F1technical.net

Indeed.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2018, 03:26

Honda distributors will push 1,000hp on a single cam if you will it.

Not a single slam but I switched from a brand new OEM b series distributor (with new coil/ignitor/wires/plugs) to k series coils with EPM and was able to open up the gap at 26 psi on 93 from 0.015 to 0.025. Might be able to go higher but haven't tried. Idle is much smoother now. Got rid of my occasional high rpm miss too.


If the MGU-H goes away as expected, what effect is this going to have on the lean burn tech. Wouldn't lean burn in the realm we think F1 PUs are currently at produce less exhaust energy early in the rev range, leading to lag issues?

Variable cam phasing and variable geometry turbine and modern wastegate control can go some way, but without the MGU-H these cars are going to be a lot more manly to drive.

What kind of plugs? Copper or the platinum/iridium type?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2018, 13:13

What kind of plugs? Copper or the platinum/iridium type?

NGK BKR** is my go to for plugs.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13556 ... st-blowing

Any ideas on how they blow the exhaust this time?

I know in the V8 period, the used to open the throttle plates under off-throttle situations without fuel injection for blowing cold air around the diffusor. Or they would retard the ignition timing, to increase hot exhaust gasses in partial-throttle situations. Both combined with deactivated cilinders thst would just pump (cool) air.

Both are made impossible by explicitly forbid the opening the throttle plates under braking. Sow how is his done these engines. What happens when Vettel pulls his new paddle?

1158 wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2018, 07:54

godlameroso wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2018, 03:26

Honda distributors will push 1,000hp on a single cam if you will it.

If the MGU-H goes away as expected, what effect is this going to have on the lean burn tech. Wouldn't lean burn in the realm we think F1 PUs are currently at produce less exhaust energy early in the rev range, leading to lag issues?

Can't run lean-burn without boost. They use electric boost at low rpm of course but failing that they would use rich mixture and retarded timing to get through the lag.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 00:19

1158 wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2018, 07:54

godlameroso wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2018, 03:26

Honda distributors will push 1,000hp on a single cam if you will it.

If the MGU-H goes away as expected, what effect is this going to have on the lean burn tech. Wouldn't lean burn in the realm we think F1 PUs are currently at produce less exhaust energy early in the rev range, leading to lag issues?

Can't run lean-burn without boost. They use electric boost at low rpm of course but failing that they would use rich mixture and retarded timing to get through the lag.

Right, but they won't have the low rpm e boost they have now without an MGU-H. It's going to open up places for gains with tuning and trying to time when in the rev range it shifts from running rich to running lean.

I guess they are going to have to increase the amount of fuel they are allowed too. I hope they figure out a way to cut a lot of weight from the cars.

1158 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 02:44

gruntguru wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 00:19

1158 wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2018, 07:54

If the MGU-H goes away as expected, what effect is this going to have on the lean burn tech. Wouldn't lean burn in the realm we think F1 PUs are currently at produce less exhaust energy early in the rev range, leading to lag issues?

Can't run lean-burn without boost. They use electric boost at low rpm of course but failing that they would use rich mixture and retarded timing to get through the lag.

Right, but they won't have the low rpm e boost they have now without an MGU-H. It's going to open up places for gains with tuning and trying to time when in the rev range it shifts from running rich to running lean.

I guess they are going to have to increase the amount of fuel they are allowed too. I hope they figure out a way to cut a lot of weight from the cars.

MGUH gone = maybe 10kg for the MGU plus a bit more for its associated cooler.

Change to standard turbo (as proposed) will probably lead to a reduced size (which will probably not support the lean burning as now) and some reduction in weight.

Allowing more engines per season may reduce the strength required in the engines, so some weight could be lost there.

But if they do go for 4 wheel KERS, or just a bigger KERS, weight will increase there.

I have been of the opinion that should the MGUH be dumped, the whole ERS should be dropped as well.

Freeze the ICE, uncap MGU tech. That is real road relevance. Piston assisted turbine generators with AWD KERS.

I don't think, even if the regulations allowed it, driven front wheels will come to F1 any time soon. There is simply not enough room in the monocoque right now for an MGU-K, diff and drive shafts.

a front axle diff is not allowed

that's a good excuse to have 2 front axle MGs
they might as well be induction machines as without gearshifting a very rapid response is not needed

motoring these can passively tend to produce a favourable yaw moment in corners (torque will fall on slower wheel)
and naturally tend when motoring to emulate TC (torque falls rapidly with rapid rpm rise)
and naturally tend when generating to emulate ABS (torque falls with rpm fall)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2018, 16:33

a front axle diff is not allowed

that's a good excuse to have 2 front axle MGs
they might as well be induction machines as without gearshifting a very rapid response is not needed

motoring these can passively tend to produce a favourable yaw moment in corners (torque will fall on slower wheel)
and naturally tend when motoring to emulate TC (torque falls rapidly with rapid rpm rise)
and naturally tend when generating to emulate ABS (torque falls with rpm fall)

Sounds waaaayyyy too cutting edge for F1...and makes too much sense.

wuzak wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 03:33

1158 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 02:44

gruntguru wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 00:19

Can't run lean-burn without boost. They use electric boost at low rpm of course but failing that they would use rich mixture and retarded timing to get through the lag.

Right, but they won't have the low rpm e boost they have now without an MGU-H. It's going to open up places for gains with tuning and trying to time when in the rev range it shifts from running rich to running lean.

I guess they are going to have to increase the amount of fuel they are allowed too. I hope they figure out a way to cut a lot of weight from the cars.

MGUH gone = maybe 10kg for the MGU plus a bit more for its associated cooler.

Change to standard turbo (as proposed) will probably lead to a reduced size (which will probably not support the lean burning as now) and some reduction in weight.

Allowing more engines per season may reduce the strength required in the engines, so some weight could be lost there.

But if they do go for 4 wheel KERS, or just a bigger KERS, weight will increase there.

I have been of the opinion that should the MGUH be dumped, the whole ERS should be dropped as well.

They may also deregulate variable exhaust/turbine geometry to address lag.

Cam phasing also makes a huge difference with regards to lag. Not so much on the intake side, but rather the exhaust side.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2018, 16:33

that's a good excuse to have 2 front axle MGs
they might as well be induction machines as without gearshifting a very rapid response is not needed

motoring these can passively tend to produce a favourable yaw moment in corners (torque will fall on slower wheel)

Can you explain that? I thought it would be the other way around.