F1technical.net

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorc ... uperbikes/

I think it’s safe to say you’ll see this on Sportbikes before automobiles. Will be awesome to see how it works in a naturally aspirated conversation.

Will also be interesting to see how it effects efficiency. Bikes don’t have fuel flow limits or capacity, but something that allows less fuel to be onboard is always a performance plus.

Depends if it arrives before the MC20.
The pre-chamber bit that is, not the rotating aspect.

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2020, 20:01

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorc ... uperbikes/

I think it’s safe to say you’ll see this on Sportbikes before automobiles. Will be awesome to see how it works in a naturally aspirated conversation.

Will also be interesting to see how it effects efficiency. Bikes don’t have fuel flow limits or capacity, but something that allows less fuel to be onboard is always a performance plus.

In motogp there is fuel capasity restriction. If I am not wrong it was 20 lt. years ago there was allowence for open ecu users 25 lt for whole race and which are uses their own ecu they have to finish race with 20 lt limit. Now there is only openecu(standart ecu for every bikes). So it maybe 25lt for everyone or maybe they made it 20 for everyone.

This is meant to be a reliability improvement. One thing that concerns me with the MC20 is what do you do if the pre-chamber orifices get clogged with soot/carbon deposits/sludge? Do you have to take the heads apart to clean them?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2020, 19:56

This is meant to be a reliability improvement. One thing that concerns me with the MC20 is what do you do if the pre-chamber orifices get clogged with soot/carbon deposits/sludge? Do you have to take the heads apart to clean them?

Would there be a build up with the heat and pressure (squirting) there? Most modern fuels and oils do not seem to coke much even on crowns where the 'flow' is lower. Softer carbon would burn/blow for there would it not?


Edit

Mind, with the sharp edges and difficulty in cooling would that be a 'hotspot' (in both senses of the word) for setting off pre ignition? Or would the mixture not be right until the required time anyway?

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2020, 20:01

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorc ... uperbikes/
I think it’s safe to say you’ll see this on Sportbikes before automobiles. Will be awesome to see how it works in a naturally aspirated conversation.
Will also be interesting to see how it effects efficiency...

heat dilution make little or no sense with NA
(though I don't say so to those who pick it from their imaginary future F1 engine menu)

because ....
a turbo heat-dilution engine is a thermally downsized and physically downsized engine
an NA heat-dilution engine is a thermally downsized but not physically downsized engine

etusch wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2020, 11:10

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2020, 20:01

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorc ... uperbikes/

I think it’s safe to say you’ll see this on Sportbikes before automobiles. Will be awesome to see how it works in a naturally aspirated conversation.

Will also be interesting to see how it effects efficiency. Bikes don’t have fuel flow limits or capacity, but something that allows less fuel to be onboard is always a performance plus.

In motogp there is fuel capasity restriction. If I am not wrong it was 20 lt. years ago there was allowence for open ecu users 25 lt for whole race and which are uses their own ecu they have to finish race with 20 lt limit. Now there is only openecu(standart ecu for every bikes). So it maybe 25lt for everyone or maybe they made it 20 for everyone.

MotoGP uses bespoke engines. In MotoAmerica/FIM World Superbike, they have to install larger fuel tanks than stock in order to go race distance, which is the venue for this engine.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2020, 14:05

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2020, 20:01

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorc ... uperbikes/
I think it’s safe to say you’ll see this on Sportbikes before automobiles. Will be awesome to see how it works in a naturally aspirated conversation.
Will also be interesting to see how it effects efficiency...

heat dilution make little or no sense with NA
(though I don't say so to those who pick it from their imaginary future F1 engine menu)

because ....
a turbo heat-dilution engine is a thermally downsized and physically downsized engine
an NA heat-dilution engine is a thermally downsized but not physically downsized engine

A NA heat-dilution engine need only be downsized at part load.

... what is the point of eg improving part-throttle efficiency ? (thereby increasing power at a given throttle opening) ...
as further throttling would then be needed to restore original power and speed

if this is wrong - how is it wrong ?

