The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
gruntguru
gruntguru
547
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

MtthsMlw wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 3:44 pm
Not from this year's engine but still a rare look on a recent piston


https://www.racinghalloffamecollection. ... tion-8.jpg
Interestingly the link from the pic above says SF71h from 2018
Great pics thanks MtthsMlw.
The witness marks on the crown suggest that the turbulent jets are only penetrating into the "Omega Bowl" in the centre of the piston and not into the squish-zone perimeter. This is probably why according to Pat Symonds the last 20% of the charge burns quite slowly.

It also suggests that the Honda breakthrough with "HCCI" occurring at the perimeter of the chamber, may be solving a problem (slow combustion after 80% MFB) experienced by all the teams prior to this.

(Cross-posted this from the Ferrari PU thread.)
je suis charlie

gruntguru
gruntguru
547
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 12:53 am
johnny comelately wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 12:04 am
... PM2.5 .. This is a major contributor to premature deaths form engine pollution.
...From memory those pollution related deaths are a greater number than the road fatalities (1,35 million people are killed each year on the roads worldwide and 50 million injured) by a huge factor.
there are no premature deaths from engine pollution as we know it
there are premature air pollution deaths of those living in straw huts having open fires but no chimneys or flues ....
where the air pollution is 10000x that in the public domain

the WHO reports don't say what the shockumentaries tell us they say
the WHO is a campaigning organisation - now the EU claims this 0.1% prematurity - other medics say this is fiction
if Joe Soap dies aged 77 how can anyone show that was 6 weeks premature because of our cars ?
most air pollution particulate or NOx is in the home
Hmm - you start your post with an absolutist statement - and then later say the claims are under debate. Skepticism is one thing - absolutism another.

Nobody can make any claims about an individual, premature death and a subtle environmental cause. OTOH these things can be demonstrated statistically (much the same as smoking, passive smoking etc).

Similarly it is a fallacy to point to a much larger cause of the same problem to conclude that the lesser cause does not exist. e.g. Just because smokers suffer much lower life expectancy than passive smokers does not mean passive smoking does not reduce life expectancy.
je suis charlie

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 11:14 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 12:53 am
johnny comelately wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 12:04 am
... PM2.5 .. This is a major contributor to premature deaths form engine pollution.
...From memory those pollution related deaths are a greater number than the road fatalities (1,35 million people are killed each year on the roads worldwide and 50 million injured) by a huge factor.
there are no premature deaths from engine pollution as we know it
... there are premature air pollution deaths of those living in straw huts having open fires but no chimneys or flues ...
....the WHO reports don't say what the shockumentaries tell us they say ....
....most air pollution particulate or NOx is in the home
Hmm - you start your post with an absolutist statement - and then ...
... does not mean passive smoking does not reduce life expectancy.
to me ....
something that sounds like 'millions dying from car pollution' is absolutist .... so ....
my claim in response (being much closer to the actuality) is legitimate .... as it's fair comment

btw .... this isn't F1philosophy.net - it's F1technical.net

I have shown that the 'science' seems worse than weak (not even claiming to be within an order or magnitude)
would we rely on a tipster who tips a horse to finish either ....
1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, or 6th, or 7th, or 8th, or 9th, or 10th, or 11th or 12th ?

COMEAP isn't science - it's politics - (yes the fair comment defence again)
the 50%+ engine shouldn't be killed by those who want to kill it

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

We have digressed so back on topic , sort of, this is showing a concept that while not applicable to racing and in partic F1, this Clausius Rankine process is an interesting take on reclaiming that major loss ICE's have, thermal inefficiency:

Last edited by johnny comelately on Fri May 13, 2022 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 3:07 pm
J.A.W. wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:25 am
Zynerji wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 2:46 am
https://youtu.be/FwhMz2kR4pw
Kindly label/post up front such 'click bait' type nonsense, can you ta, Zynerji?

It saves irritating time-wasting, & so won't debase your credibility here, accordingly.
41mpg from a 302ci v8 isn't in line with the current thread?

And I have no "credibility" on these forums, as I am not an engineer. I simply learns and ask questions, point out obvious fanboism, and state my opinion on the racing and cars.

I don't need credibility in this place. I have plenty in real life.
Technical credibility on a technical forum is useful for discourse, "opinions" are likewise only
worth the evidence-base that supports them, & doing a 'sneaky' youtube 'mystery' link to a
'clickbait' clip is rather 'bad form' - according to the forum guidelines - (as well as irritating, IMO).

(Do kindly note, this comment isn't intended as a 'personal attack' - Zynerji, & as criticism,
it is solely intended - to maintain standards of technical propriety in a highly technical section.)
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

gruntguru
gruntguru
547
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:46 pm
We have digressed so back on topic , sort of, this is showing a concept that while not applicable to racing and in partic F1, this Clausius Rankine process is an interesting take on reclaiming that major loss ICE's have, thermal inefficiency:
Very short on numbers. A system like that might be capable of converting 5 - 10% of the exhaust waste heat into work so perhaps a 2 - 4% increase in TE. e.g. a HD truck engine might improve from 42% to 45% TE.

