F1technical.net

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2020, 23:06

henry wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2020, 10:28

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2020, 06:19

Not sure if this has been posted here earlier, but if it hasn't, & for anyone who is interested,
here's an analysis of the "energy flows" of a currentish F1 lap around Monaco (2018),along with
discussion of proposed changes, by Boretti:

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j ... 8-0171.pdf

It was raised in the TERS thread.

Here’s my, personal, response

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/view ... 36#p862036

Summing up, the author, Borretti, hasn’t a scoobie.

He also dabbles in climate change with, what appears to be, similar acumen. (Often under another name and university)

Care to provide a more technically meaningful response here, Henry?

Monaco is certainly a track which appears to offer rather limited regen' braking opportunities.

It’s in the post I referenced.

So, Henry - apart from a "personal response" - can you provide a technical rationale, here?

He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).

Mudflap wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2020, 01:35

He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).

Boretti "...calls jet ignition illegal"? I don't think so.

The transcript linked from 'Nonlinear Engineering 2020' does read as though it has been
translated from, & now back to English, so needs a proper proof-reading by a motorsports
engineering credentialled reviewer (which would cut out the jarring "babble" aspects),
but I think your understanding of how Boretti perceives jet-ignition is missed in translation, too.

The fact that FIA technical scrutineers do accept the multi-function process of jet ignition,
(despite rules apparently being aimed at proscribing such synergistic complexity of including
the fuel injector/spark plug functions), & thus may be technically "illegal", yet FIA-tech is duly
'turning a blind eye' to it - as a fait accompli - & this the basic point he is making there, surely?

But as we know, beating restrictive 'letter of the rules' norms by 'fudging' the reading thereof
to win a competitive advantage (& it aint outright 'cheating' - well, not 'til deemed so by the FIA*),
is 'always on'...

*Even the FIA's reaction to exposing 'cheating' seems to be 'soft-pedalled' these days,
given the response to oil-burning/electrickery/fuel mass-factor reveals, we've seen lately.

I just want too know:

What are the numbers on the "dumbed down" , 200hp, cast aluminum versions that are cheap enough to put in mass produced road cars? Could we still stay above 42% and get 300k miles? And if so, when?

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2020, 03:31

Mudflap wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2020, 01:35

He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).

Boretti "...calls jet ignition illegal"? I don't think so.

The transcript linked from 'Nonlinear Engineering 2020' does read as though it has been
translated from, & now back to English, so needs a proper proof-reading by a motorsports
engineering credentialled reviewer (which would cut out the jarring "babble" aspects),
but I think your understanding of how Boretti perceives jet-ignition is missed in translation, too.

The fact that FIA technical scrutineers do accept the multi-function process of jet ignition,
(despite rules apparently being aimed at proscribing such synergistic complexity of including
the fuel injector/spark plug functions), & thus may be technically "illegal", yet FIA-tech is duly
'turning a blind eye' to it - as a fait accompli - & this the basic point he is making there, surely?

But as we know, beating restrictive 'letter of the rules' norms by 'fudging' the reading thereof
to win a competitive advantage (& it aint outright 'cheating' - well, not 'til deemed so by the FIA*),
is 'always on'...

Actually his premise is that jet ignition implies more than one injector which is completely false. See the second quote below.

In all honesty, a technical paper that references autosport and roadandtrack.com articles can't be anything but a joke.

The different teams have,
however, also developed illegal systems to improve performances, from fuel flow meters out of calibration, to combustion of lubricating oil, to the use of special fuels, and strictly speaking, also the use of jet ignition.

One healthy technical development carried out by the manufacturers has been the introduction of jet ignition,
that albeit strictly speaking illegal – only one direct injector is allowed per cylinder – has permitted stable operation
lean burn stratified.

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2020, 00:42

So, Henry - apart from a "personal response" - can you provide a technical rationale, here?

What part of

I can’t recommend it. He thinks the H is purely for turbo control and the K is used sequentially during braking, only kicking in when total brake power drops below 120kW. He doesn’t adjust for brake balance. As a consequence he thinks per lap energy recovery at Monaco is zero. There’s more but that’s enough for me.

do you consider to be non technical?

What’s your take from the paper? Did it add anything to your knowledge?

Zynerji wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2020, 07:44

I just want too know:

What are the numbers on the "dumbed down" , 200hp, cast aluminum versions that are cheap enough to put in mass produced road cars? Could we still stay above 42% and get 300k miles? And if so, when?

Pointless imo.

These engines are 42% efficient at full throttle, great for racing. But since a road car is in partial throttle most of the time, 42% efficient at 50% throttle demand is good enough. Efficiency at full throttle is less important.

Also I suspect NOx emission of these engines are insanely high.

Next thing you know, they'll start mandating catalytic converters as a means to BOP the engines.

I still remember the obvious odour of kerosene or jetfuel just after the race start of the 2016 Belgian grandprix. Anybody visited recent races en noticed any strange smells after the start?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2020, 00:25

Next thing you know, they'll start mandating catalytic converters as a means to BOP the engines.

That's an interesting door to open.

What would a formula that was emissions driven instead of fuel flow capped look like? Would it just be a bunch of 500rpm snails?

Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad

FW17 wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2020, 16:34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNqaz9q_0

Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad

This guy always has good stuff, everyone should have him on subscribe.

FW17 wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2020, 16:34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNqaz9q_0

Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad

Not when you realize that it is false.

1.22 Power unit :
The internal combustion engine, complete with its ancillaries, any energy recovery system and
all actuation systems necessary to make them function at all times.


Firstly, the regulations stipulate 145kg for the 2020 PU(not 140), the mass of the PU includes the batteries and both mgu components (which have a minimum allowed mass of 31kg), and other ancillaries such as the oil and water pumps, fuel pumps, alternator, and probably much more. Also it is a stressed member, which probably further increases it's mass. The engines are not that heavy, especially when the amount of fuel not used is also accounted for. During the v8 era they were using over 200L of fuel, now they are using around 120L.

But electromechanical(Freevalve) or rotary valve actuation, should be something F1 opens up in the upcoming(hopefully) regs for 2025, as well as a hot vee along with biofuels.

That 70kg engine is probably stripped, not counting the turbos or alternator, just a short block.

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2020, 23:01

....But electromechanical(Freevalve) or rotary valve actuation, should be something F1 opens up in the upcoming(hopefully) regs for 2025 ....

doesn't the footage show hydraulic valve actuation with pneumatic return ? - not the electromechanical 'Freevalve'
electromechanical won't cut it in F1