1 eg if we have a traditional engine with 8:1 CR and 92 octane fuel - and we drive at 30 mph on the level .....
2 then by magic it turns into a 12:1 CR and 102 octane fuel - at the same throttle it will do eg 34 mph
for 30 mph motor 2 must be more throttled than in motor 1 - because to do 30 mph 2 must give SAME EFFICIENCY as 1

ok if we then design for 12:1 and 102 octane the gear ratio will be higher so efficiency will be (slightly) better at 30 mph

connected to earlier question - whether an NA HD engine should be designed for stoichiometric or superlean at full power

I think the point is to decrease fuel consumption at part throttle rather than increase power.

How do motorcycles deal with cylinder deactivation? Are they completely undrivable or is it a viable option?

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2020, 14:19

... what is the point of eg improving part-throttle efficiency ? (thereby increasing power at a given throttle opening) ...
as further throttling would then be needed to restore original power and speed

if this is wrong - how is it wrong ?

1 eg if we have a traditional engine with 8:1 CR and 92 octane fuel - and we drive at 30 mph on the level .....
2 then by magic it turns into a 12:1 CR and 102 octane fuel - at the same throttle it will do eg 34 mph
for 30 mph motor 2 must be more throttled than in motor 1 - because to do 30 mph won't 2 give SAME EFFICIENCY as 1 ?

ok if we then design for 12:1 and 102 octane the gear ratio will be higher so efficiency will be (slightly) better at 30 mph

connected to earlier question - whether an NA HD engine should be designed for stoichiometric or superlean at full power

BUMPED - reworked it to repeat question (but mistakenly by editing original instead of doing a new post)

Mudflap wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2020, 15:43

I think the point is to decrease fuel consumption at part throttle rather than increase power.

How do motorcycles deal with cylinder deactivation? Are they completely undrivable or is it a viable option?

Unlike a car, the engine and how the forces (gyroscopic and torque) are very important in handling. You also need a very reliable and preferably linear gas response. This is one of the main reasons turbos never really made it onto motorbikes (apart from a few odd balls). Also with the low weight, small frontal area and limited use (much less bikes for a lot less distance then cars) there is less of a need to get the same kind of efficiency then cars.

These kinds of solutions are more to do with the insane range a modern super bike must have. They are sold as pure racing machines, very close to the capability of a prototype MotoGP bike (with the same capacity!!) but will do 4000 rpm in third most of their life (instead of 14.000).

It’s now already quite normal to have different injection systems on superbikes. One in the throttle body for normal use and a shower for professional speeds. BMW even had a valve system to tune the exhaust differently for normal use (next to the now standerd shift cam/VVT and adjustable intake length).

This is just the next step in engine transformation needed to poodle around on your hard core racing bike.

Bit the same problem Mercedes has with its project one at the moment.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2020, 14:19

... what is the point of eg improving part-throttle efficiency ? (thereby increasing power at a given throttle opening) ...
as further throttling would then be needed to restore original power and speed

if this is wrong - how is it wrong ?

1 eg if we have a traditional engine with 8:1 CR and 92 octane fuel - and we drive at 30 mph on the level .....
2 then by magic it turns into a 12:1 CR and 102 octane fuel - at the same throttle it will do eg 34 mph
for 30 mph motor 2 must be more throttled than in motor 1 - because to do 30 mph 2 must give SAME EFFICIENCY as 1

The gain in efficiency is not reduced pumping losses. The higher CR (and therfore higher ER) gives greater TE. The 12:1 engine with smaller throttle opening is consuming less air and less fuel for the same output.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2020, 04:12

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2020, 14:19

... what is the point of eg improving part-throttle efficiency ? (thereby increasing power at a given throttle opening) ...as further throttling would then be needed to restore original power and speed
if this is wrong - how is it wrong ?
1 eg if we have a traditional engine with 8:1 CR and 92 octane fuel - and we drive at 30 mph on the level .....
2 then by magic it turns into a 12:1 CR and 102 octane fuel - at the same throttle it will do eg 34 mph
for 30 mph motor 2 must be more throttled than in motor 1 - because to do 30 mph 2 must give SAME EFFICIENCY as 1

The gain in efficiency is not reduced pumping losses. The higher CR (and therfore higher ER) gives greater TE. The 12:1 engine with smaller throttle opening is consuming less air and less fuel for the same output.

ok not truly the same efficiency ..... but ....
surely isn't engine 2 throttled to 30 mph less efficient than engine 2 throttled to 34 mph ?

Yes. (Until the throttle is opened to the point where enrichment is required.)

Same for engine 1.