to hydrogen and back

and in the rich mixture of the TJ there's some reduction of liquid fuel to methane

Very interesting point Tommy, this article may be of interest.
In it, somehow one needs to reconcile nitrogen combustion behaviour that is somewhat optimised and the high peak pressures mooted for F1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089635/

The posts above made me think.
I went to visit someone today and they were using an 'oxygen concentrator' which is like a small compressor which separates out oxygen and sends it down a tube to breathe.

Is it worth doing on a car? with unlimited amounts being forced in, perhaps not unless the concentration is of use.

If this can be done with Oxygen by such a small machine, what else is in air worth 'injecting' and easily obtained?

The flow of this unit was around 3 ltr/min, so storage would probably be involved
I assume that the ruling of only air would not specify it being separated before being used? (Depending where it was taken from)

Edit the tec said it is about 95% pure.

I brought this up a little while back via a molecular sieve and after batting the idea around i think it amounted to nought as there seems to be an excess of available oxygen via the existing mechanisms. This is probably what has begun the hunt for the true AFR.................

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:00

Big Tea wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:45

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:35

Very interesting point Tommy, this article may be of interest.
In it, somehow one needs to reconcile nitrogen combustion behaviour that is somewhat optimised and the high peak pressures mooted for F1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089635/

The posts above made me think.
I went to visit someone today and they were using an 'oxygen concentrator' which is like a small compressor which separates out oxygen and sends it down a tube to breathe.

Is it worth doing on a car? with unlimited amounts being forced in, perhaps not unless the concentration is of use.

If this can be done with Oxygen by such a small machine, what else is in air worth 'injecting' and easily obtained?

The flow of this unit was around 3 ltr/min, so storage would probably be involved
I assume that the ruling of only air would not specify it being separated before being used? (Depending where it was taken from)

Edit the tec said it is about 95% pure.

I brought this up a little while back via a molecular sieve and after batting the idea around i think it amounted to nought as there seems to be an excess of available oxygen via the existing mechanisms. This is probably what has begun the hunt for the true AFR.................

But if Oxygen can be 'concentrated' from thin air, are there any gases that would be of use? Possibly by separating out the components and recombining into CH4 for example? Any rule about taking a little from the exhaust? or is that covered by the recirculation part?

And sorry what is AFR?

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:36

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:17

Mudflap wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 17:11

Yes, I remember someone else suggesting this too and it does sound plausible. There was much talk in the media about in cylinder pressure sensors (I think Ilien said something about this too) which would tie in with that.

There will be no knocking at these pressures would be the best assumption.
If you have seen minor knock in high pressure engines you will understand, it is phenomenal in its destruction.
If they used safeguard protection via pressure sensors you could imagine mapping that could retard/cut ignition enough. Ion detection is too late.(imho)

All petrol engines knock to some extent, otherwise it would be pointless to have knock sensors on road car engines.
Pressure sensors allow F1 engines to run closer (and sometimes exceed) knock limits.
All knock detection methods are post factum - anything else would require the engine to be run conservatively and therefore be uncompetitive.

We will have to part ways on this one Mudflap
It simply cannot be after the fact as the destruction from knock at these pressures (and so far I have calculated the peak pressure to be 290 bar using average elephants and 3.15 inch bore) is instantaneous and complete. They cannot afford this at all. zero risk required.
The running close to the limit would have been one of the major test areas for sure, to gauge the safety margin. Doing this via ignition control would have been major in the iterations and, I guess, via simulations to find where the data agreed with the sims.
So, with respect, cannot quite agree with "....anything else....."

Big Tea wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:10

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:00

Big Tea wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:45

The posts above made me think.
I went to visit someone today and they were using an 'oxygen concentrator' which is like a small compressor which separates out oxygen and sends it down a tube to breathe.

Is it worth doing on a car? with unlimited amounts being forced in, perhaps not unless the concentration is of use.

If this can be done with Oxygen by such a small machine, what else is in air worth 'injecting' and easily obtained?

The flow of this unit was around 3 ltr/min, so storage would probably be involved
I assume that the ruling of only air would not specify it being separated before being used? (Depending where it was taken from)

Edit the tec said it is about 95% pure.

I brought this up a little while back via a molecular sieve and after batting the idea around i think it amounted to nought as there seems to be an excess of available oxygen via the existing mechanisms. This is probably what has begun the hunt for the true AFR.................

But if Oxygen can be 'concentrated' from thin air, are there any gases that would be of use? Possibly by separating out the components and recombining into CH4 for example? Any rule about taking a little from the exhaust? or is that covered by the recirculation part?

And sorry what is AFR?

Air Fuel Ratio, probably better off using Lambda or Equivalency ratio for these discussions as AFR is type of fuel dependent and (I think) no one is quite sure of the fuel properties.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:20

Big Tea wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:10

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:00

I brought this up a little while back via a molecular sieve and after batting the idea around i think it amounted to nought as there seems to be an excess of available oxygen via the existing mechanisms. This is probably what has begun the hunt for the true AFR.................

But if Oxygen can be 'concentrated' from thin air, are there any gases that would be of use? Possibly by separating out the components and recombining into CH4 for example? Any rule about taking a little from the exhaust? or is that covered by the recirculation part?

And sorry what is AFR?

Air Fuel Ratio, probably better off using Lambda or Equivalency ratio for these discussions as AFR is type of fuel dependent and (I think) no one is quite sure of the fuel properties.