This is not worlds-away from the far simpler "exhaust-turbine-recovery" used in F1 and other turbo-compound engines.
je suis charlie

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 9:19 pm
johnny comelately wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 1:16 am
With respect, patently incorrect Tommy
I will find the relevant reports - this is just one of many:
MIT study estimates ~7,500 early deaths per year in UK from PM2.5 from transport
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/0 ... 20419.html
the above 'airport-doomsayers' Yim & Barratt MIT Dept of Aeronautics doom-quantifications are taken from ....
Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution COMEAP .....
'the Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom' 2010
this says elimination of ALL man-made particulate from air will increase average whole-life expectancy by 6 months
that's all from public air and all from private air (ie your kitchen and your heating etc)
(and eg if you're 40 years old that average 6 months whole-life would be average 3 months)
6 months whole-life .. well no ....
it's estimated to be between average 1 month and average 1 year (what an arithmetically convenient coincidence !)
estimated to average certainly between 1 month and 1 year - (unless maybe the certainty estimation isn't certain)
the prediction of the whole-life benefits of elimination of ALL tailpipe particulates is ......
(remember UK city public air particulate is 75% from the burning of wood for 'green' heating)
(say) average 3 weeks - or rather that would estimated as between average 3 days and average 6 weeks .....
unless the estimate isn't certain - maybe the estimate is ... uncertain ?
COMEAP's methods are based on actual changes in death rates with natural variations in particulate ... but ...
weather drives variation in street-level particulate eg dilution by wind/convection - maybe concentration by inversion
(where) does COMEAP separate heating/weather (&calendar) effects on mortality from particulate effects on it ?
does their process just assume there's no safe level ? - and so imply that legal limits are always wrong ?
it looks like bad science - done by people whose only defence can be their sincerity
a quick search shows eg
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iat ... ssue1/lam/
which shows that science doesn't agree (with the view that air pollution is the issue, not hot weather)
air pollution and heat going together, attempts to quantitatively separate their effects give unreliable outcomes
as I said
WHO PM2.5 target is 5 microgm/cubic metre - London would be compliant with cars etc and without wood-burners
(and WHO says 3.6 million global premature deaths annually from indoor air pollution)
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/ne ... h-year-uk/
seems to say that COMEAP has no evidence below 7 micrograms (ie they just assume linearity ie say 'no safe dose')
as I said

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

I’ll make this comment once and quietly walk away, as it is off topic.
A “premature death” is not comparable to a car accident death.
If you claim xxx premature deaths every year, you get to kill poor Johnny Stats when he is 40, then you can kill him again when he is 41, and again when he is 42… at the same time, poor Peter Crashed dies in a car accident but he only dies once.

It would be more accurate to label a 6-month-premature death as 0.01 deaths, or thereabouts, but hey, lies, damn lies and… headlines!
I would like to see a paleontologist.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

What is the relationship between 1600cc and 100 kg/hr fuel flow and 6 cylinders?
What came first and why?

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

^ They are all inclusive to the stipulated rules, are they not?
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
40
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:34 am
What is the relationship between 1600cc and 100 kg/hr fuel flow and 6 cylinders?
What came first and why?
Originally it was ‘1600cc V6 turbo + 100kg/h fuel flow’. But when it was realized that they will design for max power output at the lowest possible max RPM, To maximize fuel flow per combustion and gain efficiency, they added the maximum RPM at which maximum fuel flow can be reached.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:42 pm
johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:34 am
What is the relationship between 1600cc and 100 kg/hr fuel flow and 6 cylinders?
What came first and why?
Originally it was ‘1600cc V6 turbo + 100kg/h fuel flow’. But when it was realized that they will design for max power output at the lowest possible max RPM, To maximize fuel flow per combustion and gain efficiency, they added the maximum RPM at which maximum fuel flow can be reached.
It is actually a very complex question.

If say it was a 3 litre engine the fuel flow would be impossible.
So the 1600cc suits the astounding AFR/Lambda at 100kg/hr pro rata and that fuel properties governed compression.
This allows the new focus on the exhaust energy in regards to electricity generated and then the boost control.
The power characteristics and RPM are a product of the combustion properties (like IMEP) and bore stroke config.
The 6 cylinders produce the torque characteristics on the crankshaft that work with the stroke and the cylinder pressure characterisics which are in turn effected by etc etc
Then there are the considerations of weight carried and length of races and packaging happiness.
So in this case we can tell who came first out of the chicken and the egg...

Just to take one aspect of what you said: Maximum RPM- apart from the normal mechanical limits it is usually air supply that limits RPM but not in this F1 case.
"To maximize fuel flow per combustion"
I would change that to "maximum combustion per fuel flow".

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
40
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

If the maximum RPM point at which maximum fuel flow (100kg/h) wasn’t inserted into the regulations they would have gone for a much lower maximum RPM were maximum power would be produced.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:20 pm
If the maximum RPM point at which maximum fuel flow (100kg/h) wasn’t inserted into the regulations they would have gone for a much lower maximum RPM were maximum power would be produced.
the maximum rpm at which maximum fuel rate is allowed is 15000 rpm
the minimum rpm at which maximum fuel rate is allowed is 10500 rpm


"a much lower maximum rpm" than 10500 rpm would have dieselised F1 ....
and/or would require eg .....
a 2-stage compressor (and turbine ?)
doubling the present mep .... no reduction in frictional power loss
bigger crankshaft and bearings
MGU-K inertia relative to ICE inertia eg would have been increased fourfold (hindering shifting)

the friction of eg a 1600cc 6 cylinder 10500 rpm engine is lower than it has ever been

the FIA didn't choose the rules - the engine suppliers did

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
40
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient F1 Internal Combustion Engine

Post

Agree. It should have read ‘’the ‘minimum’ and not the ‘maximum’ RPM at which maximum fuel ‘flow’ rate is allowed” was added to the rules when it dawned on the rule makers that the ‘maximum’ of 100kg/h fuel flow rate’ imposed would push the engine makers into producing engines with the minimum ‘maximum power speed’’.
Also agree that the friction of a 1600cc 6-cylinder is the lowest it has been, That friction would have been decreased much further if lower maximum power speed was used.