Thanks, should have known.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:17

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:36

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:17

There will be no knocking at these pressures would be the best assumption.
If you have seen minor knock in high pressure engines you will understand, it is phenomenal in its destruction.
If they used safeguard protection via pressure sensors you could imagine mapping that could retard/cut ignition enough. Ion detection is too late.(imho)

All petrol engines knock to some extent, otherwise it would be pointless to have knock sensors on road car engines.
Pressure sensors allow F1 engines to run closer (and sometimes exceed) knock limits.
All knock detection methods are post factum - anything else would require the engine to be run conservatively and therefore be uncompetitive.

We will have to part ways on this one Mudflap
It simply cannot be after the fact as the destruction from knock at these pressures (and so far I have calculated the peak pressure to be 290 bar using average elephants and 3.15 inch bore) is instantaneous and complete. They cannot afford this at all. zero risk required.
The running close to the limit would have been one of the major test areas for sure, to gauge the safety margin. Doing this via ignition control would have been major in the iterations and, I guess, via simulations to find where the data agreed with the sims.
So, with respect, cannot quite agree with "....anything else....."

Well how can you know what the pressure is during knock ?
For example incipient knock only causes relatively mild pressure oscillations which could be acceptable for a few qualy laps. No one has claimed that the engines operate at full blown knock.

All this discussion makes me wonder if Mazda, despite not being in F1, figured out how Mercedes was getting its power and efficiency and then then used it as the basis of their SkyActiv-X engine (supercharged, spark controlled, compression ignition petrol engine)? So maybe all this F1 hybrid tech has some road relevance after all?

Personally I'd be quite happy if the MGU-H was ditched and the fuel flow limits were dumped (set a fuel tank limit instead). This 3 PU's per year rubbish has got to go too imo. The engines would be a lot cheaper without the added complexity of the MGU-H and then maybe we could have a PU + GB per 3 races instead.

Then we'd have big power for less money and hopefully that'd make things more exciting. It would also allow teams to crank their engines up and sacrifice fuel economy (and engine life) which could make the racing and qually more interesting (especially if they blow more PU's up in the process).

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:28

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:17

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 00:36

All petrol engines knock to some extent, otherwise it would be pointless to have knock sensors on road car engines.
Pressure sensors allow F1 engines to run closer (and sometimes exceed) knock limits.
All knock detection methods are post factum - anything else would require the engine to be run conservatively and therefore be uncompetitive.

We will have to part ways on this one Mudflap
It simply cannot be after the fact as the destruction from knock at these pressures (and so far I have calculated the peak pressure to be 290 bar using average elephants and 3.15 inch bore) is instantaneous and complete. They cannot afford this at all. zero risk required.
The running close to the limit would have been one of the major test areas for sure, to gauge the safety margin. Doing this via ignition control would have been major in the iterations and, I guess, via simulations to find where the data agreed with the sims.
So, with respect, cannot quite agree with "....anything else....."

Well how can you know what the pressure is during knock ?
For example incipient knock only causes relatively mild pressure oscillations which could be acceptable for a few qualy laps. No one has claimed that the engines operate at full blown knock.

Somewhere along the line there would have been knock and with sensor data that would show. Once the cause conditions were normalised there would be the ability to predict knock under conditions X.
So the mapping would take all the predictive indicators and when algorithm Y was arrived at it would start ignition control.
The use of the predictive indicators would have to have the trial and error safety margin applied to them.
Thats my idea of it.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:56

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:28

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:17

We will have to part ways on this one Mudflap
It simply cannot be after the fact as the destruction from knock at these pressures (and so far I have calculated the peak pressure to be 290 bar using average elephants and 3.15 inch bore) is instantaneous and complete. They cannot afford this at all. zero risk required.
The running close to the limit would have been one of the major test areas for sure, to gauge the safety margin. Doing this via ignition control would have been major in the iterations and, I guess, via simulations to find where the data agreed with the sims.
So, with respect, cannot quite agree with "....anything else....."

Well how can you know what the pressure is during knock ?
For example incipient knock only causes relatively mild pressure oscillations which could be acceptable for a few qualy laps. No one has claimed that the engines operate at full blown knock.

Somewhere along the line there would have been knock and with sensor data that would show. Once the cause conditions were normalised there would be the ability to predict knock under conditions X.
So the mapping would take all the predictive indicators and when algorithm Y was arrived at it would start ignition control.
The use of the predictive indicators would have to have the trial and error safety margin applied to them.
Thats my idea of it.

There is the issue- such an algorithm would require a good safety margin to work in all conditions. High safety margin in this case is low performance.

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 02:02

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:56

Mudflap wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2018, 01:28

Well how can you know what the pressure is during knock ?
For example incipient knock only causes relatively mild pressure oscillations which could be acceptable for a few qualy laps. No one has claimed that the engines operate at full blown knock.

Somewhere along the line there would have been knock and with sensor data that would show. Once the cause conditions were normalised there would be the ability to predict knock under conditions X.
So the mapping would take all the predictive indicators and when algorithm Y was arrived at it would start ignition control.
The use of the predictive indicators would have to have the trial and error safety margin applied to them.
Thats my idea of it.

There is the issue- such an algorithm would require a good safety margin to work in all conditions. High safety margin in this case is low performance.

Therein would be one of the factors for the successful engines, the determination and management of that safety margin. Lots of trial and lots of errors ($) hopefully mitigated by simulations with that data.

re Power:
How much is harvested on the warm up lap to assist the ICE at launch?

Another approach for power estimation is the start times.
From what I can see there are not many tracks with a 1/4 mile before the first braking, but Albert Park just squeezes it in I think.
Using you tube and several maps for corroboration it looks like about 8 seconds for the 1/4. I know this is inaccurate but....
With weight of 895 kg it gives a horsepower of 762.
Corroboration please.
EDIT: By the way if it was 7.5 seconds it would be 924 hp so this method is fraught with danger